“Forced” to be an antivaccinationist?

Every so often there are articles or posts about which I want to blog that, for whatever reason, I don’t get around to. I’ve alluded before to my observation that blogging tends to be a “feast or famine” sort of activity. Sometimes, there isn’t a lot going on, and, if there’s one thing I’ve failed to learn, it’s not to try too hard to find blog fodder when not much is going on and just chill out. On the other hand, one thing I have learned is not to try too hard to blog about everything you want to blog about when the blog fodder is hitting you fast and furious, as it sometimes does. It’s better that way. Besides, sometimes you get the opportunity to go back and revisit a link that you had originally planned to write about but, for whatever reason, didn’t get around to.

Posts like this massive exercise in burning straw men entitled We’re “Anti-Vaxers” Because We Don’t Have a Choice. My reaction upon reading it was to respond: Not exactly. You’re antivaxers because you don’t know science and cling to magical thinking despite the scads of evidence that contradict your belief that vaccines are dangerous, cause autism, and result in a whole host of health problems. The writer of the post, Jennifer Hutchinson, is someone we met before. As you might recall, she is a person who wrote a book entitled Unlocking Jake: The Story of a Rabies Vaccine, Autism & Recovery and especially has a strange view of what constitutes “proof.” She begins with a discussion of what “pro-vaxers” are:

ll children should be vaccinated according to the AAP schedule.

There should be no exemptions because unvaccinated children risk public health.

Vaccines prevent serious illnesses and death and have, throughout history, eradicated diseases.

Vaccines are 90 to 99 percent effective. If a vaccinated child does get a disease, it’s milder and less serious.

Vaccines are safe. They do not cause autism.

The risks of not being vaccinated outweigh the risks of vaccines.

Vaccines generate about $20 billion a year in the U.S.

Vaccines save society money. Every dollar spent on vaccines saves the public $18.40, or $42 billion, in medical costs, missed work, disability, and death. (This amount is from a 2003 article. I’m not sure if it is accurate for today and whether it’s a per-year figure or not.) [2]

OK, it’s not really straw men, at least not most of it. All children who don’t have a valid medical reason not to be vaccinated should be vaccinated according to the recommended schedule, and vaccines have indeed eradicated at least one disease (smallpox) and brought many others under control. Vaccines are safe, and they most definitely do not cause autism, as far as science has been able to ascertain. It only starts to get dicey when it’s pointed out that vaccines generate $20 billion a year in revenue. There are many arguments for vaccination, but that’s not one of them.

Now, the “antivaxer” side. You won’t even recognize it, although you will recognize the inflated opinion antivaxers have of themselves. Here are the first three:

Parents should have the right to make an informed choice about vaccines, including refusing them. The government shouldn’t intervene.

Forcing parents with religious beliefs against vaccines to vaccinate their children violates their First Amendment rights.

Many diseases were eradicated or almost eradicated before vaccines were available, mostly due to better hygiene and nutrition and clean water.

Parents already do have the “right” to refuse vaccinations in most states based on religion, and many states have “personal belief” exemptions, too. Some of them are so easy to get that all the parent has to do is to is to sign a piece of paper. This has led to what I call the problem of nonmedical exemptions, which has gotten so bad that states are actually trying to make nonmedical exemptions to vaccine mandates a little harder to get by requiring a physician’s signature certifying that they told the parents the consequences of not vaccinating. Even that minor reform is sending the antivaccine movement into a paroxysm of bile directed at legislators in the states that had the temerity to try to improve their vaccination rates. Then of course, the last bit there is the infamous (and highly intellectually dishonest) “vaccines didn’t save us” gambit.

It doesn’t end there, unfortunately:

Vaccines create artificial immunity, which damages the natural immune system and leaves children more susceptible to diseases of all kinds. Diseases strengthen the immune system and leads to natural immunity. Recent disease outbreaks, such as measles and whooping cough, are mostly among vaccinated children.

Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal reactions. They can lead to autoimmune disorders and cancer as well as brain inflammation, which can cause autism or death in some children.

Since diseases aren’t usually life threatening, the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits.

The lifetime cost to care for a person with autism is approximately $3 million.

Yes, indeed. It’s the usual fetishization of “natural” as being somehow superior. Of course, Hutchinson fails to note that the price of “having the immune system strengthened” by disease is suffering from the disease and all its attendant suffering and complications, up to and including death for some diseases. While it’s true that the latest pertussis outbreaks are mainly in vaccinated populations (as I discussed quit recently), unvaccinated children are still 23 times more likely to get pertussis. As for measles, there is a much higher risk of measles in the unvaccinated as well. Antivaccinationists use the deceptive tactic of looking at the total number of vaccinated children who catch measles in an outbreak compared to the total number of unvaccinated. Because the number of children who are unvaccinated is usually less than 5% and the vaccine is about 90% effective, the gross number of measles victims who are vaccinated will be larger than the number of unvaccinated. But if you look at the relative risk of catching measles, it’s much, much higher in the unvaccinated.

Particularly vile is the claim that the diseases aren’t “usually” life threatening. On a strictly semantic level, that’s true, but it completely ignores the large numbers of children who are put at risk for severe complications of the diseases vaccinated against, including encephalitis and even death. But, hey, what are some dead children and children with permanent brain damage from measles-induced encephalitis compared to that “natural immunity”?

The rest of the article is a mish-mash of antivaccine conspiracy theories, anti-big pharma rants, the “vaxed versus unvaxed study” gambit, the rants about how each child is a special flower and shouldn’t be subjected to a “one size fits all” vaccination schedule; in other words, there’s nothing there that we haven’t seen before, except for one thing. Hutchinson uses an analogy so nasty that even I was taken aback:

Why isn’t there another option when it comes to vaccines? Such as pro-safe or pro-choice? Here’s something I’ve personally never understood. Unborn babies can be legally murdered on the grounds that the mother has the right to have an abortion. She has that choice. But if a mother chooses to not vaccinate her child, she risks the child being taken from her, vaccinated against her will, or thrown out of school.

Because vaccinating your child is exactly like abortion.

On second thought, perhaps I shouldn’t have been surprised. Antivaccine activists are prone to Nazi analogies; so seeing one compare vaccination to abortion should evoke a reaction of relief to be spared from the specter of the Hitler Zombie. On the other hand, if there had been a good Nazi analogy, then maybe we would have been spared this self-pitying whine:

I’m tired of the name calling and insults. Not that I’m personally offended, but it’s a waste of time and energy and doesn’t begin to address the problem. We are forced to be all or nothing. We either get our kids all the recommended vaccines or we’re anti-vaxers. If we question the safety or necessity of vaccines and choose not to vaccinate our kids, we’re putting other children’s lives in danger. We belong to a cult. We are conspiracy theorists. We have blood on our hands. We are ignorant.

Yes, you are ignorant. The problem is, you don’t know it. You think you’re smarter than everyone else, that you have discovered “secret knowledge” that the “sheeple” who get their children vaccinated are too clueless to have noticed. It’s nothing but the arrogance of ignorance in action, the Dunning-Kruger effect. You’re not antivaxers because you “question” vaccines. You’re antivaxers because you believe misinformation and lies about vaccines and in turn try to spread the same misinformation and lies to others. You’re antivaxers because you believe vaccines to be, in essence, evil, poison, toxic, when they are not. You’re antivaxers because you have every characteristic that defines an antivaxer. Yes, it’s just a word, but it’s a word that describes Hutchinson perfectly.

Comments

  1. #1 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    Thats right Lawrence, you guys again get two more questions added and loaded onto the screen here directed to, before I can get to the 8 more that you posted before that. Sick. You guys are awesome.

  2. #2 Lawrence
    October 2, 2012

    Actually Lowell, your inane and irrelevant response to what are simple questions again shows you know nothing about disease or biology.

    Let’s try this again.

    What happened to domestic measles?

    Why didn’t this occur before widespread vaccination?

    Perhaps laying off the sauce for a bit would help.

  3. #3 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Krebiozen

    3:25 pm
    Lowell,

    Your answer is in moderation but to add to that, I am pretty darn sure that naturally acquired immunity, does NOT require additional herd immunity, to work!!! Agree, or disagree?

    You really don”t have a clue what ‘herd immunity’ actually means, do you? When babies are born, they do not have any immunity. Once enough babies have been born, the percentage of immune people will fall to a level below the herd immunity threshold. Surely you can understand that!

    ——————

    I definitely have ALWAYS understood that, Lawrence. It is perfectly understandable and common sense in regard to natural immunity. However, in relation to vaccine derived herd immunity there are far more variable factors involved which turn the whole thing into a subject of an entirely different nature.

    You only make a fool of yourself posting immature and DINGY questions like that. But that is mostly definitely not at all knew for you, and is your standard trademark. No matter what article it is on. Why don’t you just stick with the vaccine safety science, which is actually the most important issue? But you know you can’t do that, can you.

