My topic yesterday was When doctors betray their profession. In my post, I talked about some very unethical doctors representing tobacco companies in lawsuits against them seeking compensation for death and injury due to smoking, as well as to doctors and scientists peddling pseudoscience and quackery representing claimants in the Autism Omnibus action several years ago, in essence supporting the scientifically unsupported idea that vaccines cause autism. The reason I brought this up was to show doctors behaving badly in "conventional" and not-so-conventional medical-legal situations. Unfortunately, that's not all the physician shenanigans that go on. Indeed, a reader of mine (who wishes to remain anonymous) attended a recent vaccine "open house" in Culver City, CA on July 16 and provided me with an account of the goings-on there. This particular antivaccine event was remarkable because it featured a frequent topic of this blog, antivaccine pediatrician Robert "Dr. Bob" Sears. It was a meeting advertised on Dr. Bob's Facebook page a week ago, in which he promised:
We'll discuss how SB 277 will affect your family next year, what you can do about it, and what efforts are being made to overturn the new law. Learn what your options are and understand which children will be exempt from the new vaccine requirements. Join me, Eric Gladen, Melissa Floyd, and others for an eventful informative discussion and Q and A. See you there.
Dr. Bob, you remember, is famous for writing a "skeptical" vaccine book beloved by the antivaccine movement. More recently, he's been a vocal critic of SB 277, even going so far as to take a cue from the whackjob wing of the antivaccine movement and sarcastically suggest that its passage would lead to, in essence, nonvaccinating parents and children being forced to wear the vaccine equivalent of the yellow Star of David that the Nazis forced Jews to wear for easy identification and ostracization. Yes, Dr. Bob went full Godwin over SB 277, after a history of blowing the antivaccine dog whistles such as "freedom" and "parental rights."
SB 277 is, of course, the recently passed California law that will eliminate religious and personal belief exemptions (PBEs) to school vaccine mandates. It is a law that I had never thought possible before, particularly in California given that California is ground zero for the antivaccine movement in the US, particularly affluent areas in the Bay area, Hollywood and Santa Monica, and Dr. Bob's neck of the woods in Capistrano Beach, just north of San Diego, where Dr. Bob caters to just such a clientele. Assuming the notes I was given are accurate (and I have no reason to believe they are not), it shows Dr. Bob behaving just as badly as any of those tobacco company expert witnesses trying to deny that it was most likely tobacco that caused head and neck cancer in plantiffs suing tobacco companies. Basically, Dr. Bob gave a workshop to parents on how to keep on avoiding vaccinating while at the same time making, in essence, a pitch for business from nonvaccinating parents looking for a physician to write a letter recommending a medical exemption. This should not be surprising, given that Dr. Bob has of late been letting his antivaccine freak flag fly more. Indeed, at the recent conservative/libertarian confab known as FreedomFest a week and a half ago, Dr. Bob debated Ron Bailey on the issue of whether vaccines should be mandatory. Basically, he played Julian Whitaker's role from a similar debate hosted by FreedomFest three years ago; i.e., the antivaccine side.
In any event, the antivaccine town hall in Culver City started with a long PowerPoint presentation full of antivaccine misinformation and errors that was over an hour long. Dr. Bob didn't give this presentation, and my reader didn't say who did. It doesn't matter much, anyway, because Dr. Bob was clearly the star of the show and spoke next. After stating how much he hates the law and acknowledging how much all the attendees hate the law, he got into his main topic, namely how to comply with the law without vaccinating. From the notes I'm adapting and turning into my usual jaunty prose, his talk was chock full of misinformation and disingenuousness. You can get some idea of the sorts of things Dr. Bob said by checking out this Facebook post from three weeks ago. His talk basically stuck to the same outline, with some additions that perhaps he didn't want to put in writing.
First, if you don't think Dr. Bob is antivaccine, consider this. He started out by referring to autism as a "known side effect" of vaccines. It is not, and he knows it. If he doesn't know it, he is utterly incompetent in evaluating evidence or was cynically pandering to his audience. Take your pick. He also told the audience that the American Academy of Pediatrics will issue guidelines about medical exemptions, but that it will be "much narrower than" what he does. (Surprise! Surprise!) Anyone want to guess whether he'll be even more looser in issuing exemptions than Dr. Jay Gordon will be? My guess is that he will, as Dr. Jay seems unwilling to stretch things too far beyond what is medically justifiable, at least comparatively speaking.
Among the tidbits of information Dr. Bob dropped on his audience were:
- A description of an effort to amend the law to allow chiropractors and naturopaths to issue medical exemptions. I know antivaccinationists tried to get that slipped into SB 277 and failed. One can only hope the legislature doesn't fall for that one. If you think Dr. Bob will give an exemption to virtually anyone who wants one, just let chiropractors and naturopaths write exemptions based on "aggregate toxicity" or something like that.
- A suggestion that parents seek out a DO because, or so Dr. Bob thinks, they tend to be more "open minded" than MDs. Personally, this hasn't been my experience, at least not in the US, but I don't know many DO pediatricians or primary care docs. One of the best surgical intensivists I ever knew was a DO, as is one of the premier phase I cancer clinical trialists in the country.
- Another suggestion that parents seek out physicians in solo or small private practices rather than larger groups. The reason for this one to me is obvious. Larger groups tend to have more explicitly codified practice guidelines.
Aligning himself with his audience, Dr. Bob stated "We have to work on the way we have been perceived—we have been maligned." The "we," of course, are parents who attend sessions given by antivaccine doctors on how to comply with SB 277 and still refuse to vaccinate; i.e., antivaccinationists.
Here's where Dr. Bob got into the nitty-gritty of telling parents just how they can do that. Remember that the law doesn't take effect until the 2016-2017 school year. So, according to Dr. Bob, here are the ways to get around the law other than home schooling. The first method is to et an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that specifies regular classroom time. For those who have no experience with them, let me briefly explain. IEPs are mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for children with special needs. If a child receives special educations services, he must have an IEP that includes a description of how the child is doing, the child's specific annual education goals, specific special education supports and services that the school will provide to help the child reach those goals, modifications and accommodations the school will provide to help the child make progress, and other information. To comply with federal law, SB 277 specifically stipulates that the law "does not prohibit a pupil who qualifies for an individualized education program, pursuant to federal law and Section 56026 of the Education Code, from accessing any special education and related services required by his or her individualized education program." So you can see where Dr. Bob was dishonestly going. In fact, he was quite explicit. He recommended that parents seek an IEP, even for "minimal speech delay or learning issue" when the child is 2 or 3 years old so that they have it later and will be "protected" from SB 277 for the entire child's school career. This is gaming the system at its most blatant.
Naturally, the other option is a medical exemption. Dr. Bob, as did Dr. Jay before him, characterized whether or not a medical exemption is granted as being "completely up to the opinion of the doctor," which unfortunately is basically true. This led him to recommend "seeking out open-minded doctors," doctors who, apparently, agree with his non-evidence-based reasons for not vaccinating, including:
- Prior vaccine reaction in child, sibling, parent, or more distant relative (protected by mention of "family history" in SB277)
- Family history of autoimmune disease. He added: "And everyone has autoimmune disease in their family." (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, say no more!) The audience laughed appreciatively. He went on: "So an openminded doctor could use a family history of vitiligo, celiac disease, autoimmune thyroid disease, or other disease on to support a medical exemption."
- Autism, learning disorders, and ADHD
- Allergies, esp if more severe
- Other chronic conditions
Of course, none of these are evidence-based reasons except for a personal prior severe reaction to a previous vaccine or a severe allergy to a vaccine component (which would only be valid as a reason not to use that vaccine). Such reactions or allergies in family members don't count, although unfortunately "family history" was placed into the law as a potential reason to grant a medical exemption. Given that Dr. Bob appears poised and ready to start passing out medical exemptions like candy, it's not surprising that he mentioned the state medical board; it's also one part of his message that's not in his Facebook post on the subject. In brief, he told the audience that he had spoken to someone at the California Board of Medicine and been told that to date "they have not investigated any doctor for writing medical exemptions." He stated they could, but to get involved they would need someone to file a complaint about a specific case. Yes, clearly Dr. Bob has thought about this issue and made preparations to cover his posterior, to the point where he apparently believes that if the board investigates, "nobody would get into trouble, they would just void the exemption." Personally, I wouldn't be so sure of that, but apparently Dr. Bob is sure enough to be telling parents this, even adding, "There might be people out to get me, but not the Medical Board."
Not yet, perhaps. Here's hoping that can be changed.
Next up, Dr. Bob talked strategy, asking that audience members not try to get a medical exemption if they have other options. Indeed, he even asked them to "save those for the people who are not grandfathered in; wait until your 3rd grader is about to be a 7th grader before seeking an exemption." What he meant by this is as follows. Under SB 277, exemptions are good until certain "checkpoint" years, which typically occur when a child first enrolls in a new school (no matter what age), when a child reaches kindergarten, and when a child reaches 7th grade. Any child who already has an exemption (medical or PBE) at the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year will be able to keep that exemption until the next "checkpoint" year. So if a parent gets a PBE for her child entering kindergarten in 2016, that exemption would be good until the child reaches seventh grade or moves to another school. He also discussed taking advantage of "conditional entry" in order to spread vaccines out over years. "Conditional entry" means that a child who hasn't met all the vaccine requirements can still be enrolled as long as there is a plan to eventually complete required vaccinations, which usually requires a note from a doctor outlining the plan. Dr. Bob actually advised dragging this process our over months or even years, only getting vaccines when the school absolutely insists on it, and hoping the school is too busy to call, saying, "You might not get by with this in a regular public school, so try charters and small private schools—seek those schools out." To be honest, I'm not sure about that; I'd guess it might be easier to get lost in the shuffle of bureaucracy in a large public school and thus drag things out.
After Dr. Bob's talk people lined up to ask him questions, may of which were a about whether condition X would allow him to grant a medical exemption. My reader reported that he said yes to several, including conditions like celiac disease in a relative, vague "neurodevelopmental issue" in a sibling, having a "grandfather who got diabetes after the pneumonia shot" (my jaw dropped when I read this one in the account), a mother with vitiligo (ditto), and other equally ridiculous reasons. He only hesitated once, when a parent who described his daughter getting "recurrent mouth ulcers" after a vaccine. For this one he said he'd have to discuss it in further detail at an office visit.
Of course he would.
After the main meeting broke up, there was a smaller group of parents still asking Dr. Bob questions, his answers to some of which were overheard. For instance, he was asked how much an office visit costs (his answer: $180) and whether he took insurance (his answer: no, other than TriCare). At one point, a woman approached and told Dr. Bob that her pediatrician whom she otherwise liked would not issue an exemption, asking if he would see her for a one-time visit. His response? "I would be happy to provide that service." He also confirmed that a one-time medical exemption visit is $180 and that he'd be willing to issue such an exemption and send the child back to his primary pediatrician. When asked whether that was a conflict of interest, Dr. Bob was taken aback, reacting with genuine surprise and answering, "Do you expect me to see them for free?" According to my reader, Dr. Bob seemed genuinely not to understand the point of the question. At another time, he seemed to try to defend himself by pointing out how infectious diseases are bad, that he wrote about how bad they are in his book as well as how vaccines prevent them. When asked why he did not mention any of this to the audience, he responded, "This is about politics, I do talk about that to other audiences."
Sure. I'll bet he does.
Three weeks ago, I asked the question, Will SB 277 enrich antivaccine doctors? The answer is clearly yes, particularly for Dr. Bob Sears. From my perspective, he's basically offering to sell medical exemptions to parents for $180 a pop, and he couldn't be more blatant about what he's doing if he tried. Indeed, I'm surprised just how closely my reader's report aligns tightly with Dr. Bob's advice posted on his Facebook page. The only differences were his more jocular manner and his demonstration that he's thought about how to issue exemptions for sale without having the California Board of Medicine come after him. As far as I'm concerned, he's become just like doctors who run prescription mills or sell prescriptions for medical marijuana. He has no honor.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Christonacrutch. . . I wish I could get Zostavax. I have several friends who've endured shingles in the last few years (one of them requiring 10 days hospitalization and is lucky not to have lost vision in one eye). Shingles and postherpetic neuralgia are no joke.
Eric Lars Hanson, his rape analogies, and his ridiculous links reek. I think he gets off on thinking and talking about rape, and gets at least a half on just from typing the word.
@MJD - try http://en.gravatar.com/
Eric, why is it that you have no response for the variety of commentors who have pointed out that absolutely nothing in the current law violates your right to refuse vaccination.
If you choose not to vaccinate your child, then you also choose to reject the benefits of public education.
You still haven't provided a single cogent argument as to how any part of the current law is remotely coercive. What exactly are you 'teaching?'
@ $494
While in this instance MJD did provide a useful link, albeit it in a misleading manner, I don't think this offsets his ongoing nuisance factor.
Any potentially positive outcome from allowing his inane remarks on the blog, e.g., displaying anti-vax lunacy for all to see, has long since past and at this point he's merely a boring annoyance, as was pointed out the other day by others.
I generally just lurk to follow the conversation offered by good faith contributors, so the repetitive pointless blathering offered by folks like MJD, Toto the Rock, et al for the sole purpose of disrupting the conversation is only an annoyance.
Assumes that vaccines cause more harm than good.
To quote the Mythbusters, "there's yer problem." Mercola is selling products. He has a vested interest in lying to you.
Have the clips on YouTube been peer reviewed? Have the claims being made been subjected to proper scrutiny? Has sound supporting evidence been placed in the clips? If not, they are meritless.
We have and we have. You have nothing. You came in here spouting hogwash each of the commenters challenging you has personally debunked numerous times before and using sources and cites we have also each personally refuted numerous times before.
And so you don't have the training or skills to realise you're spouting garbage. Stick around. Over the past 5 and a half years I've learnt huge amounts from Orac and the other commenters. You might too.
The spouting mantra from the antivaxxers: "educate yourself" ..... yet, when told the science of infectious disease, the immune system, and neural development from those that have the education...all that matters is the quackpot quackademery from google u.
A question for you, Eric H. Do you support or oppose DUI laws?
First up an apology for not having read all the comments on this thread. I have been in the wilds of southern NZ for 3 days and this thread has rather got out of control.
I couldn't help commenting on Julian Frost's comment below:
For Eric H (along with numerous other anti-vax trolls who infest the comment threads) this offer is a complete waste of time. The quote from Eric H below shows why.
Once again someone who is only willing to accept evidence that agrees with their pre-determined position and what is worse wants to teach those with significantly more expertise their shoddy and spurious arguments.
I have come to the opinon that it is not possible to be anti-vaccine without a very generous helping of Dunning-Kruger. One of my correspondents refers to people like Eric H as anti-vaccine liars and I am finding myself using the same designation more and more often. Eric H is not at all concerned about whether anything it writes is accurate or not; all that matters is that it agrees with a pre-determined position. Hence Mercola et al. are thrust upon us.
Eric, I suggest you rethink your usage of "collectivist" and "collectivism" since it's apparent you have no clue as to what they mean. And I am not a PhD or MD.
When you makes assertions here, you will frequently be asked to back them up with evidence. Your "evidence" is either non-existent or not forthcoming. I have asked you three times to provide support for your claim in #71,
and you have yet to respond. Others have made similar queries and again, you have no reply.
As for MJD, I am not personally in favour of banning him. Same goes for Toto, inasmuch as find her/him to be truly revolting. Why not let the whackaloons show themselves for who they truly are?
I am here to learn and to teach.
Liar. You came bouncing in here to attack a bunch of science weenies and promptly had your ass handed back to you. Now you're whining.
Your questions have been answered (complete with links to actual research, the kind done by actual scientists in an actual lab with actual oversight) -- sorry, but the fact that you don't like the answers doesn't count.
How about you start answering some questions, now?
@ #483
Re: "He’s a regular Renaissance man, is our Eric H
Indeed.
On top of his many other accomplishment, he is/was a musician.
http://www.relicskastle.com/index2.html
The "Master of distilled spirits" may help to explain the obvious crazy in his comments, of which he seem blissfully unaware, and his apparent lack of basic comprehension skills.
Though, given his acquaintance with droit du seigneur and some of his comments, perhaps he's more of a medieval, rather than renaissance, man.
Disgusting, but hardly surprising from the man whose "About" begins with
Shameless, disgraceful man.
Hi -- I'm Dr. Delphine, author of The Smoking Book and The Lung Cancer Book.
Liz Ditz @ 467
Here is the study you want.
"For quite some time, researchers have been struggling to sort disorders into categories based on observable clinical features, but it gets complicated with autism because every individual can show a different combination of features" said Santhosh Girirajan, assistant professor of biochemistry and molecular biology and of anthropology at Penn State and the leader of the research team. "The tricky part is how to deal with individuals who have multiple diagnoses because, the set of features that define autism is commonly found in individuals with other cognitive or neurological deficits."
@ #508
I agree with this up to a point.
However, I don't see any productive value in allowing them to show what idiots they are in every thread, particularly when it involves copy and paste full page comments and links that have been been debunked on numerous previous occasions.
And as these folks tend to show up on posts that often include one or more links to whackadoodle anti-vax sites, anyone interested in the crazy they repeatedly post can just visit the whackadoodle site and dive right in.
Just my personal opinion though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAXzzHM8zLw
@ Eric
Gosh, you are just so a perfect example of kindness.
I wanted to issue you some apologies, because then first reading your "Even if it makes really cute and adorable kids", I interpreted it as some variant of "rape is just a bad moment quickly over, and no ground for abortion".
Your comment #392 gave me some doubt as to my interpretation. Some maybe I was wrong.
But right now, weighting in your style when you answer a known lady rather than some dude, I'm not so sure I was so off-target.