  4. #4 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    October 2, 2012

    There is so much crap written here that has no basis in provable fact, and in these replies that it is beyond disgusting.

    I gave you nice easy numbers to work with Lowell, even a lamped fool like you should be able to explain the numbers pre and post vaccination.

  5. #5 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Lawrence

    No, in fact what I have done is quite obviously, is to outline and point out your own insane and irrelevant ramblings, Lawrence; something that you keep completely wasting my time with. Are you filled with much hypocrisy, Lawrence? No, not at all, right?

  6. #6 Lawrence
    October 2, 2012

    Nice to know I’ve gotten on Lowell’s nerves, you know, by asking questions he can’t answer and pointing out that he does understand basic biology or little things called “facts.”

    So Lowell, why aren’t wild measles, mumps, rubella or polio circulating in the US?

    Why have all recent outbreaks of measles shown to be imports by unvaccinated individuals?

    These are little things called “facts” Lowell, you know, like the sky is blue type stuff. The more you talk and deny, the more idiotic you look (if that was even possible at this point).

  7. #7 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Lawrence

    I can answer any question you have Lawrence, and make you look like ignorant of fact fool that you repeatedly are, and do that on any article you are on, and any day of the week I choose to. Face it. And I have done that on every article you have ever been on.

    Just because you throw onto the screen 9 dumb questions before even two can be answered, proves only what desperate moron you really are. It doesn’t prove anything. And do you really think I should need to sit here and answer to 20 question or comments put to me in a row. How many questions are you actually answering? Answer – none. That while and when all the while all you are doing is avoiding the real issue, which is that of the lack of vaccine safety science, which is the biggest elephant in the room that you all choose to repeatedly ignore.

    How are these children, so many of them being damaged; and as well ending up with ASD, and all those disorders and end up across the board with the nations children in a state of being sicker than they have ever been in history, all parallel. All coincidence, right; with no answers; but you know its not vaccines, because they did a CDC funded epidemiological studies on one vaccine and one ingredient, and called it good.

    But you know you Lawrence can’t be bothered with any minor details like that, as you have a pharma shill job to do. The CDC and Paul Offit deny it all and so can all of you. There is always another Orac/Gorski article you can spin off of and throw a link or two on the screen, with nothing else provided to back your claims. Think you don’t see that, that is all you people ever have.

  8. #8 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    Lowell, Vitamin C is good for scurvey. Is that what you mean? Although, the wide availability of fresh fruits and vegetables means scurvey is rare these days and Vitamin C supplementation rarely needed for most people.

    You seem to give me powers I don’t have. I didn’t put the CDC figures together. A quick read of the page shows how they were obtained. Page 6 of the report:

    Data in this report are based on information from all resident death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

    Fancy that. Now how exactly did Null come up with his numbers?

  9. #9 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Lawrence

    Correlation for you, equals causation, when referring to where did measles go, no science nor actual proof needed. Correlation does not equal causation if anyone anywhere is asked for the proof that vaccines cause ASD, and no amount of unbiased science directly showing vaccines causing ASD and far more than ASD, will ever be enough nor do. When you ask you for proof of vaccine derived herd immunity, again correlation will always equal causation. When you put in front of you the information that shows biomedical treatment works, and why; and that many children were healed that mainstream had no answer for but more pharma drugs, you say again that correlation does NOT equal causation, no matter what, and you ask for the peer reviewed studies on it all as proof; and that you yourself can not produce to show any real safety data on the vaccines. This is classic hypocrisy, that you all deny.

  10. #10 Lawrence
    October 2, 2012

    @lowell – are you at a keggar this evening or just drinking by yourself? Because your responses are getting more incoherent as time goes on.

  11. #11 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    let me give you an easy example, the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen. Is that even debatable.

    Funny how that didn’t work with measles, isn’t it, Lowell?

  12. #12 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ ChrisP

    Perhaps you could have provided a link for your data. I don’t the have time nor care to dig back through 20 replies to find it; (if that’s where it is), nor should I need nor be required to to.

    If you are still so non observant and unwilling to review and consider any research that shows vitamin C to be effective for far more than scurvy; you are thus as well then ignoring decades of history of its use and data. I can not help you if you refuse to educate yourself, by by repeatedly ignoring and limiting the data you are willing accept. You can spin that in your own denial, 8 different ways if you want, but it still comes back to the same obvious said conclusion. You refuse to be honest.

  13. #13 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Lawrence

    Nope, just diet coke here. But keep proving your own level of denial and childish immaturity, and your limited ability to only throw irrelevant poo at the screen and anyone that disagrees. I wouldn’t want anything to change with you, because you make such a good wiping post to get my points across.

  14. #14 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    Lowell, simple question I asked. How did Null calculate the number of deaths caused by modern medicine?

    As to Vitamin C, I have reviewed the evidence at PubMed and the meta analyses of the Cochrane Collaboration. I have drawn my conclusion based on the review of that literature. You haven’t even look at it or understood it, prefering to get your ‘science’ from quack websites and even then you don’t understand what is being written.

    I accept good well-run trials. What do you accept?

    The ravings of Mercola, Null, Butler et al.

  15. #15 Krebiozen
    October 2, 2012

    Lowell,
    I’m honestly trying to understand why you believe what appears to me to be nonsense in the face of what appears to me to be large amounts of evidence that contradicts it.
    I simply don’t understand how you can make a statement like, “the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen”. When in human history has any pathogen been “driven out” in this way? How could this possibly happen, since the only way of acquiring natural immunity to the kinds of contagious diseases we are discussing is to get the disease, and become contagious, thus spreading it to others?

    This is like suggesting that if you burn your house down it will be fire-proof. Do you really want to go back to the days when thousands of children died or were permanently disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases (links to PDF), just so that the survivors acquire natural immunity? Really?

    Why do you think why chicken pox has practically disappeared in the US, but in the UK about 90% of people still get it in childhood? Why do you think there have been tens of thousands of cases of measles in Europe this year (also links to PDF), with over 12,000 hospitalized?

  16. #17 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    I’m honestly trying to understand why you believe what appears to me to be nonsense in the face of what appears to me to be large amounts of evidence that contradicts it.

    I was wondering about the same thing while taking a stroll. The most convincing explanation I could come up with is that he genuinely thinks it might get him laid.

  17. #18 ken
    October 2, 2012

    Too many, Too soon!
    Don’t bother to reply because I don’t read posts by Orac’s
    fanatics.

  18. #19 ken
    October 2, 2012

    Vote for Obama! You will see real science denial if R&R
    win (in addition to other catastrophes)!

  19. #20 novalox
    October 2, 2012

    @ken

    Yawn, try a better insult next time, child.

    @lowell

    Answer Lawrence’s question within three replies, are we can assume you do not know what happened to domestic measles.

    If you’re not getting yourself into another DUI, here are the questions:

    What happened to domestic measles?

    Why didn’t this occur before widespread vaccination?

    Get the popcorn ready, I’m going to have some real entertainment with lowell’s non-answers.

  20. #21 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    Narad

    October 2, 8:11 pm
    let me give you an easy example, the more natural immunity acquired by a population, be it human or animal, the better chance you have of driving out the pathogen. Is that even debatable.

    Funny how that didn’t work with measles, isn’t it, Lowell?
    ————-

    Like I just said, and I will say it again; it certainly works regarding natural immunity; that that is common sense because it results in long term solid and natural immunity.
    Vaccines no matter how much you want to deny it, and claim otherwise; do not provide the same thing. Once a said pathogen is on the earth Narad, and causing or has caused 1000’s of cases of illness, does that pathogen stay actively causing illness until the end of time, historically speaking, is that what you actually conclude? And you are absolutely correct about that, and in no way are anything but vaccines responsible for any declines in disease, correct? How scientific is that, they said they have all the science, right? Vaccines equal more antibodies, and thus is proof of immunity; nothing more needed, right?

    And lets say for an example, that vaccines all work exactly as they have been advertised for decades. Just exactly as Paul offit claims to, and its all good. Now, if those same vaccines were causing lets say hypothetically the 1 in 88 ASD figure.

    What if as well the aluminum adjuvant content in the multiple and repeat vaccines were in some children causing over-activation of the brains microglia, and as well resulting chronic levels of brain inflammation. After all an aluminum adjuvant works by causing inflammation, multiple studies on that right in Pubmed, although they say the exact mechanism is poorly understood. Would that be an issue that the CDC should rightfully address and do more follow up studies, and to determine exactly what is going on, and confirm it on their own? Let me tell you that is exactly what is happening. This is no longer actually even an argument about if the vaccines work, but one of what have the vaccines done, and are there to many of them. There is where the real focus needs to be.