Now, if you want to cognitive dissonance about pro-choice, riddle me this:
US states with a ban on abortion, like Ohio, if memory serves, have a higher rate of abortions (done dark-alley, obviously) and mother-teenagers than pro-choice states states ad other sinful countries like France.
Banning abortion is like the death penalty: it doesn't change much the rates of what you try to punish.
I don't like the idea of abortion. But, out of two evils, I prefer that the women around me have the possibility to have it done in a medically supervised way rather than having them bleeding to death outside of some dirty "angel maker" shop. In this, I find anti-abortion people to be big hypocrites.
On another blog, a gynecologist reports the conversation she had with the (male) doctor who trained her. To paraphrase: "How was it before?" "Every night, our hospital would receive at least one bleeding young woman, a victim of a botched abortion. Every night."
Also, however reticent I could be about abortion, I am even more appalled whenever I read some horror story about a pregnant woman who was unlucky enough to suffer some miscarriage event and whose life was endangered or lost because the doctors became full schizo at the idea of having to treat her, because OMG they may need to remove the (already dying) fetus.
So my conclusion? Ladies, do as you want. If you need a lift, I will drive you, no question asked.
I'm not talking about jizzmops, JIzzmop: I'm talking to you.
...Ah yes, "females" have become so coarse and uppity in these troubled times, not like in the good old days when they knew their place. Goodness me, they just don't even appreciate a man's romantic moods anymore! Golly, some of them have even learned to read and write - it's so cute, they think they're people - and some of them go on the Internet, and some of the vile creatures even have the unmitigated gall to take umbrage at rape apologetics!
One does begin to wonder why Mr. Eric H is so fixated on "vaccine rape." Or why he seems to take such issue with the notion of consent.
Watching Relic videos has made this one of my fave threads of all time. Although Orac had me at "new chew toy". . .
Or why he even posted here at all. Didn't he have better things to do on his son's birthday?
JGC @ 479
As with intellectual disability,a diagnosis of genetic mitochondrial disease does not rule out an an autism diagnosis.Many children,and some adults (raises hand),have a diagnosis of both.It is estimated the prevalence of true mitochondrial disease in the general ASD community is at least 5%,maybe higher.There are researchers,like Fernando Scaglia of Baylor/TCH,who are devoting their life to both identifying ASDs in children with mitochondrial disease,and finding ASD phenotypes of mitochondrial disease.
Talk about cognitive dissonance. You are really a vile person. What part of no one is forcing you or your children to undergo any medical procedure including vaccination? Your rhetoric has no basis in reality so your argument is completely false.
Eric H has refused to give me any information about which vaccines I should save my granddaughter from. For all of his passion, maybe he only cares about his own children. I am so disappointed.
It will be nice to be a vaccine choice doctor in California the next two years. Build up cred with the "not my child" crowd with inexpensive vaccine-injury awareness seminars and watch your retirement savings double every year. Maybe I should take advantage of this development and write an internet marketing training course for their staff...
Delphine @ 515
I'll see your Stonehenge,and raise you an Asgard.And this was a real band too.I have a 70s UK vinyl pressing of this.
I recently had 5 or 6 inoculations to go to India. No reaction to any of them and no diseases brought back as far as I know.
I got polio vaccine as a kid (elementary school) in a sugar cube IIRC.
I also got the smallpox vaccine and for many years was proud that I had no mark on my arm as a result. I thought that meant I was naturally immune. Come to find out it means the vaccine didn't work and i have the rest of the herd to thank for keeping me safe.
497:
You linked ti JIM HOFT, you idiot! Fuçking JIM HOFT!!!! Think about that. Hang your head in shame. If you don't, you admit you're a bigger idiot than he is, and that's not physically possible.
Well -- we can assume that Eric H is trying to be at least as big an idiot, since he posted a statement and linked it to a reference stating there was no evidence to support it.
This is the sort of thing Hoft does all the time.
The usual Rules for Radicals smear doesn’t fly with me
Ah, I see. One more entry in the Wingnut Bingo. Eric H. has convinced himself that when people laugh at him, it's because they are 'following the Alinsky playbook' and using ridicule as a political tactic, and not because of the stupid that falls out of his mouth every time he opens it.
Mrs Woo... apologies. I am here primarily to advocate a "pro choice" position with respect to vaccines. I certainly did not mean to "refuse" any request. I'd recommend consulting any of the links I provided and you own medical doctor to assist on making your own choices. I also recommend hearing out natural medicine advocate doctors like Mercola in spite of the prevailing vitriol on this thread.
Eric H: May I point out something that has come up in this thread?
Up thread, JP commented on being one of the few people here who didn't get a smallpox vaccination. I wouldn't have either (we are in a similar age cohort), but I needed to be vaccinated against vaccinia for work.
Please think about *why* JP didn't get a smallpox vaccine. And why it is no longer part of the vaccine schedule anywhere in the world.
Because smallpox is *gone*. It was eliminated from the human population. By vaccination.
So if you really think we should have fewer vaccines, then you should be working like mad to eliminate the diseases, not the vaccines.
I also recommend hearing out natural medicine advocate doctors like Mercola in spite of the prevailing vitriol on this thread.
It isn't vitriol to point out that Mercola is a highly successful and profoundly dishonest peddler of fake cures.
When other researchers can't replicate your results, that's a sign that you cooked the data.
Oh, and Eric? You have a choice. You can vaccinate, or not; no one is going to tie you to a chair and administer injections.
Herr doctor bimler... not certain you have enough of your own to recognize intelligence
I agree that it's posible to be diagnosed as having a mitochondrial disease and autism, but to the best of my knowledge Hannah Poling has not been diagnosed as autistic--only as having a genetic mitochondrial disease.
"We would gladly have listened to her, if only she had spoken like a lady!"
Joanna Russ, The Female Man
Isn't a pro-choice position the position society is embracing with respect to vaccines at thisvery moment, with people who object to vaccination able to freely elect not to receive them themselves and not to have children they're legal guardians for receive them?
At this point, Eric has gone into the killfile. He never answered my original questions, and he's become very misogynistic. I don't need to waste my time reading his gurgle.
He never answered my original questions
I was hoping for more information about the CIA's time machine that allowed that organisation to instigate the Tuskegee Experiment 15 years before it came into existence.
Back to the original topic of this post:
Imagine if a anti-vax parent does get an IEP for their neurotypical child. What is that going to do for that child's academic achievement and self-image?
"I know you're smart sweetie, but you have to pretend to be dumb or you have to get shots."
And if lots of anti-vax parents got IEPs for their kids, imagine the extra scrutiny that kids who really need an IEP will be subjected to.
"Are you actually disabled, or are your parents just weirdos?"
With this "advice" Dr Bob is harming children who will never come into contact with him. What a self-serving jerk.
What's the highest number of comments a post has had? I think we need to get Bob Schecter in here to take us there. He and Eric can create the ultimate black hole of commenting boards.
Ren @539: There was that one post about evolution with SeeNoevo that went on well past 1300 posts before I gave up.
But it was the same pattern: a new troll that we all responded to at length before realizing the futility of our self-appointed task.
Dr Bob, and people like Eric are the real reason why SB277 was introduced, and are the reason why in a few months the right to provide exemptions will be restricted to a limited set of registered Doctors, or even just the state Dept of Health.
Selling medical exemptions is an abhorrent suggestion, and any doctor that advocates this should be deregistered.
Ashburton in my case.
Point and laugh is the only acceptable response to the likes of Eric H. They came here wanting to show us how much better informed they were, when they realised their bullsh¡t wasn't cutting any ice, they resort to winding people up.
Everything they have posted on this thread can be characterised as complete and utter nonsense.
As a by the by, Hannah Poling has a mitochondrial disease that results in autism-like symptoms.
Next time you write a story it's probably best that you do it based on something that you personally witnessed and not hearsay. Your facts regarding the town hall are very off point. I happened to be there myself and what you have written is just a page full of false information.
I guess that explains your wholesale evasiveness in response to direct questions. Your difficulties formulating coherent English sentences and descent into moronic insults must be a separate matter, or something.
JustaTech @ 540:
Well, Egnor managed to get himself banned from Pharyngula, and then was stinking up Ed Brayton's place for a while, both as "TheDukedog7". I basically got him to admit that SeeNoevo was him, too.
Wasn't there a Thingy post back in the day that went well over 1000 comments? I miss that one. Stay on the sidewalk kids!
I also vaguely recall an exceptionally long thread with some Moregllon's folks that was fairly scary/amusing.
A link would help quite a bit here.
Doctors office should be a place folks go to get help, not a place to be feared for some authority that overrides basic patient rights.
I have not been in a US doctor's office since I was ten (just a few decades ago) so do they now come with hulking security guards and attack dogs for controlling the patients and presumably dragging them off to be vaccinated?
Roger Kulp, Mr. Delphine would think that is the coolest thing ever. Well, pretty close to it, at any rate. He's a musician, though not of the Relic/Asgard variety.
Asgard makes me think of the lovely and talented Tom Hiddleston.
Narad @ 545:
Well, Here's the post where PZ banned TheDukedog7. He seemed to accept his identity.
Then his reply to this could I suppose be construed as a denial, but I think he thought he was being clever by saying I'd "lose the bet" because RI couldn't be stunk up any worse than it already is.
The tics in both Dogdoo and SeeNo's oeuvre seem identical to me, but I suppose I could be wrong.
@ Adam G:
I believe that several threads have gone over 1000.
I'm happy when that happens- minions in good standing win stuff .
@ Mrs Woo
o you have advice for what to do for the cattle that will work as well as a vaccine?
Well in the old days we used cremation. Find animal dead of blackleg, immediately quarantine the area and spend a couple of days burning the body and a circle of grass around it.
It seemed to work, tough luck on the first animal, of course.
Luckily we never had a case in the barn: Fire is usually contraindicated there.
Dad would have loved a vaccine. Heck, he'd have been with the farm needle (roughly the size of a small cannon) stabbing anything bovine that was not fast enough to get out of the way.
@ jrkrindeau, I'd love our new guest 'splain away the eradication of Rhinderpest with that "herd immunity" just being another
Three Branches of Government conspiracy and all. Bloody Ponce.
ShannonK: "I happened to be there myself and what you have written is just a page full of false information"
Then please post the corrections. Tell us exactly what was wrong and why.
@MikeMa-same thing here with the smallpox vaccine. I swear it was in the nurse's office in first grade. Everyone else got scars from theirs and not me. I thought it just meant I didn't scar as easily.
@jkrideau - yes, like I said, I forget what the real title of the illness is, but there is a vaccine that prevents it, and apparently it ends up in the ground from what our friend discovered. His place hadn't had cattle in awhile when he picked it up or maybe it's so commonly vaccinated for the fact it can be picked up without a currently ill cow to spread the infection is off most local farmers' radar. I know Mr Woo always vaccinated our Nubian goatlings on time because there are diseases they can get that you won't know they have been exposed to until you have a dead goat. Our does are worth several hundred dollars apiece. When this year's kids were born when it was single digits they lived in plastic totes in our living room for a week. Every time I got tired of feeding them, I would say, "There's four hundred dollars there, four hundred dollars there..." (some might be worth more, but you can only guess at true udder confirmation and milk quality and supply when they are a lot older).
@Eric H - you are a fascinating specimen, aren't you? You came in here using violent analogies, have an argument that amounts to, "If I don't wanna, I should do as I please." Surprisingly, if you were to quit vaccinating tomorrow, no one would come to your house, restrain you at gun point and forcibly vaccinate your children. Most of your arguments have either been, "I am just pro-choice," name-calling of a sort, accusing people here of being mean or ignoring their questions. When you finally acknowledged mine, it really wasn't answered. If the choice is so terrible and obviously dangerous, what makes it dangerous? You aren't even interested in telling me dangers of vaccines she is facing her first year of life. Is that because the most honest part of you realizes that the risk is vanishingly small and harm is rare? Or are only some snowflakes in your world special?
Doesn't Dr. Bob have his first, second, and third millions already? Not sure why he's therefore so keen to sell exemptions at $180 a pop, but I guess greed knows no bounds. Seems like a lousy way to run a grift. Small (disease-ridden) potatoes.
And dear Mr. Eric, you've hit all the targets but one. Please, please, pleaaaase just get to TEH JOOOOOZ DIDDIT already! Yeesh, it's like watching a slot machine with 400 reels, and all of them except one have stopped on cherries, and that last poor lone one just...keeps...spinning.
Oh, wait, I haven't seen any direct evidence of rampant goldbuggery or Freeman-on-the-Landism, so make that 397. Meh. Nevertheless.
Maybe ShannonK can give us a link to a YouTube video?
Mrs. Woo....
I know they don't like links from this source here... but I believe it contains much of what I'd have to share about the "special snowflakes in my world"...
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/11/13/mmr-vacci…
Again I am not an MD but the doctors I trust most indicate all sorts of dangers. Even those advocating effectively mandatory shots have acknowledged that, like most anything, there are pros and cons to vaccines.
I like to know as much as I can about the cons before deciding.
In the past I have decided to accept shots. As soon as they become effectively mandatory (as they have) any glowing embers of residual trust are abruptly extinguished.
So... until the Dr. Dick Pan Bill is repealed... I won't have ANY vaccine shots less being wrestled to the ground at gun point.
Now... on that subject, several here have been kind to inform that these shots are in no way "mandatory". That I'm advocating for "status quo".
Dr. Dick Pan's own description of the "consequences" that I would argue are 1. not the end game and 2. serious enough to call it "mandatory" .
Here are those words spoken by the man himself:
"Yes, parents have the right to refuse vaccination for their chidren, but to protect other parents' and children's rights, these families must then accept the consequences of their decisions: no admittance to public preschool, school, college, or workplace."
To my understanding private schools are ALSO included although not mentioned in his statement and returning to his words, "homeschooling" is the only exception for kids not receiving whatever the government has or will declare "safe and effective."
So as long as I homeschool kids to be ultimately barred college and even "the workplace", the happy "status quo" lives on. And as the generous host of this thread knows very well, we've gone from putting the "informed" in "informed consent" with the 2012 Assembly Bill to this newest SB277, and meanwhile the same politicians are scheming the next round of new laws.
Maybe I don't understand something some of the experts here know about, but does this really sound like the "status quo" of vaccine choice?
Delphine... you requested a citation for correlation between vaccine rates and infant mortality (if I remember right... hard to keep up there are so many of you)
Perhaps this is a bogus source and the facts will be disputed by the experts here... but anyway I'll submit this in the interest of learning or teaching depending on how the discussion goes.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/mississippi-first-in-infant-vaccinatio…
Eric H.
All I can say is: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
Mrs Woo I got curious about "black leg".
http://cattletoday.info/blackleg.htm
The link has information about how vaccination prevents the disease.
Livestock fall over dead from all kinds of things. This is a surprise to the less rural urban folk.
Eric H claimed
and then cites something from Mercola.
Dear, it is not that "they don't like" -- that is a statement of preference.
In case you haven't noticed, our host is a scientist, and many in the commentariat are also scientist. "Like" -- a value judgement -- doesn't come into it.
is the source you are citing reliable and valid? That's objective and measurable.
"Dr. Dick Pan Bill is repealed"
Golly, Eric H, you might as wel call it the "Voted Yes in Assembly Bill by: Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Levine, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Wood, Atkins and the Voted Yes in the Senate Bill by: Allen, Beall, Block, De León, Galgiani, Glazer, Hall, Hancock, Hernandez, Hertzberg, Hill, Jackson, Lara, Leno, Liu, McGuire, Mendoza, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Pavley, Stone, Vidak, Wieckowski"
Why do you think that Pan alone got the bill passed?
At least by the time your kids reach college age they can make their own vaccination decisions. And are you really pushing college anyway? I can't quite figure out your alma mater.
Your performance here strongly suggests that you're somewhat lacking in that executive-function department.
Ditz... thanks for the list. Of course there is no shortage of corrupt and/or ignorant politicians to serve as accomplices.
"In the past I have decided to accept shots. As soon as they become effectively mandatory (as they have)"
Citation needed. But of course, you're gonna evade this again and again as you have been doing so far, lying scumbag that you are.
Yes, I had noted that omission myself. Back to the original:
Well, I've already brought up the bolded phrase, to – as far as I've noticed – "crickets" in response.
Now, you've idiotically whined about "not having signed the social contract," so one may assume that you're not referring to public universities "college." (Please note that "your tax dollars" fails right out of the gate.)
It seems as though there are two rather simple observations to be made here:
1. SB 277 has fυck all to do with what you're babbling about.
2. As it seems clear that you're a Glibertertairan with Clusters, it's nobody's fault but your own that you're not going to be able to afford to send your homeschooled snowflakes to some elite institution of higher learning in Freedonia.
Herr Doctor,
"might want to compare the date when the Tuskegee experiment started and the date when the CIA was founded."
The Federal Reserve was there... and the insidious forces that developed into the modern CIA were there before the official organization was established.
Moon, I don't know how I could possibly have been more clear in defining what "effectively mandatory" means.
Liars are indeed scumbags, but unless you're just ridiculously foolish and suffer severe comprehension deficiencies, you'd be the liar here.
The funny thing is that typically the high integrity folks that don't lie are the ones most bothered by being called a "liar." Since you either are one, or suffering too much cognitive deficiency to even comprehend what I'm saying now, there'd not likely be any cause for your feelings to be hurt..
So anyway sweet dreams Mr. Moon... keep shining!
the insidious forces that developed into the modern CIA were there before the official organization was established.
In 1932? Ah, I see, it's all about the New Deal and the Roosevelt usurper regime.
Narad,
"It seems as though there are two rather simple observations to be made here:
"1. SB 277 has f@#$ all to do with what you’re babbling about.
2. As it seems clear that you’re a Glibertertairan with Clusters, it’s nobody’s fault but your own that you’re not going to be able to afford to send your homeschooled snowflakes to some elite institution of higher learning in Freedonia."
For a man that speaks of babble, you sure seem to have the gift.
I'm not sure when I ever discussed what I could "afford", nor was I seeking the service of a financial planner here.
Not entirely certain what a "Glibertertairan" might be... much less one with "clusters." Should I use this guide to see if I pass the test? https://thewordsonwhat.wordpress.com/2013/01/02/top-10-signs-you-might-… or do you have your own definition to share?
I'm guessing you must be highly intelligent to come up with such undecipherable code. Maybe someone else here has the key?
Eric H #558 = I don’ wanna.
Is there html for whiny tone of voice?
Are we sure that Eric H is actually a legal adult? Just based on that comment, I’d wager that most toddlers have better reasoning skills.
At this juncture, it would probably be simpler if you were to state which, if any, of these items you reject out of hand.
Well, either they go against the wishes of their parents, with a parent trying to sue the ones inolved, like this;
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/09/anti-vaxxer-vows-lawsuit-after-…
Or they still believe what their parents have told them.
Eric H #558 = I don’ wanna.
Lawrence say (#496),
Please, please, please – just ban him already…..this broken record needs to go away.
MJD says,
My apologies for talking so much about the hazards of natural rubber latex (i.e., latex) in vaccines but manufacturers are listening.
Here's an example: http://www.flublok.com/
Nice visual on the homepage advertisement showing their efforts to improve vaccine safety.
That's it. You're on automatic moderate. If your comment doesn't mention your obsession (latex in vaccines causing autism) I might let it through. Any comment mentioning your obsession will be deleted.
Eric H:
If I understood you correctly, you were saying that someone who was homeschooled would not be able to go to university. I doubt that you are correct.
Things may be different in the US, but in South Africa, homeschooled children have to take exams set by the Education Boards to get their Matric Certificates. If they pass, and pass well enough, they get university exemption.
If you mean that an unvaccinated person won't be able to go to university, there are these things called "correspondence courses". In South Africa, the largest university is UNISA, which is a correspondence university.
Your claim that an unvaccinated person will not be able to get a university education is incorrect.
Oohh, an eye witness.
Do tell. I really wanted to be a fly on the wall, but couldn't make it.
@E.H. #558 yes i can imagine if you (and many of your AV friends) homeschooled your children they'd be ill prepared for adult life.
Narad,
"At this juncture, it would probably be simpler if you were to state which, if any, of these items you reject out of hand."
To what ends? I'll take a guess. Perhaps it's a tactic to bypass refutation of solid arguments with fuel for more straw man diversion and to otherwise shift discussion from matters of substance to the more subjective attacks on credibility.
But anyway if you want to discuss some wondrous mystery, like whether Lyndon Johnson was aware of and complicit in the JFK assassination, I suppose we could. Exploring any of these historic events certainly pay a dividend in superior understanding of power structures that are highly relevant in gaining more complete lessons from history as they relate to modern politics.
Of course there are dishonest folks that would direct us away from such curiosity and research by invoking the universal conditioned response conversation stoppers like... "oh that's a conspiracy theory!"
Anyway arguing a subject is best served by refutation with supporting evidence. As a reminder the core topic is doctors writing exemptions in response to Pans Bill. And I am arguing the "pro choice" position.
I also favor the mental chess as opposed to the game of Borg's Bingo so many seem to favor here. Don't take my word for it... just search the word "bingo" on this thread.
Brook,
"Yes i can imagine if you (and many of your AV friends) homeschooled your children they’d be ill prepared for adult life."
Not surprising you'd think that. And of course like minded politicians are already working to restrict and ultimately eliminate home schooling since the powerful prefer a version of "prepared for adult life" that suits their own goals.
Of course even homeless "homeschoolers" have produced better results than the government indoctrination centers, so we'd be arguing opposite sides on which schooling better prepares for "adult life".
It bears worthy of mention that some of us consider "adult life" to imply actually being an adult, rather than an eternally dependent child of a nanny State.
Julian Frost...
"If I understood you correctly, you were saying that someone who was homeschooled would not be able to go to university. I doubt that you are correct."
I frankly hope I'm not correct. There are plenty of Dr. Dick Pan pals and loyalists here, so maybe they might clarify what he could have meant when he himself said:
"...these families must then accept the consequences of their decisions: no admittance to public preschool, school, college, or workplace.”
And assuming all is fine through University as some of you appear to genuinely believe, how exactly will they pay down all that student debt without entering the "workplace"?
Aren't all the vaccinated kids supposed to be "brain damaged" by autism by then? so one would think there might be quite a few openings in the job market for healthy untainted youths.
the insidious forces that developed into the modern CIA
I am imagining spooky Theremin music in the background when I read that.
I don’t know how I could possibly have been more clear in defining what “effectively mandatory” means.
“Effectively mandatory” appears to be a term of art meaning "not mandatory".
You can't make this stuff up: autism, ADD, ADHD, vaccination, and homeopathy with a twist of legal action for added flavor:
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Regulation-Policy/CEASE-homeopathy-misl…
So if homeschooling produces better results than regular school, why are you so worried about a law which only affects you if you want to send your children to school?
Eric H, you made an assertion in #71 that "infant mortality rates correlate to high vaccination rates." Over the past few days, I have asked you 4 times for evidence to support your statement.
Did you do a search to find that link, Eric H? Were you searching for evidence to support your statement? Please let me know.
In the case of the article Eric H posted, it fails to take into account that Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the nation, which does not help infant mortality in any way.
@Eric H
You seem to have missed these again. Here they are. You're welcome.
It also pulls out the "US IS LAST!!!11!" on infant mortality, and fails to take into account that the US IMR encompasses extremely premature babies born alive, whereas the IMR for most other countries does not.
This is a good read for anyone genuinely interested in the topic. http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emily.oster/papers/imr.pdf
Delphine: since I've blocked Eric, thanks for the comment review.
Gee, Eric. I'm QUITE sure that Mississippi doesn't have a high infant mortality rate due to silly things like POVERTY, POOR NUTRITION and LACK OF PRENATAL CARE AVAILABILITY. After all, vaccines are usually given BEYOND the period measured by infant mortality...
AND, you never answered my question: what's the difference between how the US defines infant mortality and stillbirth as opposed to many other countries.
Come on. You have proven you can do internet research. Now answer a simple question.
So Ewic is now saying that every time he attacks the credibility of a source, he's knowingly and deliberately shifting discussion away from "matters of substance"? That's an interesting admission for him to make.
Of course, in the real world, questions of credibility are an intrinsic part of any discussion of matters of substance. Well, nearly any. I suppose you could have a discussion purely about the prima facie implications of some set of allegations; e.g., "if it turns out the Moon landing was faked in a soundstage in the Arizona desert, who would have standing to argue that they had been injured by the deception?" But pretending you're interested in discussing a real-world question to get real-world answers, while trying to put questions of credibility off the table? Frankly that's stupid. "THESE are the consequences IF the testimony I'm relying on is true! So what if the testimony I'm relying on comes from a serial fabricator?? Concentrate on how right I'd be IF everything was exactly what I want it to be!"
Strip away all the pretentious prose and all we have is a demonstration of Danth's Law.
I feel a little bit sorry for Ewic. Surely at some point in the past he was reachable. Surely at some point in the past someone could have gently explained to him the importance of falsifiability, and then he'd be able to comprehend that it is not those who point out unfalsifiable conspiracy theories who are obstructing any worthwhile attempt to pursue the truth... it is those who invoke unfalsifiable hypotheses who do that.
But at this point, to all appearances, he's crawled into a cage of his own making and joyfully wedged the door shut behind him. And he's going to stay there forever, because he knows EXACTLY what to do when anything suggests that maybe, maybe, just maybe, he doesn't ALREADY know the entire truth, and that there's something he could learn or even maybe correct if he'd just listen to someone he doesn't agree with and consider what they have to say - dismiss it as liberal propaganda, of course!! It must be "Alinsky's playbook"! It must be "Rules for Radicals"! It couldn't possibly be someone knowing something he doesn't; no, that would be unpleasant to contemplate, so it must be some form of trick.
Oh, the irony.
At some point it might have been possible to reach him and get him to understand that "someone out there is saying what I want to believe" is not "supporting evidence". Could never get that through to him now, though. "Sure I have supporting evidence! Jim Hoft SAYS it's so! That's evidence that it's so! What do you mean, Jim Hoft is legendary for getting things wrong? How dare you divert us from 'matters of substance' by examining the credibility of my sources?"
Oh, and Eric...Delphine in 591 gave you a HUGE hint...
Mississippi is poor http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html and has high rates of birth to both teen http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health… and African American mothers - both significant risk factors for prematurity.
But hey, it's A-OK to score points off the backs of WOC and poor women. Particularly points you don't even understand.
Seriously Eric H, you should be ashamed of yourself for trotting that out. "Hmm, I read somewhere on one of the Maughmee blogs or in one of my entitled a$$wipe anti-vax parents groups that high infant mortality rates are correlated to high vax rates! And now I'm being asked to back this up! Let's put the Gazoogle to good use, what can I find here? Oh cool, it's got lots of colourful charts and sh!t! Awesome! Maybe I can teach them something."
@ Antaeus Feldspar
It's unfortunately too often the spin put by some journalist types in search of sensationalism, and fact accuracy be damned.
"What if [fear-mongering Joe] was right?"
@Delphine
Not only are those risk factors for prematurity, they are also barriers to health care access.
I half imagine that Eric will probably claim that your comment somehow supports the CDC whistleblower nonsense. "See! Vaccines are killing black babies in Mississippi!"
Oh, and Eric, the way to back up your claims is by using reliable, preferably first-hand sources, especially when discussing matters of fact. For example, those questions I helpfully provided to you again in comment #590 would be best answered using scientific studies.
Now, like you, I'm neither an MD nor a scientist, but unlike you, I actually value the process of science and can read and more or less understand a scientific study..
@Helianthus
That brought Dara O'Briain's bit to mind. "And for the sake of balance we must now turn to Barry, who thinks that the sky is a carpet painted by God."
Delphine,
There are additional reasons for the higher infant mortality rate in the US, such as higher incidence of premature birth and low weight babies, which are associated with poverty and with pregnancies in both very young and older women, which the US has more of for various reasons. I suspect that poor access to health care for some groups must surely play some part too, but I have no evidence for this.
My point is that not only are premature babies counted in the US stats, but since the US has more than other countries that inflates the IMR even more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-m…
Two factors noted here:
1) Differences in how we count live births
2) Lack of available health care for minorities after they leave the hospital
Nowhere in the article are vaccines mentioned, not once.
In fact it seems I should have read the paper Delphine linked to at #591, and nodded sagely without commenting at all :-)
Todd @599
Dara O’Briain also has a sack that Eric needs to climb into along with Mikey and Mercola.
I get all of that. But as Oster et al, point out
Can also throw IVF and maternal obesity into the mix. The point is, nothing to do with vaccines.
I would say that:
-- adults take responsibility for the consequences of the decisions they make without whining, moaning, or finger-pointing.
-- they make a good-faith effort to be diligent about understanding what those consequences are likely to be.
-- and they acknowledge error when wrong.
Do you agree?
Then why don't you respond when someone offers evidence that refutes what you're saying?
That video falsely accusing Jennifer Hibben-White of being part of a big-pharma dynasty, for example?
It's not difficult to confirm what I said about it. Just G--gle the company.
As the parent of 2 children who have(valid and necessary) IEP's, I'm afraid I have to take exception to the characterization that IEP = dumb ("I know you’re smart sweetie, but you have to pretend to be dumb or you have to get shots.") I know it wasn't intended as disrespectful--or if it were the disrespect was targeted towards anti-vax parents who might pursue an unnecessary IEP for their children-- but it still does a disservice to the large number of children whose IEP's aren't asociated in any way with decreased intelligence.
@#559 --
You can compare infant-mortality and immunization rates by country here:
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/
In all the countries I checked, the correlation is the reverse of what you're asserting.
But self-evidently, there are other factors, or infant mortality rates in the pre-vaccination era wouldn't have so frequently have been more than ten times what they are now.
That last post was very poorly phrased.
What I meant was:
"Self-evidently, something other than vaccines causes infant death or infant mortality rates in the pre-vaccination era wouldn’t have so frequently have been more than ten times what they are now."
Still poorly phrased, and with one too many "have"s.
I give up.
"Effectively mandatory" is like "a little bit pregnant" or "kinda dead"; something is either mandatory, or it's not.
Eric H, if it were not for the "nanny state", your children would probably be working in textile mills.
Plausible scenario? Eric H arrives, unleashes both barrels of what he imagines to be an irrefutable argument (he trusts Mercola, after all), and sits back to watch us pro-vaxx fascists squirm under the deathly glare of his reasoning.
Getting asked for specifics wasn't in the game plan, which is why when questioned he either a) posts a link to a raft of alt-med sources without explanation or b) posts a link to something that doesn't support his claims.
This having proved to be a sub-optimal tactic, he switched to trying to position himself as pro-choice and hoping no one here goes back to read previous posts.
Of course you aren't an MD and not even anything resembling someone who can actually research this topic. WTF is "effectively mandatory shots"? Of course vaccines have risks, everything does, now what can your "expert" Mercola tell us about quantifying those risks in favour of eschewing them? You do understand that Mercola isn't an expert in anything other than scamming the lowest common denominator right? I mean what research has he actually done that you can invoke?
You mean that you did some "research" on the interwebz, made up your mind that vacceeenes were teh evul and sought out an authority figure to stroke your confirmation bias.
So vaccines were fine before they were "effectively mandatory" whatever that is, but now they aren't because they are mandatory for school. I guess you don't use nor require seatbelts and/or infant seats for your children either. Moron.
I see you are still using your childish moniker for Dr. Pan, must be tough to have stalled out at twelve years old. But nice to see that you have acknowledged that no one is forcing you to vaccinate.
You dumbass, mandatory=/=compulsory or forced.
So what's the problem? Entitled dicks like you just want it all without accepting responsibility for your actions.
If you choose to keep your children un/undervaccinated then yes you have to homeschool and they won't be admitted to college. That shouldn't be a problem though since the quality of education that you and your fellow anti-vaxx nutters would provide would alone bar them from gaining admittance to college. But the world always has a demand for pole-dancers and sanitation workers and probably no vaccinations required.
You're right, you don't seem to know what informed consent nor vaccine choice is. You have a plethora of information and complete control over your choice to vaccinate. It simply comes down to you don't like the consequences of your choice.
Delphine@ 607
You do have a point.One thing those of us on both sides of the vaccine issue seem to ignore,is that there may be somewhat of an increase in autism,ADHD,in the last thirty or forty years,but it has nothing to do with vaccines.More likely it is due to things like increased use of acetaminophen by pregnant women,and increased maternal obesity while pregnant.Both of which have been documented to be linked to autism,ADHD,and learning disabilities.
Things like autism and ADHD are congenital (present at birth),but not always caused by true genetic defects.
I think a homeschooled child who took and passed the necessary exams here in the US would be eligible to go to college but I'm going to check with the spousal unit (my in-house source for all matters educational, at least in the state of Illinois).
However -- all of this is moot since public universities in the US have for years...YEARS...made proof of vaccination a condition for admission. It is not a new requirement.
So children unlucky enough to have been raised by anti-vaxx parents are going to have to get vaccinated for college anyway, at age 18, which will not be pleasant for them.
Oppositional defiance disorder?
As soon as "they" tell me I have to do what I am already doing I won't do it anymore so there, phhhhbt, na nee na nee boo boo *holds breath*!
@ shay, publicly-funded unis also accept PBEs/RBEs where applicable. And I guess in CA, non-medical exemptions won't be accepted at any colleges or unis.
Gray Falcon @ 613
I am sure there are many of the conservative/libertarian mindset who would argue that child labor laws were restrictive,bad for the economy,and the repeal of said laws.
Oh wait. There are.
There are those who argue that laws preventing a seven day workweek are bad, too. One of them is the governor of Wisconsin.
Op-ed just out from a California pediatric ENT specialist, warning of the danger of faux medical exemptions in the wake of the passage of SB277.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-win-for-vaccines-but-worries-remain-14376…
No mention of Bob Sears, but a certain Santa Monica pediatrician familiar to readers of this blog is quoted.
Looks like it could be an interesting piece, DB, but I don't get the WSJ so can't read the link.
Wow... learned a lot in this last round.
Apparently "effectively mandatory" is a big concept, and in the bit headed mind something can only be "mandatory or not".
So, if at a job a lady is threatened with termination of employment and blacklisting in her field for not going on a date with the boss, the "choice" is hers, and any intimacy leveraged by "consequences" is still "consent".
The inner workings of the liberal mind never cease to amaze.
Also learned that home schooling results in a lousy education when every last comparison reveals the opposite is true. To reduce the chance of some lunatic bringing up so-called "white privilege" I'll start with this example:
http://eagnews.org/study-black-home-schooled-students-outperform-white-…
...and from this you'll see that may be more a case of "off the government crack" privilege.
Also learned that without a "Nanny State" our children are all doomed to work in textile mills. That's a good one.
I've also learned about the apparent merit of taking short cuts by categorically dismissing facts by making simple declarations about "credibility", followed by mention of one or another name heralded both as primarily responsible for anti-vax arguments and at the top of their class in the field of general idiocy.
Well, anyway, if that's the only game the Borg Bingo crowd can manage, let's draw a name from the hat and start with one of your favorite targets of disdain, Dr. Mercola.
Please do share example of what he claimed that should render all other claims and statements invalid. I'll play along. I know he's been "called out" for the evil plot to sell vitamins, and I've been "ratted out" for the audacity of subscribing to his free newsletter. So let's unravel some of the great "lies" that might have me second guess any doctor's "dishonest" viewpoints.