    What if Dr Wakefield was right, and they covered it all up to discredit him. In fact he was right, and as well the recoveries in biomedical treatment clearly show that. Why has not the CDC addressed all these supporting studies, they say do not even exist?
    http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

    How about this little girl right here, that recovered, and while main stream gave her no chance. She is not alone as there are so many of them that now have. That doesn’t point directly at the vaccines, detox and healing; not at all does it?

    http://regardingcaroline.com/

    I think you need to reset your debate subject priorities to something more highly relevant, Narad. But never mind me; what do I know, right?

  21. #22 Lawrence
    October 2, 2012

    @Narad – actually, Matt Tabibi did a great job explaining people like Lowell in “The Great Derangement.” Why some people feel the need to gravitate to the extremes – conspiracy theories, NWO crap, 9/11 truthers, doomsday Christians, etc….as a rejection of the mainstream.

    It gives them a sense of purpose and direction, since only they have access to the “truth.” And no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them otherwise, because refute the “truth” is to destroy these people’s sense of worth and who they are.

    Lowell is a pretty extreme example – someone who can deny reality when it is staring him right in the face. I fully suspect that he would deny the sky was blue, if it was against his view of the world.

  22. #23 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    @lowell – are you at a keggar this evening or just drinking by yourself?

    I’d like to make a statement in this regard. It is indeed I who first mentioned Lowell’s track record. However, I do not fault him for having (one hopes) had an alcohol problem. I absolutely fault him for getting behind the wheel so frequently that he got busted four times, though, and now having the hypocritical gall to style himself some sort of defender of public safety by virtue of advancing semiliterate, sanctimonious, and incoherent antivaccine performances.

  23. #24 Lawrence
    October 2, 2012

    @Lowell – how about just answering the simple questions instead of going off on tangents (or better yet, lay off the rants)?

    Do you know the difference between mortality & incidence?

    Which one went down due to better medical care & treatments, but didn’t effect the other?

    Which one actually resulted in the reduction of the incidence of VPDs from 95 – 99.5%?

    Also, what happens when you insert a large number of un-vaccinated individuals into a naturally immune population with actively circulating diseases (let’s say, “hypothetically”, the birth of a new generation of children)?

    Now, compare that to today – what’s the difference Lowell?

    If you can’t answer these questions….well, actually what makes me think you’ll answer them. You can’t answer them without refuting your own illogical persona & self.

  24. #25 Lawrence
    October 2, 2012

    @Narad – perhaps he has gotten over his drinking problem. Obviously, his past history has not done much to improve either his intelligence, ability to form rational thoughts or analyze actual facts presented that utterly demolish his theories.

  25. #26 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @Krebiozen

    October 2, 8:32 pm
    Dammit. thousands of children died or were permanently disabled by vaccine-preventable diseases

    And without any question vaccines were 100% responsible for any and all reductions, even if the illness was in major decline before any vaccine was available, correct. And polio and small pox disappeared on continents that had available little to no use of a vaccine. And yet today they keep going into many countries using a live oral vaccine that sheds, claiming it is the only option they have, and yet we have over 50,000 cases going on globally AFP, and they claim they are winning the war on polio. Whats wrong with that picture.

    Here is what happened historically in our own country regarding the real history of polio. And they claim to a success story and everyone believes it, because they at the CDC and WHO, say it was.

    The polio vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy, and long-term health-related consequences. http://thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf

    And you can not believe that the world would ever be that evil, and that any authorities would ever be that involved in any such cover-up. But it is true. Do you actually think anyone would or could make up an account of it all like that, and that it would be entirely false and fabricated information? Really? Well, one thing is for sure, if it is true; and I believe it is; it changes the picture of claimed erradication with vaccines, to a whole new level of understanding the facts.

  26. #27 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Narad

    That was now nearly 7 years ago, dude. It is irrelevant. Your false accusations and current insinuations are entirely sick and quite obviously very desperate. Angry cause you can’t win here; it sure shows.

  27. #28 novalox
    October 2, 2012

    @lowell

    Three strikes, yer out.

    So you do not know what happened to domestic measles and why didn’t this occur before widespread vaccination.

  28. #29 Denice Walter
    October 2, 2012

    Think twice? What’s next, pray tell? Janine Roberts?

  29. #30 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Lawrence

    Again, your questions are pointless and irrelevant, and you are clearly the person running off on other tangents. I have already answered what I had time to answer. You mindlessly throw 10 replies at a time directly at one man; and then throw a fit if everything didn’t get entirely replied to.

    You refuse to address the information I put in front of you, and the actual Vaccine Damage Science, but yet turn around and throw loaded unrelated questions back at it, essentially answering a question with an unrelated question. The clear avoidance, moving the goal posts, and hypocrisy level here is simply astounding; as well as the level of ad hominem replies. http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage—science.html

    Your questions next.

  30. #31 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    Your throwing 8 reply posts at a time made by 4 people, and you all want your questions answered right away, right? And then 6 more after that, right? And 4 more by three more people after that, right? And if I missed any you are pissed off and claiming it wasn’t and couldn’t be answered, right. Why haven’t you ever answered more than about one of my questions, as to what I put forth??? Sick tactics and stuff. Thats getting a little old, yaa think?

  31. #32 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    Why didn’t what occur before vaccination, Novalox? Try and present a question that is actually a question. Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more? Get to finding some aluminum adjuvant safety studies to counter the damage that all these studies show, Novalox. or at least start refuting the studies that are there, without throwing all the false discreditation mud and poo and while disregarding that the studies were ever there.

    5 separate pages there with the studies
    http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccines-cause-autism-and-more—the-scientific-explanation.html

  32. #33 Grant
    October 2, 2012

    Good grief. Is this guy a full-time troll?

    Speaking of vitamins—and horribly self-promoting (yes, I know I must get out the habit…)—I’ve written covering the research paper that came out today testing if vitamin D reduced the severity and duration of colds: http://http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (It didn’t. This research is led by researchers from my local university.)

  33. #34 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    Your throwing 8 reply posts at a time made by 4 people, and you all want your questions answered right away, right?

    I think “in an orderly fashion” is more like it, Lowell. Look, simplify your life: Pick an antivaccine hill to die on and stick to it.

  34. #35 novalox
    October 2, 2012

    @lowell

    Too late, you didn’t answer the question in time, and your “facts” don’t directly answer the questions stated at all.

    You struck out again.

    But hey, at least I can show my fellow classmates and workers a perfect example of Dunning-Kreuger at work by pointing to your supposed “webpage” of facts. At least then can see what the damage chronic alcoholism can do to critical thinking skills.

    Thank you for the entertainment, lowell, got any more idiocies to spit out?

  35. #36 Denice Walter
    October 2, 2012

    @ Grant:

    Several of the alt med prevaricators I survey REALLY push vitamin D as a preventive/ cure all.
    Is vitamin D the new vitamin C? THAT**
    used to be hawked for everything from hiv to cancer to colds- everything save scurvy that is.

    ** some of the mythos persists with IV megadose C.

  36. #37 Krebiozen
    October 2, 2012

    Get to finding some aluminum adjuvant safety studies to counter the damage that all these studies show

    Where are the studies proving broccoli is safe? It contains immunodulating chemicals like diindolylmethane, so it must cause autism.

    By the way, a serving of mussels contains more aluminum than the entire vaccine schedule.

    Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

    More lies. Nearly 100% of people got measles before vaccination was introduced, just as they had for centuries before. Improvements in hygiene and medical care make no difference to the incidence of a highly contagious disease like measles that is spread by aerosol droplets, though fewer people die of it .

  37. #38 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    That was now nearly 7 years ago, dude. It is irrelevant.

    No, it is not irrelevant, as a genuine sense of remorse is the sort of thing that people might well expect to preclude such hypocrisy. Your sense of responsibility does not seem to have evolved since the citizens of your state found you to require physical imprisonment by virtue of being a menace to public safety.

  38. #39 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Lawrence

    [@Lowell – how about just answering the simple questions instead of going off on tangents (or better yet, lay off the rants)?

    Do you know the difference between mortality & incidence?

    Which one went down due to better medical care & treatments, but didn’t effect the other?]

    ————

    Lawrence, when a person can prove that so called modern medicine is currently the leading cause of death in the US, you obviously do not need to prove nor show anything else. You can accept the information or you can without cause deny the information, its all up to you.

    Death By Medicine
    http://www.vacfacts.info/death-by-medicine.html

    The False Foundations of Modern Medicine
    http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-foundations-of-modern-medicine.html

    The Modern Paradigm of Medicine is Deeply Flawed Because Western Medicine Promotes and Causes Disease
    Hippocrates – The Body Can Heal Itself
    http://www.healingourchildren.org/hippocrates-father-of-western-medicine-the-body-can-heal-itself/

    Modern medicine is not the cure we were brought up to believe.
    http://www.goodsamiam.com/modern_medicines_secret.htm

    Like I said, your questions are irrelevant, Lawrence; for these reasons.