Convince me that he's the "quack" and not you. Than perhaps I can be rescued from "the cage" of what for now, I'll call "being better informed."
Should be fun for you all, since since you all love that Borg Bingo.
"Should be fun for you all, since since you all love that Borg Bingo." (apologies for "since since"... as far as I can tell there's no "EDIT" utility on this particular comment engine)
Please take this as substitute. "Should be fun for you all, since you all love that Borg Bingo."
I like starting here:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/12/273-joseph-joe-mercola.html
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
Eric, what you just described represents criminal sexual harassment, not a legal condition of employment (mandatory or otherwise).
Given your earlier remarks equating vaccination to rape, I suppose I'm shouldn't be surprised you're confusing the two concepts.
What are you talking about? How did you get there? Your example is nonsensical.
I was homeschooled, Eric H, along with all of my siblings. At age 10 I was sent to a real school, a boarding school, abroad for the first time. Though I could speak three languages fluently and was well ahead of the curve with respect to reading, I was way behind on math. All of my siblings were sent to school when they reached 10 or so and all struggled on the academic front in some way in the first year.
Every single kid I knew who grew up as I did (and I know quite a few) was hit with major academic challenges once they stepped outside of the homeschool world.
What the hell does this have to do with public health regulations at all?? It's very telling that you are always referring choices women have to make...why is that?
The rest of your post is just the saddest attempt at trolling ever. It's almost pitiful that you think you can distract from your obvious failures here by just spewing out Fox News talking points.
@Eric H.
I see that you still are refusing to provide evidence to support your claims. Why is that? Do you not have any evidence? Are your claims merely your personal opinion and speculation?
AdamG... so glad you're back. As I may have mentioned I'm here to advocate a pro choice position with respect to vaccines. Folks here seem to have trouble understanding the concept and importance of consent. Some have gone so far as to imply that unless we're strapped down and pricked with needles we still enjoy the "status quo" of "choice". So it would be my hope that providing relatable examples of coercion that eliminates any real "choice" might help cure some of the epidemic of cognitive dissonance on this thread.
Didn't see you at the party... guess you didn't get the E-Vite?
Well anyway we'll have to set up a get together some other time.
Todd W...
Not sure if this gal holds adequate credential of she's already been published on the master list of "quacks", but this lady's open letter seems to present lots of detailed information.
http://circleofdocs.com/harvard-trained-immunologist-demolishes-califor…
Let me know what you think and which of any points presented might either be refuted or whether the more usual smear concerning her credentials and credibility might be the better way to respond!
You do realize your example could only be relatable to you if you were the boss in that scenario right?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/12/273-joseph-joe-mercola.html
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html
Are there some parents that can effectively home school, yes.
However that doesn't take away from far too many who seem to be home schooling specifically for purposes of selective ignorance and once you start with they can't learn this and they can't learn that how are you sure they teach the few things they will allow them to learn to the level expected of those entering college?
'Round 'ere sadly we've had a few cases of home schooling with no evidence of course work ever have been attempted apparently to ensure the child is not seen by anyone with a mandatory requirement to report abuse. A situation that sometimes allows the child to be isolated from other people enough that it takes a few months before they are reported as missing and by then the body tends to be really hard to find.
Here you go.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-does-this-immunologist-reject-…
I understand (don't agree with, but understand) arguments from people who don't want to immunize their very young children. What's the object to immunizing college age young adults?
And another.
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/appeal-to-false-…
Folks here seem to have trouble understanding the concept and importance of consent.
The legal concept of consent is well established and well understood by everyone posting here (except for you). Humpty-dumptyism will get you called out on this board.
As I may have mentioned I’m here to advocate a pro choice position with respect to vaccines.
Not according to your first several posts, no.
JGC,
Whether the barrel of gun is pressed against forehead with threat of pulled trigger, or one's future is threatened with job loss and no food on the table, the essential and fundamental right of consent is betrayed just the same.
So whether one is injected at gun point, or with draconian "consequences" to face, as if "choosing" to pass were some sort of criminal act in defiance of an infallible authority, there's still a real issue of consent. Anyone still remember the "my body my choice" mantra once favored by the "women's health issues" groups? Somehow it doesn't seem we hear that one so much any more.
@Eric H.
Do you have a source that I could actually access without having to register? Or, even better, some published studies that support your assertions? I mean, you have actually read primary resources rather than simply relying on second-hand interpretations of said resources, right?
Oh, and also, Eric H., the only one in this thread that seems to misunderstand the whole consent angle is you. No matter how much you might torture logic to try making it fit your worldview, your position is still at odds with reality.
Eric H, we're all friends here -- tell us why women make you so angry, hon. We'll listen.
the more usual smear concerning her credentials and credibility
It's no smear to point out that her definition of immunology falls outside the medical consensus. It's no smear to point out that she misinterpreted the results of the Bangladeshi study. It's no smear to point out that her assertions that allergies don't develop from exposure to allergens alone is completely unsubstantiated by any research..
And of course the CDC is a trustworthy agency that, just like the rest of government, is just here to help people...
http://www.infowars.com/cdc-suggests-mothers-delay-breastfeeding-to-enh…
Anyone here think "delayed breastfeeding" is a good idea? Just asking about the content... save the standard smear concerning the source for another hour.
There are lots of jobs out there that don't require proof of vaccination.
Eric: you seem to have problems with "choice" and "the results of that choice". I can CHOOSE to not get vaccinated or to get vaccinated. I have to accept the RESULTS of that choice (not allowed public schooling or allowed).
This has NOTHING to do with "My body, my choice" - which only affects the woman (and no, a blastocyst is NOT a baby). A woman can CHOOSE to carry a pregnancy to term, she can choose to give that child up for adoption or keep the child. She can also CHOOSE to terminate the pregnancy. In all cases, SHE has to accept the results. However, her choice does not affect general society in most cases.
Geez. Another snowflake who doesn't understand consent.
http://www.mercola.com/article/vaccines/neurological_damage.htm
Everything in here.
It's also no smear to point out that she believes that homeopathy works. That right there destroys any claim she may have to credibility.
Relying on an "immunologist" who can't even properly identify the parts of the immune system doesn't speak highly of your credibility to evaluate scientific information.....
Eric H:
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcbreastfeeding.asp
http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/07/23/stanford-researchers-analyze-c…
Please, please, PLLLLEEEEAAASSSSEEEE.
Bring back preview or add an edit function.
Oh really sunshine? Infowars told you so and you're dumb enough to repeat it as a fact? Why don't you find the actual CDC source that states this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33641939
After decades of research.....finally!
@Science Mom
You'd think that after it's been pointed out repeatedly how unreliable his "sources" are he'd go to primary sources, rather than relying on second-hand biased misrepresentations of said primary sources.
So Eric H, now that you understand that the CDC is not recommending delayed breastfeeding, and that Infowars is wrong, I'll answer your question, <Anyone here think “delayed breastfeeding” is a good idea? Just asking about the content… save the standard smear concerning the source for another hour.
If the science was there to support it, and infants were capable of being fed with pumped milk or properly-prepared formula made with clean water for the duration, then yes, I would. But you see, nobody is suggesting that this be on some official agenda, or even that it's a slam dunk. If you understood how to evaluate scientific papers, you'd know that.
Do you understand why Infowars and other shill/altie blogs twisted that one around?
Two part question for Eric.
Did you ever come here much before posting in this thread? You keep linking to sites like Mercola and Info Wars.Are you aware of what the opinion is around here of such sites,and the credibility of same?
Delphine... Your name doesn't ring any bells, so in spite of our being "friends here", I'm not so sure if we'd been on a date or anything like that in the years before family life. I always favored the highly intelligent prospects for most dating, so it strikes me as otherwise unlikely absent other compelling attributes.
Anyway if you have otherwise come to know me well enough to diagnose a "loathing of women other than the aforementioned immunology specialist" I must have somehow managed to keep quite a secret from family and friends.
I think you might have missed a few Dr. Laura podcasts if you honestly think there's some way for folks to suppress "who they really are" after a year or two of courtship much less a decade of happy matrimony.
Roger Kulp, I suppose I could have taken the proposal directly from CDC website. But generally I'm not as concerned for "the source" as for the substance. So I'd not spend much time chastising folks for posting from whatever resource they feel presents a notion to be entered in discussion.
But still I'd have to assume given the tight knit community here of highly collaborated thought, your input can be taken as representative. And so I'll do my best to limit links to whatever list of approved link sources whenever possible.
Like the ability to not blow beer through my nose while you mansplain leftist fascism and informed consent?
That's what mandatory means.
Blackmail, coercion and harassment are all illegal, so no.
But nobody is blackmailing, coercing or harassing you to vaccinate anyway. So it's irrelevant.
What's happening here is that under the law you have two choices. You dislike some things about both. Where's the mandate?
Delphine!
OK that's actually funny. Such wit requires intelligence, so apologies for having underestimated you on that measure!
Given that the only source for this seems to be Mercola, who merely cites "Richard Pan Facebook," perhaps Eric could arse himself to go find the permalink.
ann...
"coercion and harassment" have been made "legal" by Dick Pan's law. So that's the whole point. I'm advocating for consent less coercion and less harassment... less "conditions" and less "consequences". You're either for or against harassment and coercion, so if you're not on the wrong side, please won't you consider joining in this noble cause to repeal SB277.
Narad... seriously? I did not source this from Mercola... and in fact I have a screen shot from Pan's own FB page! Are you suggesting these are not his own words?
But Eric H. --
The CDC is not suggesting delaying breastfeeding.
Unambiguously. There is no such suggestion being made. It takes approximately two-and-a-half minutes to ascertain that. And your source didn't bother doing it.
Doesn't that reflect poorly on the source?
@Narad
If he were to use primary sources, he might find that Dr. Pan is not the original source of that quote at all. His whole worldview would be shattered.
The source matters. Always consider the source.
The CDC doesn't recommend delayed breastfeeding. They either do or they don't, it's not an opinion or a belief. 60 seconds on Gazoogle would have told you that they don't, therefore, this Infowars story is bunk.
How? It doesn't exist sh!twit.
Oh how rich. Sources are everything because they determine the substance. Seriously are you a Poe?
ann... if Infowars misrepresented that, I'm a little surprised, but I'll call it good news if CDC is not making such an absurd recommendation.
Todd W.
I was on his FB page, engaging in debate (doesn't seem that unlikely a scenario to you does it?) and was ultimately scrubbed and blocked.
It appears by the hash tags this was also a statement he Tweeted.
I literally took and have a screen shot of this post made June 9 at 11:30am.
The fact that there is such an inclination to deny the legitimacy of Dr. Pan's own post, indicates that you agree with me how ridiculous it all is.
Perhaps you need to understand this SB277 a bit better and the men and motives behind it.
@Eric H
Are you sure it wasn't him sharing or quoting someone else who said that? Care to post the screenshot where we can see it an evaluate it for ourselves? (I ask because there is a source that has that quote, verbatim, from someone other than Dr. Pan, and pre-dating your claimed post.)
Science Mom...
No... facts stand or fall on merit. Categoric dismissal based on whatever assessment of credibility of source is a short cut. Sometimes short cuts are taken reasonably to manage time.
But anyway here we are with Dr. Pan's own words being 2nd guessed. Perhaps he's the one with the biggest a credibility problem since his own supporters don't even believe his own words.
For a "mom" with "science" as part of your alter-ego here, you don't seem to be all that scientific in your thought process. But anyway keep doing your best, and not all of your contributions are awful.
Is anyone else considering taking up heavy drinking right now?
Todd W.
Still amazing that such dedicated supporters don't seem to believe his own words from his own post on his own FB page.
Don't have a good FTP tool handy so I just pushed it up this location on FB:
https://www.facebook.com/smartmeteraction/photos/a.1005656736132809.107…
If he took this back down from his FB page I guess he second guessed his own statement. Appears to have been tweeted too, but I've not yet searched to see if it shows there.
Meanwhile, for someone whose initials are "eh," you seem to be living up to expectations.
Richard Smith
"eh"? Does that make me Canadian?
@Eric H
Dr. Pan did not write that. He is quoting someone else. You missed the quotation marks around his post. Maybe you should try looking for the original source, then when you find it, admit that you were mistaken.
Only a little? Does this mean you're not that surprised that InfoWars makes things up? If so, why is it that your "intellectual curiosity" didn't propel you to actually verify what the CDC recommended?
This is plainly false, as you originally identified it as a spoken remark.
@Eric H
And, while you're admitting your mistake about Dr. Pan being the author of those words, you can admit that you are wrong about the CDC's breastfeeding recommendations. And, well, just about everything else you've said.
Todd W... actually he put it in quotes... without crediting another speaker, so perhaps the script was written for him. He never struck me as all that much of a wordsmith. Certainly his post does two things... indicates endorsement, and that it reflects his understanding of the purpose of SB277.
I hope not.
What specifically do you believe the purpose of SB277 to be?
NO
Yes, alleged facts stand or fall on whether they are actually facts. If the claim is "Pan said Absurd Thing," it matters whether you can show me actual evidence that he said that, rather than "someone else who doesn't like him said that he said this."
On that basis--accepting alleged hearsay--I could claim "Eric H. said that he doesn't care about choice other than the 'choice' not to vaccinate children" and expect everyone to accept that without even asking me when/where you said it. I may *suspect* that you don't actually care about abortion rights, or about the right of people [of every gender] to say no to sex, but as far as I know you haven't said those things.
@Eric H
No interest in finding the original source of the quote? It isn't hard. But then, why bother? You simply accept whatever InfoWars or Mercola tell you without verifying with original sources.
And perhaps the reason he removed the quote is because while he agreed with the first part, he disagreed with the latter part. My speculation cancels out your speculation.
Delphine,
"Is anyone else considering taking up heavy drinking right now?"
Maybe a bit later this evening... if any of y'all are in or around Dublin CA let's settle this whole thing with proper libations at Lazy Dogs.
Why just "agree to disagree" when we can celebrate diversity of ideas over martinis.
And if things got ugly, there's really nothing like a good bar fight to settle any remaining differences of opinion once the liquor ran out. ;c)
It does not surprise me one bit that you are so quick to jump to violence, even 'in jest.'
Have your fists worked for you other times you started not feeling not so smart?
Todd W... I know of at least one person on the thread that can ask Dr. Pan himself who said it first. But there is obviously no doubt that he posted on his FB and probably Twittered the words too without bothering to attribute the words to someone else, nor qualify the comment otherwise. Maybe Liz Ditz can enlighten us?
Eric H appears to be unable to address any concerns or questions raised about what he has presented by the rest of us......
AdamG... I'd not actually ever been in a bar fight. If you honestly think that for a man to even "jest" about a bar fight indicates all that other nonsense about "quick jump to violence", and using "fists" when "not feeling so smart", it may be time to have your hormone levels checked.
@Lawrence
He seems rather afraid of checking his own facts. I wonder why...
@Eric H
BTW, still waiting for you to answer the questions posed back at comment #590.
Lawrence,
Is the question about being "pro choice" with vaccines? Or did you need me to help you with some insufficiency of understanding on well documented vaccine injury cases, or about the theory of "herd immunity"? I'm mostly here to forward the "pro choice" position, but I'll do my best to help with the other stuff once I return. (might have to clock out for a while to attend to other responsibilities)
Yes, we really do! I genuinely want you to attempt to teach us about those things.
Oh, good. Err ick is going to come back and teach us all about herd immunity.
Eric H: To disprove herd immunity, you would have to prove than diseases do not, in fact, spread.
But generally I’m not as concerned for “the source” as for the substance
The source is what tells you whether or not the substance is wrong. This is why the people who post on this board always go for the sources. It's considered pretty important, in scientific fields.
Did you bother to read the paper on herd immunity that I recommended? Actually, have you bothered to read any of the information that you've been directed towards?
I’m mostly here to forward the “pro choice” position
Then your job is done, as everyone here accepts that California, Missouri and West Virginia allow parents to choose whether or not to vaccinate.
@Delphine #677 Delphine
Airplane!: Steve McCroskey: Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit drinking.
Not sure if I presently have the expertise much less funding to "disprove" your understanding of "herd immunity". But anyway, I'm hoping this link has what you might accept as good information and the start of a discussion.
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/06/the-misunderstood-theory-of-h…
And to counter:
http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/protection/index.html
Eric H: Allow me to explain "herd immunity" to you. A single wooden building in a block of stone buildings may catch fire, but it's not likely to do so from one of it's neighbors.
http://www.cdc.gov/scienceambassador/lesson-plans/2013-herd-immunity.pdf
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full
And perhaps Eric shouldn't rely on "opinion" pieces & instead go right to the actual science.
@Eric H.
Well, one problem I see right off the bat is that it seems to state that herd immunity is only related to vaccination. It's not. It has to do with, wait for it....immunity!
And the threshold for achieving herd immunity depends on the disease.
As for how diseases spread, I was standing in abject horror just yesterday at a local Cheesecake Factory. A gal working with the desserts, was consistently coughing into her shirt collar (as if that kept the germs from her hand that was pressing collar to face). She then took a cup of hot water she had apparently been drinking and removed the straw and lid... then put on the nozzle of the espresso machine's steamer to rewarm this water. This was all performed immediately above a tray of prepared strawberries for cheesecakes or whatever other desserts.
The coughing continued. Once another employee brought my order, she just had to jump in to place her, as yet, still unwashed hands (although there was a sink within 3 steps) to participate in folding the cardboard box around the dessert.