    ————–

    [Which one actually resulted in the reduction of the incidence of VPDs from 95 – 99.5%?]

    It doesn’t matter Lawrence, because the figures and graphs you are using are not the same figures and graphs I am using, and I believe mine are unbiased and correct.

    [Also, what happens when you insert a large number of un-vaccinated individuals into a naturally immune population with actively circulating diseases (let’s say, “hypothetically”, the birth of a new generation of children)?

    Now, compare that to today – what’s the difference Lowell?]

    You are extremely confused Lawrence, as you believe that those diseases are all highly damaging and deadly. An unvaccinated child today that has not had all the endless vaccines, if you actually knew; clearly has in all cases I have ever known of, superior health to that of an unvaccinated child. In knowing specifically all the protocols and proper diet to keep the immune system functional and working correctly parents today would rather take their chances of natural infection and recovery with acquired immunity, than risk the chronic ill health and conditions that many vaccinated children now have, due to excessive repeat vaccination. You do not want to face the facts, Lawrence; and you never will. I don’t expect to change your mind.

    [If you can’t answer these questions….well, actually what makes me think you’ll answer them. You can’t answer them without refuting your own illogical persona & self.]

    Really Lawrence? looks like you are full of and spewing a bunch of twisted crap, to me? The provax side needs a guy like you. How is your search for those aluminum adjuvant safety studies coming along?

  39. #40 Krebiozen
    October 2, 2012

    “immunodulating”? I meant immunomodulating. Past my bedtime.

  40. #41 Grant
    http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8
    October 2, 2012

    Somehow that link got mangled, it ought to be: http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (See also my Location.)

    Denice Walter,

    A local author has a book out espouses it as a miracle cure too. Ian Wishart is the author, if you know the name. I’ve asked my readers in my post if he covers colds in it as I haven’t read it (nor am inclined to!)

  41. #42 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    Lowell, it is not a case that we want or questions at once. You are allowed to think about them – or perhaps you have trouble with that. What we are after is having the questions answered at all. You make grand claims and when the detail is inspected the claims don’t stack up. That is why we are asking questions about your understanding.

    You do realise smallpox has been eradicated from the wild, or has that slipped your mind? What did it was vaccines.

    We have even managed to eradicate rinderpest. Guess how?

  42. #43 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Narad

    Thats pretty sick and hateful, Narad. And any such unrelated to this subject matter, personal attack like that and as well is obviously very desperate. You have no idea about me, nor have you ever met me; nor have you ever talked to me, relating to any such matters. Your claims are entirely without merit, and they are not an appropriate nor obviously relevant subject matter for discussion here. That is extremely sick and uncalled for!

    ————-

    Your reply is there Lawrence, just wait for it to come up.

  43. #44 novalox
    October 2, 2012

    Waiting for more of lowell’s idiotic answers.

    I need a good laugh, and lowell is providing plenty of them.

  44. #45 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    Thats pretty sick and hateful, Narad. And any such unrelated to this subject matter, personal attack like that and as well is obviously very desperate. You have no idea about me, nor have you ever met me; nor have you ever talked to me, relating to any such matters. Your claims are entirely without merit, and they are not an appropriate nor obviously relevant subject matter for discussion here. That is extremely sick and uncalled for!

    Lowell, my concern for your apparently delicate sensibilities is the same as your concern for other people. Now, please try to pick your strongest, most bestest antivax talking point. Focus, dude.

  45. #46 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    Damn, I missed this trope.

    Lowell said:

    Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

    Except it didn’t. US Data Polish data (note the log scale on the y axis).

  46. #47 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ ChrisP

    You can yourself try having the insanity of endless reply posts thrown at you, that I have had here; and then come back and tell me about it what a simple deal that is to address every question in an adequate matter. Do you actually know how many reply posts that would take? I would be here all night, and likely still never get to the end of it. Wake up. And most it is the same old senseless and repeated dont get it, don’t want to get it, and refuse to get it and trash, that has been dealt with over and over before.

    SMALL POX WAS NOT ERADICATED BY THE VACCINE- PERIOD. Did you read that? NOT! I have a website, why have you not just gone there and read the answer I would give you there, and with the referenced to material. Why do you think I have a website? You don’t want to learn of any of it; then DON’T learn. Rinderpest. That is the lamest comparison to anything related as reference information, that you could make. Oh, Rinderpest was eradicated, it all was eradicated by a vaccine. Go on believing it all, and when your children are damaged by 49 doses of 14 vaccines by the age of 6, I told you so. Just keep doing what your doing; your choice. The information is there is you want it.

  47. #48 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    And there is more: Chinese data (again note the log scale). So Lowell, where is that major decline in measles before the vaccine was introduced?

  48. #49 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    Lowell, So your proof that smallpox was not eradicated by the vaccine is based on your website? Really, I think you should look at some other literature. Rather than “repeatedly ignoring and limiting the data you are willing accept”, don’t you?

    Here is a long read all about the eradication of smallpox and the essential role vaccines played in that eradication

    Here is a shorter read

  49. #50 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    October 2, 2012

    Like I just said, and I will say it again; it certainly works regarding natural immunity; that that is common sense because it results in long term solid and natural immunity.

    And BAM! we have it. It’s all so clear now folks; ^this^ is common sense to Lowell.

    I’ll ask again Lowell. Why were there ~ 4 million cases of measles each year in the U.S. (that’s United States) BEFORE there was a measles vaccine?

    And why are there about 200 cases now each year in the U.S. (that’s still the United States) AFTER the measles vaccine, bearing in mind that mass vaccination has been going on for over 40 years?

  50. #51 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    Damn, the blog software has done it to me again. This is the long read

    whqlibdoc.who.int/smallpox/9241561106.pdf

  51. #52 novalox
    October 2, 2012

    @lowell

    LOL, please keep posting the stupid, lowell.

  52. #53 Shay
    October 2, 2012

    Measles was already in a major decline before the vaccine existed; do you need to know more?

    No, it was not. And if you refuse to believe the data at the link Chris posted, just go ask anyone with children born between 1955 and 1980.

    As for your claim about smallpox not being eradicated by vaccines, you’ll need to do more than type in all caps.

  53. #54 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ ChrisP

    It is all about what sources of information you are willing to accept. There are far more sources than the CDC, and what they are stating aways has alway been a bunch of misleading and false propaganda. Same with the WHO. And their sources for the proof and the numbers are what? Does that all look impressive to you, it doesn’t to me. There are a increasing numbers and always have been large numbers of people that actually believe the real figures. Don’t want to believe it, then simply don’t believe it. Doesn’t matter to me. There are so many references to all that and the whole picture in general; I am not listing all that, you can go to the site. if you refuse to do that, then you are not actually interested in anything other than your set conclusion anyway, so what would it matter.

    Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics
    http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

    Contradictions between Medical Science and Immunization Policy
    http://www.relfe.com/vaccine.html

    Fact, vaccines have never eradicated anything, ever
    http://vactruth.com/2010/07/23/fact-vaccines-have-never-eradicated-anything-ever/

  54. #55 Shay
    Cursing the lack of preview function
    October 2, 2012

    Dang…that should have been 1960.

    Some of us are old enough to remember getting the measles, having all of our siblings get the measles, and all of our friends and classmates get the measles.

  55. #56 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    SMALL POX WAS NOT ERADICATED BY THE VACCINE- PERIOD. Did you read that? NOT!

    What? I will take this to represent the summit of Lowell’s Dianetic volcano.

  56. #57 Politicalguineapig
    October 2, 2012

    Janerella: I tend not to debate facts.

    I think you just won the thread.

  57. #58 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    This is the long read

    Longer.

  58. #59 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @Narad

    I would take it that your reluctance to accept anything that hasn’t been put forth by the CDC, the WHO, and Paul Offit, is off your list of acceptable references. So, what would it matter, it all gets swiped off the table before it even gets on the table, or barely on the table so what would it matter.

    Now thats an Narad’s arse hole full of in denial spewing volcano. Talk all the smack and crap you want.

  59. #60 ChrisP
    October 2, 2012

    Lowell seems to have blown a fuse.

  60. #61 janerella
    ON/off/Under the table dodging Lowell's handfuls of poo
    October 2, 2012

    Well, thanks PGP, but the collective pwning of the Lowltroll has been achieved most bodaciously by commentators far more eloquent and knowledgeable than me.

  61. #62 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    Now thats an Narad’s arse hole full of in denial spewing volcano.

    Lowell, you really don’t need to add a fake British accent to your incessant fake legalese.

  62. #63 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 2, 2012

    Vaccine derived immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work?

    Isn’t that a little contradictory to the typically promoted pro-vaccine message on herd immunity? That claim is entirely opposite of what the CDC claims to.