I alerted a manager, and he of course assured me he would "talk with her". Frankly she should have been sent home till she's better, reassigned to different tasks outside of food prep areas, or fired. I was pressed for time so I didn't have opportunity to sit and wait to see what happened, and for each instance where this kind of stuff goes on in plain site, there have to be countless unnoticed transgressions.
We live in a world gone mad where basic sense of germ management practices have been lost. Instead of parents raising kids to be careful not to spread germs and develop good habits for food handling and such, we have signs in bathrooms to inform "employees must wash hands before returning to kitchen".
Not sure how many shots are going to save us all from the next outbreak, nor how many countless new vaccines might "herd immune" us from every threat, but it seems a rather hopeless cause.
As another commenter on this thread indicated... a million a day "come here" (less proper immigration protocols and health screening) and so "good luck with that" was the closing remark.
I'm pretty sure all of us here want our own kids safe from any and all illness and especially the life wrecking diseases.
However many shots and however many vaccine injuries we accept as collateral damage in the battle for "greater good", we need to do a better job leveraging the older invention of soap, sanitary conditions, and common sense if we're to have chance of preserving good health.
@Lawrence
But reading primary sources is haaard! And besides, the facts stand or fall on their own merit. Eric doesn't have to check to see if the opinion pieces are valid. He can just regurgitate whatever crap he swallows and let others do the work that he should be doing himself.
Maybe this would be easier for Eric H to understand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ5PKxavM3c
I'd love to know what massive improvement in sanitation occurred in India, where tens of millions still lack indoor plumbing, that allowed Polio to be eradicated there in less than a decade.
Perhaps Eric can enlighten us?
Excellent replies... all those "dot gov" sites and of course we know that in the Brave New World that central planners are the real keepers of "science". Still anyway if there are any specific points that were false in the material I presented, do let me know which. Otherwise, I can certainly manage peruse the promotional pieces offered by the vaccine makers and their pet government bureaucrats.
we need to do a better job leveraging the older invention of soap, sanitary conditions, and common sense if we’re to have chance of preserving good health.
The older invention of soap, sanitary conditions and common sense did not prevent widespread childhood diseases prior to the introduction of the chicken pox, MMR and other vaccines.
Those of us born in the 1950's can testify to that.
I'd be interested in learning how any of these would prevent infection with, say, measles. (Hint: before you answer, learn how and when measles spreads)
Eric, how were smallpox and rinderpest eradicated?
@Eric H
Oh, so all of a sudden the source matters to you? I thought the facts stand or fall on their own merits.
The government also says you shouldn't drink oven cleaner. Does that mean it's really a miracle cure?
Shay...
What a great prank. You actually got me to watch that one... and now it's up to 57 views!
Excellent replies
None of which you bothered to read.
You'll watch a YouTube video but you can't be bothered to read a six page article from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Why?
Eric, sarcasm aside, I think you genuinely do want to learn more about public health, I just think you've come to trust opinion-based sources who are misleading you rather than trusting the actual scientific facts. If you are at all interested in learning about the next genuine threat to public health, I think you would gain a lot from reading about multidrug resistance:
http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/about.html
Eric, what consequence of failing to consent to vaccination does SB277 mandate that rise to the level of being comparable to a gun being put to one's head?
Given that the CDC does not recommend women delay breastfeeding, no Eric--you could not have done so.
Gray Falcon
No I've not run into any vitamin supplement conspirators to counter whichever official government warning about oven cleaner you'd like to cite. So I'll trust you and the "dot gov" on that for now.
Yeah, Eric is wallowing in his own ignorance....it must be so much easier for him to be told what to believe by folks like Mercola than to think for himself (or better yet, read the actual articles we've provided).
I also didn't realize that the Oxford Journals was considered a "government entity."
JGC.
Yes of course. I believe I addressed that matter in an earlier reply. I also expressed relief that the CDC apparently is not making such an absurd recommendation as indicated by the 3rd party link. Thanks for the reminder.
Don't you know, Lawrence, that the CDC's power is so great that it forces even a British university to "tow" the line?
Lawrence... Since long before the Michael Hastings amazing fireball "journalists" are not quite what they once were.
More real science on antibiotic resistance from a source that has no government connection:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOFf9FjglM0
So you admit that you didn't actually read the article....good to know.
JGC.. that's not the comparison I made. Try again.
Eric H: I'll just post a youtube video saying oven cleaner is a miracle cure for you, then.
Eroic, I've got a question.
You've repeatedly stated you're here to "advocate for a pro choice position with resepct to vaccines", but as i pointed out previously that's the position our scoiety currently adopts, and I'm aware of no push to abandon it. If you don't wish to have yourself (unless you're an active member of the nations armed forces, in which case you've voluntarily waived a number of vested rights) or your children vaccinated, you can choose not to.
Why do you believe it's necessary to actively advocate we adopt what is in fact the status quo?
“journalists” are not quite what they once were.
Who's talking about journalists? The authors of that article are researchers with the Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. It was published in one of many scientific periodicals put out by the Oxford University Press.
Orac writes (#577),
You’re on automatic moderate.
MJD says,
Approve or reject each comment I submit, I'm sure it had to come to this eventually.
Why is the Science-blog Respectful Insolence like herd immunity?
Resistance is futile.
No, I'm just tired of your latex/vaccine/autism obsession. Some cranks are interesting, but you're not because you're so relentlessly one-note. Everyone's bored with you, myself included. You bring nothing even remotely interesting to the conversation when you rant on and on about latex and vaccines.
Shay...
"None of which you bothered to read."
Perhaps I should. I'll take a break from the interactive delight for a bit to catch up on the generous supply of links.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can explore the other points of view (either from the selections I offered or by balanced research to hear out both sides).
Nothing wrong with learning.
Eric H -- you don't seem to grasp that you are not the first (or even the one hundred and first) science deniers to show up here. All of the sources you cite and all of their opinions are old news to the other posters here.
Face it -- you brought a squirt gun to an artillery engagement.
Grey Falcon... #735.
if you find or produce your own Youtube on that subject, and submit link with your own endorsement, I'll certainly pop up some popcorn and do my best to sit through and then return comment.
That was sarcasm. My point is this: Anybody can publish a Youtube video. It doesn't have to be accurate. You need to actually check your sources for error or bias first. You are, quite bluntly, far more credulous than any of us are. We actually bothered to check sources outside the US government. British universities, and even countries that would gain an advantage by discrediting us! Unlike you, who just swallows someone you feeds your "I don't wanna!" philosophy.
Shay #739... hillarious. OK I'll drop the squirt gun and come back with a Nerf blaster! Either way I'm rather certain I'll still prevail in a battle against your Bingo chips in demonstrating that there's no collectivist body that has rights to inject stuff in mine less coercion and "consequence" free consent.
Eric H: Nobody was doing that in the first place.
They didn't just misrepresent it. They completely invented it. And that should not be surprising to you or to anyone. They do it all the time.
Gray Falcon,
Anyone can also pop the popcorn, and then watch a video to decide if it is worthy of sharing and whether it contains any useful information.
When posts do not, folks would be well within their rights to list and smash any lies and falsehoods complete with the reference to the time it appeared in the clip (to save folks from having to find these themselves).
You're welcome to do that with Silent Epidemic or any other documentary. You're also welcome just to smear the producer and his motives, but that isn't quite as helpful to anyone that is mostly concerned the facts as presented and less with the awe and splendor of the usual response favored by leftists "oh that guy sucks so therefore the whole thing documentary is hereby dismissed!"
Sorry Eric, you don't have the right to be exempt from the responsibilities of public life yet still reap the benefits. How many cars would you sell if there were no public roads or highways?
Ann,
If they invent and misrepresent all the time, any subsequent items should be cross checked before sharing, and you won't see another link from that source posted by me without taking that step.
So anyway I again and pleased to learn that the CDC didn't make such an absurd recommendation.
I am still hoping for details about those
Is it possible to point to archived copies of these scrubbed CDC stats within the Internet Archive? Or is the Internet Archive itself part of the conspiracy?
AdamG
I've never objected much to the social program of public roads.
Still if it were not for an overabundance of central planning, cars would likely fly and we'd not much care whether or not public or private roads otherwise paved the way.
You know what? Let's talk science. I'll bite. 48:04.
The claim is that SV40 from polio vaccines causes widespread pediatric cancer.
This claim is patently false:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?volume=279&page=292
Your turn.
Oh dear G-d, the hilarity, it's painful.
KayMarie: When Orac hears about this, the sh!t's going to hit the fan.
(i LOVE that film) <3
Assuming "herd immunity theory" were "settled science", 100% is not a requirement to achieve those ends. And we've always gotten along with a wide range of exemptions including religious beliefs. As pointed out in a pro vaccination article I recently linked, the "desired result" by that theory of more participation may have been harmed and not helped by the strong public reaction to SB722 and the "consequences" to to push shots.
AdamG... now that I can work with. I'm starting to have even more respect for you sir. I will look at that and meanwhile any other examples. I will include that in my reading time-out (upon return from other responsibilities)
Well, if that's the case, then I would expect that a new "larger" outbreak would also accomplish the same goal (though with much more suffering attached to it), since it has been shown that vaccine uptake increases whenever an outbreak occurs.
In my case, I would prefer that people make the right decision and be proactive, instead of waiting until the fox is already in the hen house.
Sadly, that link is full of untruths and disingenuous rhetoric.
Examples of the former:
It repeatedly states that vaccination rates have to be 95 percent to achieve herd immunity. That's untrue, and also nonsensical. There's no single threshold. It depends on the disease.
It also states that since most vaccines wear off in two to ten years, the 25 to 40 percent of the population that's made up of baby boomers has been unprotected for the last 40 years. Every part of that is flatly untrue.
It also states that China has 99 percent coverage for measles, but there are still outbreaks. That's both untrue and lazy. There's a paper listing the true rates and explaining the outbreaks right here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/15/23
The main piece of disingenuous rhetoric that caught my eye was this one, because it's an evergreen:
^^The gambit is basically "the author uses his/her ignorance as a proximate occasion for making it look like something suspicious is occurring by asking foolish questions instead of taking the trouble to understand his/her subject."
One sees it frequently.
Bollocks! If you think that, you haven't been paying attention.
There are undoubtedly problems with compliance (often due to "managers" who care only about rolling in the money and so ignore or even actively suppress safe practices), but there has been vast research and surveillance in safe food handling. Practices that were common in days gone by would get food processing or service operations shut down today - provided libertarian and conservative idiots haven't cut the inspection agencies to the bone, or given in to corporate interests and loosened regulations. Researchers have carefully evaluated all manner of important but mundane things such as hand washing methods and effectiveness of waterless hand sanitizers. Guides are carefully authored and published. But managers fail to do their part.
A great deal of the problem with sick food service workers in the US is that governments have failed to protect such workers. Most have no sick leave benefits and many barely make enough money to survive when everything goes well. They go to work sick because they can't afford to take time off or will get fired if they do stay home. Business interests prevail and the public is put at risk because of it.
Drop over to The Pump Handle blog right here at Science Blogs. Head over to Mike the Mad Biologist's blog. Issues of workers and public health are frequent topics.
@Eric H (749):
That thing that just zipped by way overhead? That's not a flying car, it's the point.
OK I’ll drop the squirt gun and come back with a Nerf blaster!
You'd still be outgunned.
Either way I’m rather certain I’ll still prevail in a battle against your Bingo chips in demonstrating that there’s no collectivist body that has rights to inject stuff in mine less coercion and “consequence” free consent.
You haven't demonstrated that anybody wants to.
Ain't that the truth!
He's kind of like a creationist who shows up for the first time at PZ's main blog, or any of a number of other science blogs, and wonders why he's being getting the short and extremely sharp treatment. In relative terms, Eric has been positively coddled here.
Not the sharpest watermelon in the bin, is he?
In relative terms, Eric has been positively coddled here.
I know. Narad must be feeling really mellow this week.
My religious beliefs forbid me from wearing clothes in public, mowing my lawn in any month that doesn't have an R in it, or paying property taxes (property is theft; property tax is tax on theft; taxing theft makes theft morally acceptable; ergo, property tax causes bank robberies), and requires me to play Tales From Topographic Oceans at high volumes in my back yard from 2 AM to 3:23 AM. I am looking for the correct form to submit before my court date.
JGC @608: You are right, that was a cheap shot and I apologize.
I don't know much (anything) about what conditions would necessitate an IEP, so I guessed. Thank you for letting me know I was wrong. It's one of the best things about this blog, I am always learning things.
@Eric H #624
"Please do share example of what he claimed that should render all other claims and statements invalid." - referring to Mercola
Well, I'm late to the party, but how about reading his own website?
"Mercola.com makes no representation as to how complete, accurate, or current any information is on this Website." - a direct quote from his terms and conditions page.
Mercola tells you that even he won't stand behind his claims - isn't that sufficient to invalidate them?
What a right load of bollocks you ponce. I looked up the primary literature, not you and saw it was total rubbish and didn't categorically dismiss it. Now by your pretzel logic, you shouldn't lend any credibility to InfoWars since they flat-out lied about a CDC recommendation to withhold breastfeeding after vaccination and that goes for anything else InfoWars puke up. The CDC mostly gets things right but they aren't a source to be trusted according to you. Quite some mental gymnastics on your part.
It seems as though they aren't Dr. Pan's words, although I don't disagree with them. That's not the point, the point is is that you are a moron who just regurgitates sh!tty sources and then tries to just hand-wave it away.
Neither are a part of my alter ego, I am a scientist (infectious diseases) and a mum. But I'm just giddy that such a massive intellectual stud such as you and so keen in recognising intelligence in others would deign to note that some of my contributions are worthy of your attention.
Now that I've just made myself puke in my mouth a bit, perhaps you'd like to move along to "teaching" us about herd immunity theory (I had asked you to use Rhinderpest as an example previously) and try some intellectual honesty by admitting that your sources and you are wrong about your claims.
This is also an Eric gem that's a keeper. Now why would someone who thumbs his nose at vaccines and can't wrap his wee head around herd immunity theory have any problem whatsoever with some germies near his food? Vaccines are "germ management practices" FFS.
There is no such thing as "herd immunity theory" because herd immunity isn't a theory, it's a term used to describe a natural phenomenon that was observed before most of the vaccines we use today were even invented. Sheesh, can't people be bothered to so much as skim the Wikipedia entries of some of these basic concepts before they start playing immunology amateur hour?
Wikipedia is a government plot, obviously.
sell Science Mom...
Whatever transgressions, attributing a post on Dr. Pan's FB page to Dr. Pan hardly seems all that outrageous. Whether his words or words he felt compared to share, it was certainly his post and that, my friend was the "sh@#ty source" in this instance.
Which you didn't even bother to verify before repeating it. Which makes you the sh*tty shource.
I live a sheltered life and had never come across the concept of "nursery water" before. In retrospect, though, it makes perfect sense that grifters would be selling distilled water (a.k.a. rain) to the worried well who want to keep their infants in a bubble.
It also makes perfect sense that other grifters (with their own water filters to sell) would rant about "nursery water" being part of the Great Fluoride Conspiracy.
@hdb:
There is this video I watched during an ill-advised pointing-and-laughing-at-Mike-Adams binge with an engineering student friend over the holidays; he rants about fluoridated water for babies therein. Also "gangsta rap coloring books."
Adams (I suspect) is upset about all the money flowing into the pockets of the Nursery Water grifters, because that money should be flowing into his pockets.
Just imagine what would happen if I shipped Adams the leftover boxes of Pengy the Penguin flu shot coloring books we have littering up the 4th floor storage room.
Eric--
By your logic, I can hold *you* to the words of that quote from Dr. Pan's Facebook oage, since you felt compelled to share it here.
Or, you could consider that it's worth reading closely and seeing whether someone has written "I think this" or "I read an article that says this, opinions?" or "I read an article that says this ridiculous thing, which is wrong for the following reasons."
I mean, why would anyone want special water for their special snowflake children when there is beer?
We-ell.
I already pointed out that the video purportedly tying Jennifer Hibben-White to big pharma was smoke and mirrors.
But I'd like to urge you to think about what that means, to wit:
She's just an ordinary person, same as you. She's concerned about her child's health, same as you. She says as much, having a right to her own opinion, same as you.
And then your sources research her family and launch a very public, totally false smear campaign against her that she'll likely have to live with for the rest of her life, all because they don't happen to agree with what she said but can't refute it directly.
Speaking of the persecution of innocent, ordinary citizens by unscrupulous parties dedicated to the pursuit of power and profit.
I'm just saying. That's not my idea of freedom.
Nursery water is a thing. You know, for when you just haven't spent enough money on all of the parenting accoutrements.
@hdb
4 year old Delpihinette loves a sip of beer, but only if it's "very very VERY cold."
*Delphinette
I can't even spell my kid's own fake name.
Must be all that heavy drinking.
Snort.
We did just crack a bottle of Cab Sauv...
Hey Eric H, my 4 year old is getting vaccinated for yellow fever on Monday. Can you please find me some links that say it's a terrible thing?
I am not supposed to be drinking and haven't been (even though grr) but a girl asked me to a midnight movie tonight (Jodorowski's El Topo, so NOTHING ROMANTIC) and she is bringing a FLASK with bourbon in it and I am pretty sure I am going to drink some.
El Topo = Best Date Movie EVER.
El Topo is awesome, have you seen it previously? It's in Mr. Delphine's top 10.
Mmm, bourbon.
Nope, but I've seen The Holy Mountain and really liked it, because I am a weirdo. I did read a description of El Topo, and it seems pretty intense, which makes sense that this person would like it, since she likes to make jokes about her grandparents being Holocaust survivors and all of the unbelievable traumatic sh!t that happened to her when she was doing field work in Bishkek, which is to say that we get along PRETTY WELL.
I'm mildly jealous. It's a great film. Have some popcorn if you are partial and a little bourbon. And JP, FWIW, my 30s were better than my 20s. By a mile. My 40s better than my 30s so far, except I wish I had the energy....