    Goofus is, to no one’s surprise, completely incorrect about what the CDC claims. No, vaccine-derived immunity doesn’t require herd immunity to work. They are two complementary approaches to disease prevention, just like two complementary approaches to “not getting hurt by flying projectiles” would be “wearing padding” and “doing something to reduce the number of projectiles flying around.”

    Increasing one’s own individual resistance to disease through vaccination is the equivalent of “wearing padding”; it’s a way that even if you do get hit by a flying projectile, your chances of being hurt by the projectile are much lower.

    Herd immunity is “reducing the number of projectiles flying around.” If you catch a disease like measles, how did you catch it? From someone else who had it. How did they catch it? From someone else who had it. And so on, and so on, and so on, as far back as you want to trace.

    Now, what would have happened if the person before you, let’s call her Alice, had been vaccinated? Even if the vaccine was only 80% effective, if Alice had been vaccinated, that means that there’s an 80% chance she wouldn’t have gotten the measles. You definitely couldn’t have caught the measles from Alice if she didn’t have them! What if the person who gave the measles to Alice, Bill, what if Bill had been vaccinated when he ran into the person who infected him? Then there’s an 80% chance that he never would have caught the measles from that person. If he never caught the measles, Alice couldn’t have caught it from him, and then she couldn’t have passed it on to you – and so on, and so on! If both Alice and Bill are vaccinated, there’s only a 4% chance of the infection even reaching you by that route.

    If even a vaccine which is only effective 80% of the time can break chains of infection so well, you may well ask, “then why haven’t diseases like measles died out completely since we got vaccines for them?” Well, notice that we said that if both Alice and Bill got vaccinated with an 80% effective vaccine, your chance of being exposed was only 4%, by that route of infection. You might completely avoid being exposed to measles by Alice and Bill in the morning, and then get exposed to the pathogen by Quentin in the afternoon.

    So, when only a handful of people in the population get vaccinated, it helps them, but not necessarily others. As more and more people get vaccinated, however, the more chains of infections get broken. Your chance of catching a disease starts to go down just because people you might have caught the disease from are getting protected from it. The phenomenon of people getting protected because other people have been protected from it is called herd immunity – which is why, if you read someone saying “Oh, naturopathic/homeopathic/dietary methods are much better than vaccines at warding off infections; vaccines don’t work and neither does herd immunity,” you know you’re listening to someone who doesn’t know what they’re talking about. If those naturopathic/homeopathic/dietary methods actually did work to significantly reduce people’s vulnerability to disease, enough people in a population using them would have a herd immunity effect. Likewise, anyone who says “vaccine-derived immunity needs herd immunity to work” is badly misinformed; herd immunity can complement vaccine-derived individual immunity, but it’s not a foundation of vaccine-derived individual immunity.

  63. #64 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @Grant

    http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8
    October 2, 10:14 pm
    Somehow that link got mangled, it ought to be: http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8 (See also my Location.)

    Denice Walter,

    A local author has a book out espouses it as a miracle cure too. Ian Wishart is the author, if you know the name. I’ve asked my readers in my post if he covers colds in it as I haven’t read it (nor am inclined to!)

    ————————-

    You amaze me. Do you actually call yourself and consider yourself a researcher? I am a researcher, Grant; deny it and that or not. I research all sides and angles to what is actually available; and I do it in as much of an unbiased way as possible. You come up with one study that claims to show the ineffectiveness of vitamin D, while ignoring the bulwark of existing science that shows the real effectiveness of vitamin D against respiratory infections, the flu, and much more. And you call that actually researching a subject matter? Then you put it forth one study as if it is concrete proof; when so many other studies as well exist, showing the opposite to be true. And you are not aware that there are people that do research as well with the exclusive intent to discredit a natural substance that they feel may compete with the pharma agenda? But oh, thats all a tin foil hat conspiracy theory, no conflicts of interest at pharma, they actually want to cure disorders and disease, don’t they? Thats why they have so many of those cures, right?

  64. #65 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Narad

    Did you want to speak to me personally about it and your earlier said accusations, and you know before you go spewing all that B. S., about me personally? You know, you should have done that first. You should actually know someone before you accuse falsely that kind of trash. I can tell you all about why it is not true. Or otherwise give me your identity and I can see what kind of dirt I can actually dig up on you.

  65. #66 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    Did you want to speak to me personally about it and your earlier said accusations, and you know before you go spewing all that B. S., about me personally?

    Please identify what “B. S.,” has been “spewed.”

  66. #67 Lowell
    October 2, 2012

    @ Antaeus Feldspar

    You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven’t an actual clue. Alice, Bill, and Quentin where do they live? I need to go show them some aluminum adjuvant not so safety studies, and inform them about the contamination in vaccines, and as well the human diploid cell contamination linked to autism. I think they will listen better than you do. I’m going to try. LOL!

  67. #68 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven’t an actual clue.

    Lowell, have you ever heard The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest?

  68. #69 Narad
    October 2, 2012

    Oh, for crying out loud, that has a splice-out at 4:50.

  69. #70 Politicalguineapig
    October 2, 2012

    Ken: Get outta my party. You are in as deep denial as Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are.

  70. #71 Grant
    October 3, 2012

    Lowell,

    You managed to not present a single piece of substance in your rant opposing my linked article, only rather silly personal attacks. Entertaining, perhaps, but silly.

    (Lowell obviously hasn’t read what I wrote, as their research is placed in context with earlier, which I note in my article. I also point out some of the limitations, too.)

  71. #72 Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)
    Nauseated from reading in circles
    October 3, 2012

    …Because that’s the only thing Lowell seems able to do. I’ve read at least 9 of his replies and not once has any of them made sense. He can’t even seem to get an insult correct. Perhaps, Lowell, it’s time to call it a night. You aren’t able to answer the questions as they are posed to you, either you lack the ability to answer or you don’t understand the questions are they are being asked. You could ask for clarification if the latter were true, but my guess is you’re just getting angry and defensive because you can’t answer them because your huge collection of data just doesn’t have answers to those questions. Yep, it’s time to sign off and get some sleep. Maybe in the morning you will be able to make more sense.

  72. #73 Lowell
    October 3, 2012

    @ Narad

    Do you have alzheimers. That B.S. you lied about because you know what I have is actually the truth, and you need to and have to throw any false mud and poo you could find.

    That song seemed a little extra dumb, to me?

    Don’t forget about all that vaccine harm science as to and regarding aluminum adjuvants, that the CDC has refused to acknowledge, Narad. That is irresponsible to have that information available and to never have done any safety studies in the entire history of the CDC. Giving the substance aluminum an FDA approval rating of (GRAS) generally regarded as safe, in 1929; and then never considering doing aly safety studies even though aluminum adjuvants have beens used for nearly 80 years; would you call that irresponsible and reckless? A neurological poison, and remains generally regarded as safe to inject in a vaccine? Just as reckless as they were with Thimerosal and continue to be.

    And that study on human diploid cells contamination and its connection as well to autism. Sure is something how the FDA has covered-up all the issues on vaccine contamination, while clearly knowing the potential for what that can do, as to causing chronic illness and autoimmune disease. Gardasil, what a dangerous vaccine, and now as
    well with thousands of young women left with unrecovered from neurological conditions and what they call new medical conditions. Again, denial of all and that there is any proof. They are not looking but they actually know, without acknowledging all those said problems are there. They can’t as it would cause potentially the whole vaccine program to crumble at the foundation, as it actually implicates the problems with all vaccines.

    Did you know that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s study was actually replicated more than once with the same findings. Thats right, the case against him was built on their own fraud. They know what that vaccine has done, and they aren’t actually that stupid. To much to lose. Wakefield and his primate studies, it all had to be discredited; and with money and power and hidden pharma connected conflict of interest, they got away with it all.

    Research References
    http://www.callous-disregard.com/research.htm

    Don’t forget this site, Narad! I know you actually want to educate yourself to the facts.

    Vac Facts.info
    http://www.vacfacts.info/the-vaccine-damage—science.html

    And when you get some spare time, you will want to go through this presentation video by Dr. Russell Blaylock. Wow, I wonder why the CDC never investigated that information and considered doing any further studies to confirm or deny that all that was true. Seems like they are in the dark ages, and all their crank telephones must fallen off the walls in 1959, and no call to the actual science department has been made since.

    THE CENTRAL ROLE OF IMMUNOEXCITOTOXICITY IN ALUMINUM AND MERCURY-CONTAINING ADJUVANT-TRIGGERED NEURODEVELOPMENTAL AND NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDERS

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DkcpEEBPI

    Published Papers – Dr. Russell Blaylock
    http://www.russellblaylockmd.com/

    And they actually call this guy a quack, just because he sells a newsletter and a product which in reality does more good in healing than pharma has or could ever do.

    Dr. Russell Blaylock is a board certified neurosurgeon, author and lecturer. He attended the Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans and completed his general surgical internship and neurosurgical residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. During his residency training he worked with the eminent neurosurgeon, Dr. Ludwig Kempe. Together they developed the transcallosal removal of intraventricular tumors, a technique still used today. For the past 25 years he has practiced neurosurgery in addition to having a nutritional practice. He recently retired from his neurosurgical duties to devote his full attention to nutritional studies and neuroscience research.

    Sure am glad I could use you for a sounding board, Narad. However, actually a blog like this as to all this denial and refuse to get; it is not something you can stomach every day. Actually, I would rename it, As the Stomach Turns.

  73. #74 Lowell
    October 3, 2012

    @ Grant

    What part of you do NOT know how to do unbiased research, do you not understand? Selecting one single study claiming to show the ineffectiveness of vitamin D in the treatment of the common cold, as evidence that vitamin D is worthless for viral infections, while several existing studies show that effectiveness, is completely bogus on your part.

    Here is the problem with that study. they only used the standard RDA of 400 IU per day, and when the therapeutic dose is much higher, and is 5000 IU per day.

    Vitamin D Council recommended amounts
    Based on the body’s indicated daily vitamin D usage, Vitamin D Council recommends the following amounts of supplemental vitamin D3 per day in the absence of proper sun exposure.

    Healthy children under the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU.
    Healthy children over the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU per every 25 lbs of body weight.
    Healthy adults and adolescents – at least 5,000 IU.
    Pregnant and lactating mothers – at least 6,000 IU.

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-to-get-your-vitamin-d/vitamin-d-supplementation/

    Go ahead and explain why what I am pointing out is still not correct , Grant? I told you so.

  74. #75 Lowell
    October 3, 2012

    @ Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)

    You aren’t able to answer the questions as they are posed to you, either you lack the ability to answer or you don’t understand the questions are they are being asked. You could ask for clarification if the latter were true, but my guess is you’re just getting angry and defensive because you can’t answer them because your huge collection of data just doesn’t have answers to those questions.

    ————————

    What amazes me is just how baseless, delusional, in denial you are as to your comments. It seems to be more than a bit contagious here. If they could find a vaccine for that, then we would be getting somewhere.

  75. #76 novalox
    October 3, 2012

    @lowell

    Yawn, more infantile insults and no evidence. Try a little harder, a six year old could come up with better.

  76. #77 Grant
    October 3, 2012

    Lowell,

    Thank you for confirming that you have not read my article (http://bit.ly/Vrs8K8) or the research paper :-

    You wrote “they only used the standard RDA of 400 IU per day”.

    They did not.

    They used 100,000 IU, given monthly.

    This is stated quite clearly in the their abstract and quoted near the top of my article. Let me quote it here for you:

    “monthly administration of 100 000 IU of vitamin D did not reduce the incidence or severity of URTIs in healthy adults.”

    If you read my article or the research paper you can verify this for yourself.

  77. #78 gaist
    October 3, 2012

    Lowell, care to try one more thought experiment about herd/communal immunity.

    Imagine someone figures out an exact dosage of vitamin C (or D) that prevents nine out of ten people from catching the common cold. It becomes so well known that almost everybody takes the vitamin, and so about 9 out of every 10 people are protected nationwide.

    The cold is also a relatively virulent one, so we can assume that someone coming in contact with the germs without effective protection will get sick.

    We also assume that we are speaking on average.

    Now, assuming that was true…

    1) …How easily would someone with cold infect people they come in direct contact with, like family members and co-workers? Lets call him/her A.

    2) …how likely is that A’s cold would pass from one of his/her family members or coworkers to any one of their friends and family, who have no direct contact with A?

    3) So, comparing the answers from question 1 and 2, is there a difference in the likelihood of catching the disease?

    4) A infects 10 people (group B), and each of those goes on to infect 10 people. How many people group B came in contact with?

    5A) Out of all those people group B met, including the total of 100 infected, as well as the rest who were protected with vitamin C (the answer from question 4), 1 randomly selected person goes on to participate in a Pharma Shills convention, with a 100 participants who refuse to take vitamin C in recommended doses on principle. How likely that one person is to infect anyone at the convention?

    Also, for extra credit:

    a) Does vitamin C granting 9 out of 10 people protection from cold only work if we can prove that without the vitamin, OVER 90% of all people would have caught it?

    b) Can this logic be applied to any other disease and/or preventive measure? If yes, please specify. If not, please specify.

  78. #79 Bill Price
    At he keyboard, hoping that the braindead lack of preview doesn't bite me and my fat fingers.
    October 3, 2012

    Lowell , October 2, 2:20 pm, full of sound and fury, dignifying nothing (sorry, Wm):

    @ Bill price

    If B. parapertussis is actually indistinguishable from B . pertussis, how is its presence detected, and why does it have a name that is distinguishable from the other’s name?
    If the one is actually indistinguishable from the other, how are they detected separately? Hint: ‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ of ‘in fact’.
    Or maybe it’s just the case that you are as confused and/or ignorant of physiology and immunology as you have shown yourself to be of epidemiology and science in general.
    ——————

    Well, as long as you misrepresent what I have stated, you can twist it around and pretend that to be true. Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do.

    (My questions for Lowell to answer are bold and/or underlined, if either of these basic html features are supported by this blogging software.)
    How did my direct quote of your words misrepresent what you stated? How is my direct quote of your own wording “twist[ing] it around and pretending [something] to be true?” My attempt to make some sense of your statements was, indeed, intentional. I posed some questions, in that attempt: do you now attack me for questioning your “truth” (or is it your troof?).

    You have zero basis for any such claims.

    The only claims I make are “‘literally’ is a synonym for ‘actually’ or ‘in fact’”. What problem do you see in these claims that give you a basis for contesting them? Do I need to do your basic dictionary work for you? Hint: I not volunteering — you get to do your own basic dictionary work. Keep the dictionary handy as you read further: I’m going to use some big words like ‘mutagenicity’, which is a topic you bring up without naming.

    What was being referred to is of course that B pertussis it[sic] symptomatically similar to B. Parapertussis. However somewhat related, it was NOT referred to as the same bacterial pathogen.

    Your original words, which I quoted earlier, were that the pathogens B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are “literally indistinguishable”. You are now misrepresenting what you said earlier when you claim them to be merely “symptomatically similar”. Do you do that intentionally? Of course you do.
    You now claim that, in an Alice in Wonderland fashion, “literally indistinguishable” means “symptomatically similar”, “somewhat related”, but not “the same pathogen.” Can you explain, as I asked before, how, being “literally indistinguishable”, one can determine that they are not “the same pathogen”. If, as you claim, there’s no way to tell them apart (“literally indistinguishable”) then just how does one tell them apart? Or are you just contradicting yourself to defend your faith?

    You are asking me, how it is detected,

    Yes. That’s the question just above: if, as you claim, they cannot be distinguished, how can they be distinguished? (The question is rewritten so that maybe one of versions will make sense to you.) I know full well, as do most of the rest of us here, that B. pertussis and B. parapertussis are distinct organisms. It is you who has claimed them to be identical. I asked you to support your claim of identity, in light of your other claims about their differing antibody responses. If you have now contradicted your earlier claim of “literally indistinguishable”, presumably for good reason, then the question’s basis is removed. Your public self-contradiction is sufficient answer to my original question.

    and you claim to understand physiology, immunology, and epidemiology.

    I have made no claims. I point out that any understanding that I may or may not have should be apparent from my writing, regardless of any claims I make or which are made for me. I will make one multi-part claim now: “I have a basic lay understanding of physiology, immunology, and epidemiology, among other subjects. I read, understand and write English. I have sufficient understanding that I am sometimes able to spot nonsense in these areas, and ask potentially appropriate questions concerning the nonsense.” What I claim to be able to do is exactly what I have done.

    You have got to be kidding. PCR test is what they use; if and when they actually test for it; ever heard of it?

    Of course I have: Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is used to amplify a tiny genetic sample to the point where it suffices for subsequent DNA testing. PCR is not, itself, a DNA test. (That came from my own understanding, with no recourse to Google of Wikipedia. I did watch the OJ trial in 1994 or so, where PCR played a big rôle.)

    Nice try and trash filled expose[sic] though.

    (In order to make sense of this, I’ve read ‘expose’ as ‘exposée’ in both places, and rendered it properly in my reply. If that is incorrect, please let me know.)
    What, pray tell, might my “trash filled expos[ée]” have exposed? I noticed that your claims made no sense to me, and I asked you to explain how your claims might have merit. Your response has been an attack on me for daring to question you.

    Here is a question for you, does your twisted expose[sic] discredit how an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic, too? Thats not real nor ever happened either, right.