@ JP:
Is that a date or a social studies assignment?
At any rate have fun- or whatever it is you have with films of that nature.
-btw- I saw 'Amy' which I enjoyed despite its depiction of her rapid descent into the lower depths. I keep unwittingly singing 'Rehab' this past week.
I'll shut up soon (maybe) but WE ARE GOING TO THE DRC IN SEPTEMBER AND I AM SO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Friday, everyone. :)
@Denice:
I see what you did there.
@#786 --
That's totally a date movie, if you have the perfect date.
Howard the Duck is a date movie if you have the perfect date.
@#791 --
I also saw Amy recently.
I'm not sure I'd really give it more than a big "it was okay, I guess." But it was very compelling, as was she. .
It's very catchy. It's a shame she she wouldn't go, go, go.
So sad.
Actually that was sort of a date movie altho' my companion came out of the theatre- in posh-ville yet- ranting;
"That f@cking POS father was no f@cking good, rotten, money hungry b@strd"
@#795 --
True that.
Vicky. I shared the post as made by Dr Pan. So interesting that his loyal fans are so embarrassed by his own post.
OK, I was working on and off on a reply to this:
Somehow, I hadn't seen this:
Well?
P.S. Dr. Joe Merkin was beaten to the punch by... think camera-review site.
# Eric H
I’ll start with this example:
http://eagnews.org/study-black-home-schooled-students-outperform-white-…
Eric,
You need to do your due diligence before supplying links.
1) That is a news release (advertisement) for the paper put out by the man who wrote the paper. Nothing wrong with this but he's unlikely to slag his own paper.
2) It is not a scientific paper. The actual paper is published in the Journal of School Choice which seems associated with a reputable publisher Taylor & Francis - Online but it has an Impact Factor of Zero (0) according to ResearchGate. That means, if anyone actually reads the journal they don't mention it in anything they publish. It's like a movie rating of no stars or even a minus star and a thumb's down.
4 It is behind a paywall so I cannot read the paper (and I, sure as hell, am not paying for a paper published in a journal with an Impact Factor of Zero).
4) The press release cited the Heartland Institute an organization that is infamous in the health field for its campaigns for the big tobacco companies denying any health risk from smoking and equally infamous in the climate denial field for vigorously denying that global warming is happening.
A reference to Heartland is an immediate red flag. It may be possible that they do some good research, but then, pigs may fly but they are very unlikely birds. Here is a great example of the Heartland Institute in action. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/04/477921/heartland-institute-…
Until you can supply us with something that we all can read with paying for the article then the arguement fails.
So many websites across the libertarian looniverse are repeating this argument, and not one of them can be arsed attributing the actual source. Imagine my sadness.
Orac #577, Michael J. Dochniak,
"(latex in vaccines causing autism)"
I don't know if Michael J. Dochniak is correct about that or not but latex in vaccines/injections can certainly cause allergic sensitization (development of latex allergy in a healthy non-allergic person).
It has been demonstrated that if there is enough allergen in a vaccine/injection to elicit a reaction, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH allergen to cause sensitization.
It is well known that most vaccines have enough allergen to cause elicitation of an allergic reaction and carry a warning. That is proof that they cause sensitization. But there is NO WARNING at all, that they can cause sensitization.
Since sensitization effects do not show up for a few weeks, it is very convenient for the FDA to sweep this under the rug.
So as Michael J. Dochniak wrote, it is good to see latex being removed from vaccines but NOTHING is being done about the numerous food proteins contaminating vaccines/injection, that has caused the food allergy epidemic.
Eric H. at # 693:
I actually don't spend much time (like 1x a week) on Dr Pan's Facebook page, so I am not completely au fait with any particular post or his attribution habits. (I just went to look. Seems like he puts an interesting segment from an article in quotes, and then puts the URL at the bottom of the post, so that readers can explore further, should they wish.) That's a pretty standard method it seems to me on FB -- post something in quotations and put the URL right afterward.
I don't remember that particular post, but I know I saw it in several places. It's a quotation from an article in Contemporary Pediatrics by a pediatrician who started his residency in 1954, which would make him (now) in his late 80s.
Another salient quote from that article:
Oh, and Eric: it took me less that 12 seconds to find the primary source for that quote.
Pro-tip: if you are tempted to believe everything in InfoWarrrrrrs and similar, try looking for the source documents and forming your own conclusions.
Ugh, now Vinu's back?
Orac put the our latex buddy on auto moderate, I think he should do the same for our 'food protein' friend.
Once I see a particular anti-vaccine lie or counterfactual assertion, I'm in the habit of creating a text file exploring the counterfactual and any relevant refutations. Saves brain space.
The "CDC discouraging breastfeeding to boost the efficacy of vaccines" is one. I copypasta it here for your use. Please feel free to copy it and use it as you see fit.
There are three alarmist articles (1,2, 3) circulating that claim the CDC encourages mothers not to breastfeed in order to "boost the efficacy of vaccines". All are tissues of misrepresentation and outright lies.
What the CDC actually says about breastfeeding and rotavirus for the US population:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/rota.html
"Breastfeeding does not appear to diminish immune response to rotavirus vaccine. Infants who are being breastfed should be vaccinated on schedule."
If you take the time to read the actual research the three alarmist articles are based on, "Inhibitory Effect of Breast Milk on Infectivity of Live Oral Rotavirus Vaccines" (link below), it is specific to the rotavirus vaccine and why the rotavirus vaccine is less effective in developing countries compared to the US.
"Rotavirus disease is responsible for an estimated 527,000 deaths per year worldwide, with >85% of these deaths occurring in low-income countries" -- that would certainly be a motivation to improve the efficacy of rotavirus vaccine in low-income countries.
The conclusion:
"Our findings indicate that the neutralizing activity of breast milk could be one of the many factors that might explain the lower observed immunogenicity and effectiveness of live oral rotavirus vaccines among children in developing countries. These data should encourage clinical trials to investigate whether delaying breast-feeding for a short period before and after giving the vaccine could reasonably improve the immune response and protective efficacy. Since all live oral rotavirus vaccines are potentially susceptible to interference from breast milk neutralizing activity and other factors such as maternal antibody and other enteric flora, a parenteral vaccine with nonliving rotavirus (eg, inactivated vaccine) should be pursued as an alternative that will provide an insurance policy to the global immunization agenda against rotaviruses."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704726/
A very snarky, but thorough, debunking of the Natural News article:
http://skepchick.org/2012/01/cdc-says-postpone-breastfeeding/
Quote:
"So there you go. There is nothing, not a single piece of evidence supporting the claim that the CDC recommends “delaying breastfeeding” in favor of vaccination. In fact, their website offers information and resources for breastfeeding including the APA and WHO’s recommendations to breastfeed for at least 12 and 24 months, respectively."
Another snarky response, with more science, from scientist and science-communicator Abbie Smith.
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2012/01/23/ntibodies-in-breast-milk/
Quote:
"But then you realize that what that asshole is saying can kill kids. And then you realize hes just some jackass bitching on the internet. He has no influence in Nicaragua or India. All he can do is write posts filled with indignant righteousness, hyperbolic vilification of his ‘enemies’, and such extreme idiocy Im assuming he wears velcro shoes, as there is no way someone who writes an article like that can handle shoelaces without harming himself and those around him. He is impotent."
---------
1. Ethan Huff, Natural News, CDC researchers say mothers should stop breastfeeding to boost 'efficacy' of vaccines, January 21, 2012 http://www.naturalnews.com/034722_breastfeeding_vaccines_CDC.html#ixzz3…
2. Kristen Michaelis, CDC Advises Delayed Breastfeeding to Boost Vaccine Efficacy, (No date, probably January 23, 2012)
http://www.foodrenegade.com/cdc-advises-delayed-breastfeeding-boost-vac…
3., no Author,Global Freedom Movement, CDC Recommends Mothers Stop Breastfeeding To Boost Vaccine Efficacy http://globalfreedommovement.org/cdc-stop-breastfeeding-boost-vaccine-e…
January 2015
I have an article in moderation on the fauxtroversy about breastfeeding and receipt of infant vaccines. It will take a while as it has >4 links.
Delphine #785,
"my 4 year old is getting vaccinated for yellow fever on Monday. Can you please find me some links that say it’s a terrible thing?"
I assume you have read the package insert:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedPr…
Here's something the FDA WON'T tell you:
If s/he is atopic, there is a high risk of developing egg allergy and/or gelatin allergy. I am not talking about having a reaction to the vaccine but developing an allergy anew. If s/he was delivered via c-section, the risk of developing allergy is higher.
If s/he has had lot of antibiotics, the risk of developing allergy is higher. Both affect gut microbiome, thus biasing towards Th2 type responses (allergy).
Preventing allergy:
A diet enriched with cocoa prevents IgE synthesis in a rat allergy model.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22342543
You could add cocoa to the child's diet pre-vaccination and maintain it for at least 4 weeks post vaccination and hope that helps. That seems to be the best you can do with our food protein contaminated vaccines.
Is s/he getting any other vaccines simultaneously?
My son developed multiple life-threatening food allergies from vaccines. Hope your child has better luck on this game of Russian roulette.
# Eric H
http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2015/06/the-misunderstood-theory-of-h…
well it looks a lot like crap to me. Did you read the Fine paper being "quoted" to use the term loosely. It does not really say what the author of the website article is saying.
We keep trying to tell you: Read the sources, you cannot trust the secondary sources. People misread, misunderstand and sometimes lie.
AdamG #805,
If you and Orac prefer latex and food protein contaminated vaccines, suit yourself. But Michael J. Dochniak and I (and hopefully most others) would prefer uncontaminated vaccines.
My thanks to Liz and HDB.
The only thing missing now is Eric H.'s screen shot.
The only thing missing now is Eric H.’s screen shot.
Comment #678.
So many websites across the libertarian looniverse are repeating this argument, and not one of them can be arsed attributing the actual source. Imagine my sadness.
The part I've been puzzling over is why the quote spreading across the looniverse starts with "it is time ...", excluding the "So maybe" that precedes " it is time ..." in the author's article.
To me the missing words make the statement sound much more authoritarian than the author intended it to be.
Should we assume that this is an oversight rather than a purposeful omission designed to raise the frothing level of the anti-vax conspiracy crowd to even higher levels?
Probably not.
This first paragraph of my comment above should have displayed as a quote from #802.
Sorry about that.
To me the missing words make the statement sound much more authoritarian than the author intended it to be.
Should we assume that this is an oversight rather than a purposeful omission designed to raise the frothing level of the anti-vax conspiracy crowd to even higher levels?
We should assume that it was Pan's own omission.
It might have something to do with his July 09 post on his "Dick Pan is a Bully and a Coward" FB page.
He added the picture from this article:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2015/07/09/ariana-grande-donut-l…
and commented that this was "Another example of liberals doing their best to spread their disease..."
He's obviously concerned about being infected by the liberal disease.and must have though the "gal" serving him might pass it along.
^ Blockquote fail, I hope, is obvious.
Ah, I see now, thanks. It is missing a bit of what was initially asserted, but I retract all the same.
Yes indeed DGR... but Liberalism isn't just a mental disorder... it's full blown syphilis. If there's a vaccine for that I'd certainly consider weighing benefits against whatever risks.
Here's something fun for the Borg here...
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/publicadvocate/2015/07/24/national-morator…
Herr doktor.. ask Pan he's the one that posted it!
Eric H,
Did you not notice the links? Sources, including the source of Dr. Pan's quote, aplenty. You weren't being asked, you were being told.
Orac,
"scientifically unsupported idea that vaccines cause autism."
Facts:
1. Folate receptor antibodies cause cerebral folate deficiency syndrome - a type of autism.
2. DTaP/TdaP are contaminated with cow's milk proteins.
3. It has been demonstrated that food protein contaminated vaccines cause the synthesis of antibodies to those food proteins.
4. DTaP contains aluminum salts and of course the pertussis toxin. Both are adjuvants that enhance the immune response to ALL injected proteins including the milk proteins.
5. Cow's milk contains bovine folate receptor proteins.
A milk-free diet downregulates folate receptor autoimmunity in cerebral folate deficiency syndrome
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2715943/
It does not take a PhD to conclude that the DTaP/TdaP vaccines can cause the synthesis of folate receptor antibodies, thus causing at least one type of autism.
APV:
Well, thank you for that, because I'll take any excuse to eat more chocolate! ;-)
Dr Pans mis- quote - here's the source Liz is talking about.
http://contemporarypediatrics.modernmedicine.com/contemporary-pediatric…
Orac,
"He has no honor." about Dr. Sears.
Facts:
1. Parents today have to choose between vaccine-preventable deadly diseases and vaccine-induced life-threatening diseases, thanks to the FDA's food protein contaminated vaccines.
2. Our kids are atopic due to hygiene, c-section births and antibiotics. All three contribute to increased risk of allergies due to sub-optimal gut microbiome.
3. So, ALL our kids are at risk of developing allergy from vaccines. Proof: the food allergy epidemic.
So medical exemption can be reasonably requested for ANY kid thanks to the FDA's food protein contaminated vaccines.
There is a way to close this medical exemption loophole.
CLEAN UP THE DARN VACCINES.
The FDA is sickening our kids with food allergies and autism and the biggest thing you worry about is Dr. Sears having "an honor" problem?
#826 - Citations or GTFO.
Isn't everyone else here so relieved to see someone without a PhD or any relevant education weighing in on vaccine risks?
Yes indeed, "Pan's misquote" as first observed with my own eyes on his own FB page. Then I uploaded and shared link to the actual screen shot. And still... we're on about this.
It was at the top of his page when I first arrived there. It was posted with hash tags indicating it was also a Tweet on his Twitter.
It wouldn't surprise me if he had a third party pen the words since he doesn't strike me as much of a thinker much less someone that can articulate anything.
But still, again, and hopefully for the last time, the exact post is exactly as I've reposted (via screen capture) here: https://www.facebook.com/smartmeteraction/photos/a.1005656736132809.107…
The only real surprise is that his greatest fan club here appears to either disagree with these words or otherwise find them embarrassing. I'm sure Dr. Pan's embarrassed himself on a great many occasions so no big deal.
jrkrideau "infamous in the climate denial field for vigorously denying that global warming is happening."
That's the funniest one yet!
Whatever the source this is true or not... http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-record-ice/
(I'm guessing it is)
And here's a little playlist prepared just for the climate alarmists on the thread.
https://youtu.be/0gDErDwXqhc?list=PLVzkiC8oZ1g4CsQiJiU8BmJYnBjOem1Wp
Now that we've all enjoyed the smear by "climate change denial", guess we can call HASMAT to clean up the CO2 spill from all the LOL's and then, return to topic.
Science Mom...
"Isn’t everyone else here so relieved to see someone without a PhD or any relevant education weighing in on vaccine risks?"
No refutation? Just the usual 'credibility and credential" chest pounding? Of course! After all you've the keeper of all that might be called "science".
"Niche Geek"
Did you not notice the links? Sources, including the source of Dr. Pan’s quote, aplenty. You weren’t being asked, you were being told.
I'm sure glad to have the chance to find who inspired Pan's post. I'd have guessed Bill Ayers. But anyway, he made it his by posting it prominently without offering anyone else credit. Guessing much of his career runs like that.
herr doktor bimler,
You're not actually seriously advocating the noxious poison marketed for tots as "Nursery Water" are you? Whatever respect I had for you would evaporate if you are. Had you ever even taken a sip of the stuff?
I have and it was as though tap water poured into a Michelin tire and driven from San Francisco to LA on a hot day at 120 mph. And then poured into a poison leaching soft plastic water suitable ONLY for using to fill a lead acid battery. And that doesn't even get to the very serious concerns about the chemical waste version of Fluoride intentionally added to the mix.
Drink one bottle of it yourself, and if your head doesn't explode tell me how great it is and how you'd feed it to your kids or grandkids "for their health" bon appétit!
Eric H,
"blockquote>herr doktor bimler,
You’re not actually seriously advocating the noxious poison marketed for tots as “Nursery Water” are you? Whatever respect I had for you would evaporate if you are. Had you ever even taken a sip of the stuff?
Reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit, is it?
Hint, if someone labels those selling the stuff as 'grifters', it's probably not an endorsement.
Eric, I notice you have not returned to what you propose in comment 756 regarding the false claim made in the documentary. Didn't manage to get to any of the actual scientific proof I provided during your "reading time-out?"
You seem to have found the time to try to pitifully distract us with climate change denial.
How about a thought experiment: exactly how many facts would I have to refute before you are convinced the movie is a crock of feces? 5? 10? 50?
I saw the comment count up in the 800+ range in a couple days, figured APV was continuing the broken record diatribes about killer vaccine proteins. Yep, still is.
Orac @ 148: '...our new chew toy...' Aha!, so that's why you didn't unceremoniously delete the little blighter from our midst.
We're now at over 800 comments, a probable record for Scienceblogs.com.
So our chew toy is a Mercola fan, and between 'injections of sperm,' and 'redistribution of health,' and 'euthanasia instead of healing,' appears to be just a wee bit (how shall we say this?) paranoid. That comment makes a brilliant advert for Mercola.com: we should promote it all round the internet.
I see that APV (826) objects to hygiene. Does he also keep bluebottles as pets, or merely leave the lids off his bins to 'encourage' their presence in the wild? 'Now don't wash your hands,' APV, poo is 'natural' and you wouldn't want to deny yourself the opportunity to improve your 'natural immunity' to salmonella, norovirus, and possibly C.Diff!
Hey, speaking of APV, his/her claim is that human beings evolved to tolerate inhaling pollen because we do that 24/7 and any would-be ancestor who developed lethal allergies to pollen wouldn't be an ancestor. Fair enough. He also says that our ancestors didn't commonly get food proteins under their skin despite the numerous ways this could happen as pointed out here.
But it occurs to me that we missed one: babies teeth. Starting at age four to six months, they have open sores in their mouths through which all kinds of food proteins can go directly into the bloodstream! Gasp!. And in far larger quantities than any vaccine would contain, I might add. Then this happens again when the baby teeth fall out and adult teeth grow in.
And this has been going on ever since mammals evolved. It's not 24/7 life-long, but it's certainly 24/7 for two fairly lengthy periods of one's life. So APV's reasoning as to pollen applies also to food proteins injected into the body.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/07/dachel-media-update-21st-century-car…
Look at this quote:
"The bill allows the FDA to lowering licensing standards for testing of experimental drugs. . . and 'biological products,' a category that includes vaccines. So companies will no longer be required to conduct large, case controlled clinical trials to evaluate safety and effectiveness. "
Wait, so Barbara Loe Fisher admits that companies are required to do large, case-controlled clinical trials for vaccine safety?
My word, will brains at AoA start 'ploding now?
Some of it's false and some of it's just deceptive misinformation.
For example, this...
...is both false and absurd. The planet has continued to warm. And 2009 - 2010 was the hottest year in recorded history.
See "How To Fool People Using Cherry-picked Climate Data" for more:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/02/05/global-warming-has-s…
Also, FYI --
Christopher Monckton is such a chronic serial liar that pretty much every word out of his mouth is false including "and" and "the":
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Christopher_Monckton
He's actually on the payroll of the self-same Heartland Institute referenced in the post you were responding to.
And Eric H., I implore you for your own sake to consider the following seriously:
I noticed that Silent Epidemic asserts that the pharmaceutical industry is the biggest, most powerful industry in the world.
That's not true. The biggest, most powerful industry in the world is the oil and gas industry.
The people you're getting your global warming info from are demonstrably being paid to lie to you by the oil and gas industry, via the Heartland Institute.
Can you see any reason why it might be in their interests to condition you to think of the federal government and Big Pharma as the only evil-doers in the world?
They're not your friends. They basically just want to make sure you're looking in another direction while they destroy your habitat and rob you of your rights.
I find it ironic that Eric H. loves the O&G industry, but hates the Pharma industry?
Cognitive-dissonance at its best.
# Eric H
Whatever the source this is true or not… http://www.infowars.com/global-warming-expedition-foiled-by-record-ice/
(I’m guessing it is)
Oh for Heaven's sake of course it's crap. Given your guessing ability don't go to a casino.
All the first link to the CCG says is the ice was bad. The second one says that the volume of ice has increased that year and "But they [the scientists involved] say 2013 was a one-off and that climate change will continue to shrink the ice in the decades ahead..
It was a fluke, Eric, a blip just as the climate change models suggest will happen. Let me give you a very simple example. Last winter where I live we got a lot of snow and reasonably cold weather. It was probably the second worst winter in 10 years but the climate is still getting warmer.
Do you know one reason why I know this? Kudzu has been sighted in the province. Our winters are still to cold for it to flourish (I sincerely hope) but 30 years ago there was none. The climate was too cold.
The rest of the innuendo and garbage is standard infowars climate denial. They cherry pick quotes, falsely graphs and so on. Just like anti-vaxers come to think of it.
I don't really imagine that you will look but here are some pictures of Arctic ice pack over a bit more that the last decade. http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml
And note extend is not volume, which is another and more serious issue.
Then inforwars go on to quote Lord Christopher Monckton, the delusional peer who thinks he is a member of the House of Lords. His claims became so outrageous that the House of Lords posted a public letter telling him " ... you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords".
My emphasis:
Eric, have you not learned that so-called sources such as infowars and Mercola are nothing more than a combination of lies and demented ramblings?
Eric @ 674
Perhaps you need to understand this SB277 a bit better and the men and motives behind it.
Would you care to elaborate what those motives might be? World depopulation? Drug company profits? Creating a population of half human/half reptilian mutated minions?
Meanwhile on Thursday,the latest in a long line of disgusting,morally reprehensible,and patently false graphics was posted over at AoA on Thursday,this one about Dr. Pan,and nobody noticed.Maybe that was a good thing.
Science Mom @ 769
Perhaps Eric is that "special" kind of antivaxer,the germ theory denialist.
Meanwhile California schools are losing herd immunity.
APV @ 808
Vaccines may have been a trigger,but food allergies are largely genetic.
Hey numbnuts, APV has been refuted repeatedly, but like you, is immune to understanding basic scientific principles and perseverates on his/her obsession. Given your sources for information, it's obvious that credibility means dick to you so of course you find the concept foreign.
APV, thanks so much for regurgitating your usual blather. I think we'll forego vaccinating Delphinette on Monday. I'm sure that not having proof of yellow fever immunization won't affect our ability to enter the country, and it's not like yellow fever itself is anything to worry about.
I'm also going to talk my neighbour out of having her planned c-section on Thursday.
You do great work, APV. Keep it up.
To say nothing of his claims to having won the Nobel Prize and invented a cure for HIV. And he's also the deputy leader of a neo-fascist political party in the UK!
Seriously. I'm not making any of that up.
So much for Eric H's claim that from now on he's going to fact-check everything he links to on infowars.
Eric H -- do a search on APV's comments on this blog. S/he pops up every time there's a discussion of vaccines, posts the same unsupported claims, and gets shot full of holes.
He's one of your comrades in the 101st Errorborne.
I have another comment in moderation addressing Eric,because I carelessly put a third link in it,but I need to address APV @ 823.
I take this comment very personally.Frankly you don't know what the hell you are talking about.Read the GD article you are linking to
"Autoantibodies against the folate receptor (FR) were first described in mothers with a neural-tube-defect pregnancy and provided an explanation for folate deficiency in the developing embryo resulting from autoantibodies blocking folate uptake via the FR.The finding of FR autoantibodies in children with CFD syndrome and the low level of 5MTHF in CSF suggested a similar mechanism by which binding of the autoantibodies to the FR on the choroid plexus would block folate transport into the CSF.6 In the CFD syndrome, the clinical manifestations typically occur after the switch to bovine milk. One likely mechanism for autoantibody production could be that exposure to soluble FR from milk elicits an immune response. Because of the structural homology with human FR, the autoantibodies cross-react with the FR on the epithelial cells of the choroid plexus, block folate transport, and ultimately produce the CFD syndrome
Discussion
In CFD patients with autoantibodies against FR, oral folinic acid treatment leads to substantial clinical improvement, especially if the treatment is started early in the disorder. Avoidance of milk downregulates these autoantibodies, and re-exposure to milk is followed by an increase in the autoantibody titer. Milk contains substantial amounts of FR and seems to present the triggering antigen for the autoantibody response. This indicates that the gastrointestinal tract is a likely route of exposure to the antigen and that a compromised immune barrier in this system can be considered as the potential cause of the autoimmune response. The familial occurrence of CFD in some siblings, such as that observed in three brothers, suggests a genetic component to this disorder.
Simple translation autism due to CFD starts when babies start to ingest milk,milk based formulas,or milk based food.The cause,folate receptor autoantibodies,is something children are born with.
Mothers milk causes reaction,just as cow's milk does.
I had the folate receptor autoantibody test when it was still in the clinical trial phase.My levels were very high.The press release for the clinical trial states.
Researchers at SUNY Downstate Medical Center have received a $50,000 grant from the SUNY Research Foundation Technology Accelerator Fund to develop a diagnostic test for the folate receptor autoantibody. This autoantibody is associated with neural tube defects, subfertility, cerebral folate deficiency in infants and autism spectrum disorders.
Among the most common birth defects in the United States, neural tube defects result in the brain and spinal cord not developing properly. Affected babies may be partially paralyzed for life, or worse, can die in utero or shortly after birth. The nutrient folate plays a key role in neural tube defects. Public health campaigns emphasizing the importance of a diet rich in folate and the taking of folate supplements during pregnancy have reduced the incidence of neural tube defects dramatically.
Edward Quadros, PhD, research professor of medicine, and research scientist Jeffrey Sequeira, MS, have been studying a biomarker for folate problems called folate receptor (FR) autoantibodies. The antibodies appear to block nutritional folate from entering cells that need them or they trigger an immune response that counteracts the effects of folate. In addition to playing a causative role in neural tube defects, the FR antibodies have been implicated in autism and other neurodevelopmental diseases, such as Rett syndrome and cerebral folate deficiency syndrome, and subfertility.
This means exactly what it says it does.Folate receptor autoantbodies start with the mother.The mother passes them on to the baby in the womb.When a child tests positive for FRAs,the mother tests positive too.In all of these families,there is a very long family history of stillbirth,neural tube defects,mental illness,cerebrovascular,heart and blood disorders going back many generations,as there is in my family.I had a diagnosis of low functioning autism,with serious learning disabilities,and behavioral issues,before my cerebral folate deficiency was treated.
One a mother has been found to have FRAs,there is a real danger of having another baby with autism or other serious problems,and as with any birth defect,families are in a moral dilemma as to having more children or not.I am in a Facebook group with other families,and I read very scary and heartbreaking stories all the time that back up the research.This is a very serious disease,as I know all too well,and I would not have sought out a diagnosis for this,if I had not lived all my life with all sorts of serious and unexplained medical problems.There are many medical issues that go along with CFD/FRAs,and they fall into two categories.There is either complex autoimmune disorders,or there is mitochondrial disease.I have mitochondrial disease.There is some research that suggests folate receptor autoantibodies may be mitochondrial autoantibodies,but a lot more research is needed.
And just as the furor surrounding the California law dies down, wouldn't you know that anti-vaxxers have a new project: railing against a bill to limit exemptions in NY state?
( from TMR facebook)
In other news:
Dan O appears to be Silent On Saturdays ( a title for his newest effort?)
Adam G, No I hadn't yet. Had a few libations at party and developed audacity to post the Infowars link.
I am pleased that there are some thoughtful answers and will review these at first opportunity inclusive of the point from the Silent Epidemic you kindly called out as inaccurate.
For those on about the "chew toy" I can only say you should be more discriminating about whatever you endeavor to put in your mouth.
Have a great weekend friends!
Lawrence, #842,
"I find it ironic that Eric H. loves the O&G industry, but hates the Pharma industry?"
Not sure when I expressed any particular love of O&G industry. I've used their products and also some from the "Pharma industry" you're assuming I categorically "hate"
My opinion of AWG (previously "Climate Change", and before that "Global Warming) has little to do with whatever "love" you imagine I have for BP. My concern about vaccine choice is also not born of some imagined "hate" for all industry in the pharmaceutical segment. I actually have a good friend that work in in that segment.
I am generally against corruption and the cozy relationships between any industry or any particular corporation with government that invariably threaten freedom. Not sure where we'd find "irony" from that.
It is notable the the folate binding protein in milk is a whey protein (sorry, forgot to harvest a link), while the milk component used in modified Latham medium for vaccine production is casein . There appears to be several very effective ways for separation of casein and whey proteins, so the notion that there is folate binding protein in vaccines is extremely dubious.
I do need to get my hands on a copy of this, now that I think about it.
doug #854,
Whey proteins are not only present in vaccines, they have been shown to cause an allergic response.
Unless you have specifications/testing/enforcement, contamination is a fact of life. You cannot just wish it away.
So even if the intention was to have casein alone, whey proteins are present.
The FDA has NO specifications limiting allergen content in vaccines.
Study showing DTaP vaccine containing beta-lactoglobulin - a whey protein and causing the development of an allergy to it:
“In addition, they induced Th2-type cytokines to the
co-administrated antigen tetanus toxoïd, as well as to the food
antigen beta-lactoglobulin.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X06007742
I don't know how Latham medium is sterilized, but many media are sterilized by autoclaving, which would denature many proteins. Would the protein that could have bound folate retain that ability after autoclaving?
One possible alternative to autocalving is filtration, but many viruses will pass through the filters, which seems rather undesirable in a virus culturing process.
I know at least one or two commenters here have been significantly involved in cell culture. Any comments on this?
janerella #827,Delphine #846,
Citations:
Vaccines causing food allergies:
Nobel Laureate Charles Richet discovered over a hundred years ago that injecting proteins into mammals can cause them to develop an allergy to that protein.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-l…
In 2002, the doctors from the CDC and FDA warned that gelatin-containing vaccines can cause gelatin allergy based on similar findings in Japan.
"Nonetheless, our cases with anti-gelatin IgE required some previous exposure to gelatin to become sensitized, and this may have come through ingestion of gelatin-containing food or injection of gelatin-containing vaccines."
They wrote: "Efforts should continue to identify less allergenic
substitutes for gelatin currently used by vaccine manufacturers.".
Authors:
Vitali Pool, MD, CDC, M. Miles Braun, MD, MPH, FDA, John M. Kelso, MD, Naval Medical Center, Gina Mootrey, DO, MPH, CDC, Robert T. Chen, MD, MA, CDC, John W. Yunginger, MD, Robert M. Jacobson, MD, Mayo Clinic,
Paul M. Gargiullo, PhD, CD.
Prevalence of Anti-Gelatin IgE Antibodies in People With Anaphylaxis
After Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine in the United States
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/110/6/e71.long
Yet today, the CDC table here lists numerous food proteins contained in vaccines, including gelatin, egg, milk, soy, seaweed and vegetable oils (in Polysorbate 80, sorbitol).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipi…
The result - the food allergy epidemic.
And gelatin in vaccines is still making kids sick today:
http://acaai.org/resources/connect/ask-allergist/Vaccines
Japan removed gelatin from their vaccines in 2000.
Kuno-Sakai H, Kimura M. Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP-an ultimate solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy.Biologicals 2003;31:245-9
C-section and allergy risk:
C-section babies are five times more likely to develop allergies by age two than those born naturally.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/256915.php
Narad, that documentary is absolutely brilliant. I recommend watching it immediately. I personally found psychedelics greatly enhanced the experience, but YMMV.
Hyperbole much? Or are you an all-purpose fluoride crank, too?
APV, do you understand the meaning of hypothesis?
Also, can the "born naturally" crap. All babies are born naturally, unless they come out of your nose.
Delphine #861, #862
"meaning of hypothesis?"
Assuming you are referring to the hygiene hypothesis?
The vaccine god - Dr. Offit says the hygiene hypothesis is fact.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837122
"Where does this all come from? Why would someone even bother doing this study? The answer is the "hygiene hypothesis." There is this notion that children in the developing world are less likely to develop such allergies as eczema and asthma compared with children in the developed world. That is a fact. The thinking behind why this happens is that children in the developing world are more likely to be exposed to pathogens like parasites, pathogen-producing bacteria, and viruses early in life. This educates them away from the Th2 (allergic) bias they are born with, toward a Th1 cell (nonallergic) bias. By giving them vaccines early in life, the idea is that we reduce the number of challenges the child receives, so that we don't educate them away from that Th2 bias at birth and towards the Th1."
"All babies are born naturally"
What?? c-section is natural birth??
In natural birth, the mother's birth canal bacteria colonize the baby.
In c-section they cannot. Babies are instead colonized by hospital bacteria.
But anyway, here is the item in which "Dr." Megan Heimer, proud Cooley alumna and holder of a mail-order N.D., scoops Mercola.
^ Belay that; this is the original.
doug #857,
Autoclaving, filtering are all fine. The fundamental approach is WRONG. BEFORE you inject ANYTHING into humans on a mass scale, you HAVE to establish a safe quantity of the material that can be injected. That is safety science 101.
Once you have established a safe quantity of say casein, you create a specification and enforce it. Manufacturers would have to find the autoclaving or filtering or whatever process that is needed to meet spec. That is the SCIENTIFIC way of doing it.
The FDA has done nothing of that sort.
The FDA seems to think that injecting anything is safe unless proven otherwise.
Nobel Laureate Charles Richet demonstrated over a hundred years ago that injecting proteins into mammals can be dangerous. In this context, food protein contaminated vaccines are - to put it mildly - a demonstration of the FDA's reckless and callous disregard for the safety of our kids.
It is great that vaccines have reduced measles deaths to zero.
But contaminated vaccines/injections are causing a 100 children a year to die of anaphylaxis due to food allergy. How is that considered progress?
^^ And that prestigious J.D. shines right through:
Citation required. Something that specifies exactly which vaccine(s) were found to contain proteins found only in whey, the quantities found and clear evidence of elicitation of allergic response.
When you babble on about gelatin, you have consistently ignored the fact that very large quantities of gelatin have been used intravenously as plasma replacement. This has, indeed, occasionally caused allergic response, but infrequently. The quantities are vast. Gelatin is routinely used in products for hemostasis - crammed into severely bleeding wounds. Collagen, from which gelatin is derived, is routinely used in a variety of ways, including implants.
It has been repeatedly pointed out to you in the past that there is now lots of evidence that small amounts of intact proteins are absorbed in the gut, and can subsequently found in breast milk and in urine.
You really haven't a bloody clue about processes for purification of "biologicals" have you?
Once again, citation that confirms this number and shows clear evidence that the sensitizing allergens were in the vaccines and not directly from food - stringing together a bunch of "look at this" and conjecture will not suffice.
If you worked in a lab and tried to pass off as evidence the sort of stuff you have passed off here and in previous threads you would be busted to third assistant test tube washer - in a lab that used only disposables.
“Dr.” Megan Heimer, proud Cooley alumna
Now the Western Michigan University Cooley Law School.
Megan Heimer seems to be under the impression that she and the minority of the population that agrees with her get to have their way about everything because constitutional republic.
That makes very little sense, even for her..