    Short answer: the question isn’t even wrong, but I’ll address it anyway as if it were a valid question with a valid basis.
    When I asked for clarification of your seeming nonsense, I asked you to justify your claim that a vaccine-induced antibody could be mutagenic, while the identical infection-induced antibody would not be mutagenic. Not only do you refuse to address that question, but you add to that seeming nonsense with this question.
    You do, don’t you, understand enough basic biology (evolution, in particular) to distinguish between mutagenicity and selection? If you don’t so understand, you’re in the wrong discussion.
    I would ask you, like I asked concerning antibodies, how “an antibiotic causes a bacteria to mutate and change to the point it evades an antibiotic”. I am aware, of course, with my basic lay understanding of biology, how an antibiotic can (when it’s improperly used) select for pre-existing resistant strains in a bacteria population. But that’s not what you’re asking. I know of no instances where an antibiotic has caused a mutation for antibiotic resistance in any bacterium. Can you point to such an instance?
    Of course it’s possible for antibiotic resistance to occur as a mutation: the Lenski experiment shows that a sufficiently large population of bacteria, after a sufficiently large number of of generations, can spontaneously produce interesting mutations. In the Lenski experiment, it took about 33000 (IIRC) generations for the glucose-dependent bacteria to come up with a population that could thrive in citrate-rich, glucose-deprived environment. On the other hand, Lenski and crew didn’t report any mutagenic substances in the bacteria’s foodstuffs. His experiment design would not be appropriate for testing antibiotics for mutagenicity. That would have to be a different design.

  79. #80 Bill Price
    At the keyboard, again, oopsying about the lack of preview.
    October 3, 2012

    As has happened before, my blockquotes were improperly marked up in the above. The second, third, and fourth instances of nested blockquote should be plain text instead.
    BTW: It appears the the <u><b> markup produces only bold, without underline..

  80. #81 ChrisP
    October 3, 2012

    Bill Price, a good explanation, but sadly wasted on Lowell.

  81. #82 Bill Price
    October 3, 2012

    ChrisP @5:10 am: Thanks. I realize that Lowell is a waste, as well as a waste of time. I’m just (a) having fun fisking his nonsense, (b) writing for any real people that might show up with what I hope to be valid points, valid presentation and just enough snark to keep their attention, and (c) giving the regulars a little relief – they seem to be getting justly tired of Lowell, and missing some good opportunities.

  82. #83 herr doktor bimler
    October 3, 2012

    This could be an entertaining discussion, but whatever software Lowell is using to translate into English, it isn’t working.

  83. #84 Krebiozen
    October 3, 2012

    What part of you do NOT know how to do unbiased research, do you not understand? Selecting one single study claiming to show the ineffectiveness of vitamin D in the treatment of the common cold, as evidence that vitamin D is worthless for viral infections, while several existing studies show that effectiveness, is completely bogus on your part.

    You seem to be suggesting that cherry-picking only those studies that show what you have already decided is true, i.e. that vitamin D protects against viral infection, is unbiased research. It isn’t. Truly unbiased research looks at all studies, deciding in advance what criteria will be used to include them or not. The Mayo Clinic carried out a review of the literature on vitamin D deficiency last year. They point out that there are some correlations between low serum vitamin D levels and various illnesses, but this could be because low vitamin D occurs in people who don’t get out in the sun much, which also correlates with illness. In other words low vitamin D could be a consequence of illness, not a cause.

    Studies that looked at vitamin D supplementation usually included calcium as well, another possible confounder. There is also some evidence that high doses of vitamin D may lead to kidney stones, vascular disease, and fractures. They recommend vitamin D supplementation in the elderly at risk of fractures.

    Since people with darker skin have lower levels of vitamin D, why don’t they get more infections than lighter skinned people?

    Here’s an interesting look at the role of vitamin D in preventing infection that concludes:

    Data from several models of infection have so far not supported a role for vitamin D in affecting the course of disease. There is also very little evidence that vitamin D affects the course of human TB infection. Experiments have not been done in cells, mice or humans to evaluate the effect of vitamin D on influenza virus. At this time it would be premature to claim that vitamin D has an effect on TB, influenza or any other infection.

  84. #85 Krebiozen
    October 3, 2012

    I closed that bold tag, I checked it, and the damnable thing has vanished. Grrr.

  85. #86 Grant
    October 3, 2012

    Krebiozen,

    If I had time to cover the ground first-hand I might add it to the comments in to my post. (I doubt I’ll find the time.) Interesting suggestion that illness might cause the deficiency rather than deficiency creating a susceptibility to illness. (I was thinking of vitamin D’s role in the immune system [in broad terms!] in my article.)

    Regards the high doses, one finding reported in the study I glossed was that in their experience the high doses generally had few ill effects, a few exceptions excepted.

    Regards TB, the authors noted “vitamin D insufficiency is associated with increased risk of developing tuberculosis” (note that’s insufficiency, not deficiency).

    The authors look to have hoped to cover influenza, but obtained too few cases to do so (from memory, I’ve got to hit the sack so no time to verify that, sorry).

  86. #87 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 3, 2012

    You know I read about half way through all that twisted nonsense and concluded that you clearly haven’t an actual clue. Alice, Bill, and Quentin where do they live? I need to go show them some aluminum adjuvant not so safety studies, and inform them about the contamination in vaccines, and as well the human diploid cell contamination linked to autism. I think they will listen better than you do. I’m going to try. LOL!

    If there’s anyone out there (other than the Goofus who can’t understand the concept of “thought experiment”) who tried to understand my explanation of herd immunity and couldn’t, please, let me know what you found confusing and I’ll try even harder.

    GALLANT asks respectfully for clarification when someone gives a polite explanation and he doesn’t follow it all. GOOFUS sneers and tries to change the subject to something else he thinks he can “win.”

  87. #88 Krebiozen
    October 3, 2012

    Grant,

    Interesting suggestion that illness might cause the deficiency rather than deficiency creating a susceptibility to illness. (I was thinking of vitamin D’s role in the immune system [in broad terms!] in my article.)

    I suspect that may explain the generally disappointing effects of supplementation, which is a shame; such a simple and relatively safe way of preventing infection would be wonderful. Also, if high levels of vitamin D did reliably prevent infection you would expect to see little infectious disease in populations living near the equator who get lots of UV skin exposure, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    Regards the high doses, one finding reported in the study I glossed was that in their experience the high doses generally had few ill effects, a few exceptions excepted.

    I guess it depends how high the dose is – Gary Null springs to mind – and whether the benefits outweigh whatever risk there is. The bottom line is we don’t really know what the long-term benefits and risks of supplementation with high doses are, yet. I think Mercola, the Vitamin D Council, and many others are not only speculating beyond the data, but are suffering from premature certainty about this.

    Regards TB, the authors noted “vitamin D insufficiency is associated with increased risk of developing tuberculosis” (note that’s insufficiency, not deficiency).

    Again I wonder if that could be confounded by someone who is ill staying indoors – by the time TB is diagnosed a person may have been unwell for some time. What is required are prospective studies, and we don’t seem to have too many of those yet. Even vitamin D supplementation may only help TB patients with the tt genotype of the vitamin D receptor (PMID: 21215445), which is only 8% of patients (in India anyway, other populations may differ).

    The authors look to have hoped to cover influenza, but obtained too few cases to do so (from memory, I’ve got to hit the sack so no time to verify that, sorry).

    You’re quite right. They do mention a Japanese RCT that found a 42% reduction in laboratory-confirmed influenza A infection but that was barely statistically significant, and was a small study.

    There’s lots of vaguely promising research but nothing conclusive, and given the propensity of trials to give false positive results, and the possible confounders, I’m skeptical that vitamin D will prove to be the panacea many people hope it is. I hope I’m wrong.

  88. #89 Darwy
    Røde grøde med fløde
    October 3, 2012

    I actually had to open another window so I could reply and yet not miss anything!

    @Lowell

    “No complaint was ever made that ICE or FBI had hacked my facebook nor my site”

    http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-new-domain-add-to-bat$hit-conspiracy-theories-110608/

    (replace the $ with an s if you use the above link. Hate getting caught up in the profanity filter)

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/06/no-the-feds-didnt-seize-your-domain-youve-just-been-punked/

    http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.dk/2011/06/lowell-hubbss-personal-website-seized.html

    “Hacked by a known individual”

    Really, you make me laugh.. especially when you try to use Natural News, Mercola, Blaylock, Gaia Health as ‘evidence’

    B. parapertussis is not the same thing as B. pertussis. There’s a reason why the names are different – because they’re different species.

    If they were the same organism, they’d have the same damn name.

    Congratulations on failing 5th grade biology.

  89. #90 Beamup
    October 3, 2012

    I can’t help but notice that, if Lowell had spent 1/4 the time answering queries as complaining about being asked them, they would have all be answered.

    I can only conclude that he in fact is completely incapable of answering… or realizes that any answer would have to either (a) be a deliberate lie or (b) show even more clearly that he hasn’t the faintest shadow of a hint of a clue what he’s talking about.

  90. #91 Darwy
    Røde grøde med fløde
    October 3, 2012

    @Beamup

    Lowell can’t tie his shoes unless he checks with Blaylock or Mercola.

    He’s incapable of being rational, he’s incapable of thinking critically. He exists on the pablum put out by Natural News, Gaiahealth and the healthy home economist.

    Again, he’s so dense that light bends around him.

  91. #92 Matt
    October 3, 2012

    Arguing with Lowell won’t get you very far unless you are simply seeking entertainment at his expense. I’ve read about him and this is the same guy who actually thinks you can cure cancer with baking soda.

    He is also a 9/11 truther and a believer in Wakefield. No amount of logic or fact will change his mind because he believes he has the answers while the world around him is clueless. It doesn’t matter that he can’t prove anything because he will just spin around and demand that you prove that water is wet or that gravity exists.

    http://vaccineconspiracytheorist.blogspot.com/2011/01/mr-hubbs-thoughts-on-911.html

  92. #93 Edith Prickly
    October 3, 2012

    Lowell is starting to make me miss Thingy’s pithy quips.

  93. #94 Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)
    At home, in front of my computer
    October 3, 2012

    @Lowell,

    Ooh, was that a personal attack, calling me delusional? What have I stated in any of my comments that comes across to you as delusional? In my last comment I was merely pointing out that you aren’t making a lot of sense in your comment replies, many of them weren’t even related to the question that was posed to you and thought perhaps you were fatigued and needed to take a break.

    Nothing I’ve read from you makes a lot of sense. Sentences seem to be incomplete, words are duplicated or left out or appear to be in the wrong order. I have dyslexia so I know how difficult it can be, reading and writing. Typically fatigue will exaggerate it. Proof reading before posting helps too. I generally read through my comments two and sometimes three times prior to posting, and I still don’t catch all my flubs. Just a suggestion for future reference that you may find beneficial.

  94. #95 Lara Lohne (AKA: Venna)
    At home, in front of my computer
    October 3, 2012

    @Edith Prickly
    Thingy sneaked one in under a sock puppet known as INF-b yesterday evening. It’s been banned from yet another blog and has shown up there using the same nym demanding that Th1Th2 be unbanned. Of course that isn’t going to happen and I believe it has been banned again, from its new nym, on that blog since I’ve not heard from it in a couple of days.

  95. #96 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 3, 2012

    Lowell is starting to make me miss Thingy’s pithy quips.

    Sad, but true. I never really appreciated as I do now how Thingy could get to her point quickly, even if her point was completely counter-factual.

  96. #97 Narad
    October 3, 2012

    Thingy sneaked one in under a sock puppet known as INF-b yesterday evening.

    It still hasn’t figured out how to make a beta? It used an Eszett when deploying this name at MDC.

  97. #98 Narad
    October 3, 2012

    Do you have alzheimers. That B.S. you lied about because you know what I have is actually the truth, and you need to and have to throw any false mud and poo you could find.

    What lie would that be, Lowell?

    That song seemed a little extra dumb, to me?

    I realize that it’s probably a bit above your language skills, involving, you know, allegory. Allow me to lay out the bit that was clipped in that recording:

    Well the moral of the story
    The moral of the song
    Is simply that one should never be
    Where one does not belong

    Use it in good health, Lowell.

  98. #99 Krebiozen
    October 3, 2012

    I find the reactions of people who adamantly believe what appears to the rest of us to be obviously untrue being confronted with inconvenient facts, as Lowell has been above, oddly fascinating. Last night I watched a BBC documentary called ‘Conspiracy Road Trip’. It featured a British comedian taking a group of British 9/11 Troofers across America to be confronted with evidence that contradicted their beliefs. It’s the same phenomenon we see here so frequently, of people who adopt a belief and then collect evidence that fits it and either discard or discredit everything else, or distort or misinterpret it so it does fit.

    Particularly interesting to me was when they talked to an air traffic controller who told then that on 9/11 the various agencies didn’t communicate with each other properly, and that it was all a horrible screw-up. The conspiracy nuts came away thinking he had told them it was a government cover-up. Any of you curious about the psychology of this stuff, as displayed above, might enjoy it if you get the chance.

  99. #100 Grant
    Pondering the to-do for today (sigh)
    October 3, 2012

    Krebiozen,

    “I suspect that may explain the generally disappointing effects of supplementation,”

    You‘ll have noticed I offered a different explanation, which also can explain the general lack of effect of supplementation 😉 The difference is, of course, which came first (as in the chicken or the egg) – 🙂 (From memory the authors cite the TB example as support for this possibility.)

    “Also, if high levels of vitamin D did reliably prevent infection you would expect to see little infectious disease in populations living near the equator who get lots of UV skin exposure, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.”

    Do people there have higher levels of vitamin D, or does the body limit the increase at some level? (e.g. via feedback regulation) I’d have guessed the latter.

    About TB, my pick was with the second of your two thoughts (hence my emphasising insufficiency as opposed to deficiency).

    “I’m skeptical that vitamin D will prove to be the panacea many people hope it is.”

    The study I covered does strongly suggest that’s the way it’ll likely prove to be. One thing that’s relevant to that is that they find few people were deficient. If vitamin D had an effect in non-deficient people, it’d would then “have” to be worth looking at. With no effect observed on people with satisfactory vitamin D levels (what they find), AFAICT you’re more-or-less forced to look to people who are either insufficient or deficient for vitamin D for a medicinal effect.

    I’d add your suggestions to the comments (you’re welcome to yourself), but I’d have to cover the background and I’m pretty much out of time. My own suggestion is partly from what is in the research paper. Now I have to get on with my day…!

  100. #101 Grant
    http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/09/02/bad-science-baking-soda-fungi-cancer-nuclear-fallout-rosacea-and-hilary-butler/
    October 3, 2012

    Matt,

    I agree. Incidentally, Hilary Butler pushes the baking soda cures cancer and cancer is a fungal infection lines too (and being me, I’ve written about that too).

  101. #102 Krebiozen
    October 3, 2012

    Grant,
    I’m just thinking out loud here really. The only thing I would add to what you wrote above is that deciding what serum concentrations constitute deficiency isn’t clear-cut. Laboratory reference ranges are usually constructed by taking blood from normal(ish) healthy volunteers, like lab staff, and taking the mean plus or minus 2 standard deviations, so that 95% of results fall inside the reference range. The tricky question in the case of vitamin D is what a normal population is. Laboratory staff who spend their working lives indoors are likely to have lower vitamin D levels than people who work outside. Ideally you would establish a normal range such that in 95% of people supplementation would show no benefits.

    Do people there have higher levels of vitamin D, or does the body limit the increase at some level? (e.g. via feedback regulation) I’d have guessed the latter.

    I don’t think there is feedback regulation of conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to D3, as D3 is converted to calcidiol and stored in the liver, plus depletion of 7-dehydrocholesterol must occur at some point. But I could be wrong, it was a long time ago I had to pass exams on this stuff.

  102. #103 Krebiozen
    October 3, 2012

    One more thing – good nutritional status plus plentiful UV exposure leads to high D3 levels. Many people in countries with a lot of sunshine do not have good nutritional status. My suggestion above that people in sunnier climes should have high D3 levels fails.

  103. #104 Grant
    October 3, 2012

    Krebiozen,

    re the blood levels, from memory (no time to look back!) the paper established base levels from their cohort before supplementation. Presumably you can get percentile ranges off that. (Modest size cohort, of course, a touch over 300 people.)

  104. #105 Krebiozen
    October 3, 2012

    Grant,
    Playing devil’s advocate, how do we know those base levels are not clinically deficient levels? Since most of us spend a lot of time indoors and wear clothes we may all be deficient to some degree.

  105. #106 Grant
    October 3, 2012

    Krebiozen,

    Same difference to your suggestion 😉

    Not directly answering your question, it’s worth bearing in mind that this study started before winter, though and NZer are a fairly outdoor-oriented lot (outside of winter). I’d have to look to the detail of what they recorded about subjects, but perhaps there’s relevant lifestyle stuff there that could be used, etc.

  106. #107 Science Mom
    http://justthevax.blogspot.com/
    October 3, 2012

    I agree. Incidentally, Hilary Butler pushes the baking soda cures cancer and cancer is a fungal infection lines too (and being me, I’ve written about that too).

    She also states that vitamin c cures hepatitis b because she’s cured herself…twice.

  107. #108 Grant
    October 3, 2012

    Science Mom,

    Perhaps it’s easier to say that she’s written most of the ‘claims’ you can think of at one time or other? 🙂

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.