^^ And that prestigious J.D. shines right through:
Megan Healey's commentariat are equally proud of their JDs:
Ralph Fucetola JD says*
Incidentally, what is it about antivaxxers and the long-dead political activist Saul Alinsky? Between the "Alinsky-speak" and the fluoride fixation, Megan's site seems to have stumbled through a time-machine straight out of a John Birch Society meeting.
* Ralph Fucetola JD turns out to be Dr Rima Laibow's attorney.
Delphine!
"Also, can the “born naturally” crap. All babies are born naturally, unless they come out of your nose."
So we can assume that "snot nose kids" are "unnatural?" Fantastically funny! You are a gem.
herr doktor bimler
Equally excellent! Alinsky is indeed dead, and so are Karl Marx and Mao. If only the tired old collectivist cause might die with them, or at least enter retirement.
ann #841
My present opinion of what I'd call "the great climate alarmism hoax" is based on no small amount of reading from a wide variety of sources. Has nothing to do with any particular love for Chevron and BP although I do like to have enough fuel for my hybrid and I like a lot of plastic products including my bicycle helmet well enough.
The point has been made that "Big Oil" is more powerful than "Big Pharma" and wields even greater influence over government. If any here are guilty of placing blind trust in one while being highly skeptical of the other, it's certainly not me.
If you can find me a source that seriously questions that AGW is a stone fact andisn't a mouthpiece for the oil & gas industry, I will eat Werner Herzog's shoe.
You don't have to persuade me. I believe you.
Anthropogenic climate change denial?
The crank magnetism, it is strong in this one.
The PR firms that push AGW denial have been brilliant.
They have inserted the climate change denial into the genotype of the far right wing.
If you can persuade far right wingers that "libruls" are behind something, you can create a Pavlovian reaction that transcends rational thought.
Though in many cases, rational thought was a bit thin on the ground in the first place.
Doug #868,
"Whey proteins are not only present in vaccines, they have been shown to cause an allergic response.
Citation required."
Already provided citation in #856.
"Something that specifies exactly which vaccine(s) were found to contain proteins found only in whey, the quantities found and clear evidence of elicitation of allergic response."
Already provided in #856. And YOU tell me why the FDA has not documented this in the package insert.
"When you babble on about gelatin, you have consistently ignored the fact that very large quantities of gelatin have been used intravenously as plasma replacement."
The fact is gelatin in vaccines has been demonstrated to cause allergy. Properly hydrolyzed gelatin is safe from the allergic sensitization viewpoint. So it goes back to the same point. Where is the specification for protein content in vaccines?
"It has been repeatedly pointed out to you in the past that there is now lots of evidence that small amounts of intact proteins are absorbed in the gut, and can subsequently found in breast milk and in urine."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-rat/the-bacteria-in-breast-milk/
"The cells thought to be responsible for picking up the bacteria and transporting them to the breast are called dendritic cells. In non-breastfeeding people they are used to transport bacteria and bits of bacteria to the rest of the immune system to prepare a defence, and can sometimes carry entire live bacteria. "
So there is a mechanism to transport bacteria or food protein from the mother's gut to the breast milk while shielding them from the mother's normal immune response to bacteria.
"You really haven’t a bloody clue about processes for purification of “biologicals” have you?"
Why is it so difficult for you or anyone else here to post a specification for such purification? I'll provide the answer - it does not exist. Only the clueless people like those at the FDA approve "purification processes" that have no specification.
" sensitizing allergens were in the vaccines and not directly from food "
http://oxfordhbot.com/library/vaccinations/vaccines-allergies-asthma/50…
Removal of gelatin from live vaccines and DTaP—an ultimate
solution for vaccine-related gelatin allergy
"Our study on adverse events of live measles vaccines
at a time when stabilizers of both live measles vaccine
and DTaP were changed revealed, (i) gelatin was one of
the strongest allergens, (ii) DTaP was an adjuvant
vaccine containing aluminum hydroxide and minute
amounts of carry-over gelatin contained in DTaP were
able to sensitize infants to gelatin so that they manifested
allergic/anaphylactic reactions to subsequently
administered live vaccines which contained gelatin, and
(iii) clinical symptoms of gelatin allergy including anaphylaxis,
urticaria, local reactions, and rash within 3
days of vaccination, as shown by the disappearance of
those symptoms soon after gelatin was removed from
three manufacturers’ live measles vaccine (A, D, C) and
hypo-allergic gelatin was used in one manufacturer’s live
measles vaccine (B)."
You may be giving the PR firms too much credit; perhaps the denial is intrinsic to the John Bircher mentality. The last time a climate-change denialist graced RI with his rhetoric, his basic argument was that if AGW is real, it will require collective coordinate actions to control it, but collective coordinate actions are so unthinkable and so contrary to libertarian thought that AGW cannot be real QED.
Also libertarians are hard-headed realists and everyone has succumbed to wishful thinking.
Time marches on -
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/worlds-first-malaria-vaccine-wins-approval/
From the article -
Speaking only for myself, I'd say that if this reduced the number of malaria cases by 10%, it would be a big deal.
APV@858
Charles Richet is talking here about injecting high dose opiods (heroin,morphine) into the bloodstream,as well as injecting dogs,and humans,with jellyfish venom.Of course that is going to cause anaphylaxis.
This followup from the authors of the original Japanese study of gelatin in vaccines might be of interest to you.
See my now posted link @ 844 about the genetics of allergies and asthma.
You mean the link to a paper that is behind a paywall? You expect me to spend my money to try to verify your claim?
There is absolutely nothing in the abstract that says the vaccines contained beta-lactoglobulin, only that they produced a response to it. Please provide quotations from the paper that identify which of the vaccines contained beta-lactoglobulin, how it was concluded that the only possible source was milk proteins, and in what quantities beta-lactoglobulin was present. Briefly summarize the methods they used for these specific matters.
I'm not reading another word you have written or will write until you do that. Like everyone else here, I'm sick of your BS.
Johnny, I knew there has been a great deal of work on vaccines for malaria.
30% is pretty dismal, but as long as side effects and risk are tolerable, it would still be a huge boon. Malaria is a very significant killer, particularly of children.
I don't have time to run down the info right now, but the WHO reports that prior to 1980 there were about 2.6 million deaths globally annually from measles, which may have put it ahead of malaria as a killer at that time. I don't think deaths from malaria have declined much since 1980, but again, I don't really know.
But, hey. The decline in measles deaths must have been due to better nutrition and more hand washing. Couldn't have been the vaccine. Could it?
Please don't think that I intended my last post as a dig, or to suggest you were lacking in any way by saying there was no malaria vaccine at the time of your post. Your comment was the most recent that mentioned malaria vaccines, so it was the one I used it to hang my post off of.
I have heard (that is, no cite) that malaria has killed more humans over all time than any other single cause. 30% may not sound like much, but 30% of a big number is also a big number.
Besides, 30% is about as effective as the flu vaccine some years, but I'm still gonna get it.
*remembers thread*
*shudders*
shay #848 "So much for Eric H’s claim that from now on he’s going to fact-check everything he links to on infowars."
This story seems real enough... let me guess, Breitbart isn't allowed either?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/23/worst-ice-conditions-in-20-y…
Whereas it doesn't appear to be advertised much by the major 3 letter government media complex favorites, there seem to be plenty of collaborating reports.
Is it seriously your position that this story is fabricated?
ann #874...
Those shoes will be delicious. All those "peer reviewed" papers are all built on a completely debunked climate model. The funding only runs one way and any that don't participate in the outcome based "science" see themselves quickly out of work.
My first exposure to the concept of "global warming" that's been rebranded to "climate change" and more recently "climate disruption" for maximum punch was the "Inconvenient Truth" I never trusted Gore much and was expecting spin, but I wasn't prepared for outright lies and actually, for a moment, was starting to buy in.
Then I began some reading that started with "Red Hot Lies".
Now I know the diet of shoes was conditioned on someone presenting facts that was also not an Oil "shill". I'd have to guess that some might indeed follow the comparatively mild trickle of funding against the new religion that has even recently enrolled the false Pope Francis.
I know some folks don't like Youtube as a media (because they think of it as a source) but here is a playlist that I believe covers much without asking you to read a book. (Red Hot Lies if you like)
https://youtu.be/0gDErDwXqhc?list=PLVzkiC8oZ1g4CsQiJiU8BmJYnBjOem1Wp
My favorite data points are the ice core samples that prove the Antarctic was ice free in a not too distant past. Another is that better understanding suggests that CO2 does not by itself create a "greenhouse" effect. Additionally we'd likely be better off with the ambient temperature being UP a few degrees (plusher higher yield crops). Another favorite is that during a warming trend the planet Mars surface temperatures trended in the same direction.
What's more is knowing how green is the new Red and the anti-human agenda (Agenda 21 to be specific) calls for substantial population reduction. Defining CO2 a pollutant burdens every single human activity down to breathing with a debt to whomever is positioned to collect for the inane notion of "carbon footprint"
Hope our generous host doesn't mind drifting a bit off topic, I share this only in response to the challenge.
Oh, honey, you're further gone than I thought. Who do you think's behind Agenda 21? The Jews? The Gays?
Still reading that JAMA paper on SV40, huh?
So anyway...
No, I mean, I've been busy and all, but the whole performance is just so insipid that it's failed to capture much of my interest.**
* I think I've mentioned my loathing of "package managers" before.
** Probably time to tidy this up, Broham: "Java, HTML, JavaScript, C, BASIC, Clarion, Pascal, IBM 370 Assembler, Visual BASIC." I knew S/360 monkey-talk in the ninth grade.
Correction: we don't think of it as a reliable source.
This has been explained to you already.
Citation needed. I've heard those claims before.
Adam G... seriously? Here's a link without the word "truth" and from a source I believe you or someone else here on the thread have deemed share worthy in a prior post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21
palindrom... your post was just ooozing with "science" Keep up the great work.
jrkrideau #180
"Clearly Eric is a utter fool with language comprehension problems"
Normally I'm not much for grammar policing, and I know it happens to me too sometimes. There's no edit tool with this particular comment engine. But anyway, the grammar error about language comprehension problems is still a touch ironic.
I know what Agenda 21 is. I certainly know that it's not an "anti-human agenda" that "calls for substantial population reduction" unless you're reading a Glenn Beck novel.
Hell, I have to take pains to even get the thing to "work" the way I'm set up. Yah, I'll offer YT as a garnish or aside or something, but anybody who thinks it stands in lieu of constructing an argument has just dumped a pail of juicy, forgotten composting failure over his or her head.
Yes, you have tediously deployed the phrase "comment engine" before. What the fυck this is supposed to "mean" is anybody's guess.
doug #880,
"There is absolutely nothing in the abstract that says the vaccines contained beta-lactoglobulin, only that they produced a response to it."
How was a response produced if beta-lactoglobulin was not present in the vaccine? You are clutching at straws.
" Please provide quotations from the paper that identify which of the vaccines contained beta-lactoglobulin,"
It is clear from the abstract that the Pa vaccine contained/produced the beta-lactoglobulin response.
Narad #892,
"comment engine"
https://wordpress.org/plugins/comment-engine-pro/
Julian Frost... it's not "a source" at all... it's a form of media (as has been explained to you before) As for citations, I'd talked to some scientists personally (not sure how to present that as citation) and also the book Red Hot LIes documents cases well enough. The fact that you "heard it before" indicates it might be easy to find in other places.
Narad... lovely and eloquent response as always... anyway APV got that one for you. I'll add that it's a big technical term known only in the technology savvy circles. I'm sure you have much expertise in other areas.
Adam G. It's a well documented agenda. Whereas there are plenty of elite speaking out loud at every opportunity about population reduction, it'd be a touch awkward for the UN documents to specifically refer to the mass murder we'd reasonably expect for this century especially when taking in consideration the 200 million murdered "by their own governments" in the last century alone.
Who specifically are the 'elite?' Who organizes this secret cabal, and what is their goal?
AdamG Don't you know anything? It's all Bill Gates and Big Pharna.They rule the universe.
Agenda 21 & Eugenics - Bill Gates Depopulation Plans Exposed
Bill Gates Admits Vaccines Are Used for Human Depopulation
1. What platform is this?
2. What front-line antispam module is it using, and what version?
TIA.
In other words, APV just read the abstract him/herself and not the full study.
Gah you twit and credulous numpty. References to "population reduction" are about improving health and infrastructure of third world populations so children can actually live to make it past childhood and thus families don't have to have a dozen children and eventually improve the socio-economic status of an impoverished country.
Drunk again?
It is clear from the abstract that the Pa vaccine contained/produced the beta-lactoglobulin response.
APV don't need no steenkin' papers. Reading the paper might get in the way of the fantasies he constructs around the Abstract.
You can say that again HDB.
Roger Kulp #879,
"Charles Richet is talking here about injecting high dose opiods (heroin,morphine) into the bloodstream,as well as injecting dogs,and humans,with jellyfish venom.Of course that is going to cause anaphylaxis."
In his Nobel lecture, he said:
"On the other hand all the proteins without exception produce anaphylaxis: one has seen this with all sera, milks, organic extracts whatsoever, all vegetable extracts, microbial proteinotoxins, yeast cells, dead microbial bodies. It would be of more interest now to find a protein which does not produce anaphylaxis than to find one that does."
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-l…
So not just opioids and venom.
"This followup from the authors of the original Japanese study of gelatin in vaccines might be of interest to you."
Yes, but it does not change the fact that gelatin in vaccines causes gelatin allergy and the FDA/CDC doctors agree that gelatin in vaccines cause gelatin allergy.
"See my now posted link @ 844 about the genetics of allergies and asthma."
Genetics can predispose for allergy. It cannot sensitize you to specific allergen like peanut or egg. The MOST EFFICIENT way to sensitize is an adjuvanted vaccine contaminated with the allergen.
This fact is used to induce allergy reliably in lab rats.
Science Mom, HDB, Roger Kulp,
"Abstract"
This abstract is just one more confirmation of an established fact that injected food proteins cause food allergy. I don't need to pay to reread an established fact.
This abstract is just one more confirmation of an established fact that injected food proteins cause food allergy.
Brilliant. But why waste time reading the Abstract? Surely the title itself is enough to confirm everything you already believed!
Except that there is nothing in the abstract that denotes "injected food protein". You are basing your wild-arse claim on"
And you can't even be bothered to read the full study.
About the level of scholarship and honesty I would expect from a GoogleU grad.
I've met a number of people who were convinced that the TV was sending them secret messages, addressed to them personally, and expressed in terms of the news-readers' facial grimaces and their use of special code-words known only to the recipients. Each such message was just one more confirmation of an established fact.
Sigh. I'm familiar, but without the TV. I have no idea what it must be like to have that coming at you from all directions when just trying to walk to the store.
Science Mom... "Gah you twit and credulous numpty. References to “population reduction” are about improving health and infrastructure of third world populations so children can actually live to make it past childhood and thus families don’t have to have a dozen children and eventually improve the socio-economic status of an impoverished country."
Nope! Regrettably I've endured this last round of twit drivel 100% sober. Green is the new red and the dogma that drives AWG agenda is here to convert 1st World countries to 2nd and 3rd world and prevent the 2nd and 3rd World from ascending. Killing industry and smashing lives to save us from CO2 ultimately reduces "carrying capacity" and however you slice it, however naive you may prefer to be, it's all a game that ends in mass murder and the "improved socio-economic status" of the ultra-elite. But anyway your Unicorn and Fairy Dust version does sound more appealing. If it brings me to understanding your point of view, however many martinis might just prove worthwhile, at least till the morning after.
I'm waiting, asshοle.
Eric H @ 895:
Then why do you use videos posted on it as "evidence"?! FFS, if you yourself realise it's not a source, why are you citing it?!
The Antarctic was last ice-free 34 million years ago.
So I'm assuming you misspoke on that one.
...
Yes it does. And the first video on your playlist concedes as much repeatedly. So I'm assuming that you mean that CO2 is not the sole and exclusive driver of climate, which it obviously isn't.
But atm, it's the main one. And it's driving temperatures up. I don't know which other factors you think are countering it. However, since the first video on that playlist suggests that CO2 creates warming which creates water vapor which creates clouds, which have a cooling effect, I'll go ahead and rebut that:
Stratus clouds are warming. Cirrus clouds are cooling. Cumulus clouds are sometimes one, sometimes the other. And what that means is:
Only someone who had a reason for wanting to persuade you that the climate wasn't warming would pretend that it's all okay because clouds.
In short: Unless there's some reason to think that all future clouds will be stratus clouds, it's ridiculous to suggest that since more heat means more clouds, warming is fully pre-forestalled, end of story!
They actually wouldn't necessarily be higher yield. But it's true that moderate warming would lead to faster-growing crops.
However, faster-growing crops are only a boon if they're not wiped out by faster-growing floods, droughts, weeds, and fungi. And unfortunately, moderate warming also leads to all of them.
Which proves what, exactly?
(As far as I can see, temperature trends on Mars are unknown. But it's beyond me what difference it would make if they were.)
Agenda 21 does no such thing. Moreover, it's non-binding, voluntary, and completely free of both enforcement mechanisms and plans for them.
But even assuming that there was a plan for substantial population reduction, why the effing eff wouldn't the powers that be go about achieving it by some means that....Well, you know, actually killed people?
I mean, you could achieve substantial population reduction in the United States right now simply by eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Or, if some kind of dramatic cover story was called for, by creating widespread famine.
I don't follow your thinking.
# Doug and Johnny
RE 30% effectivess of malaria vaccine.
It's still 60 million people who don't get malaria. Takes a heck of a burden off care-givers and overloaded health systems.
On consideration, I can't think of a single scenario in which a putative all-powerful elite class would even benefit by substantially reducing the population.
Why do they ostensibly want to do that, per your understanding of things?
884 Eric H
This story seems real enough… let me guess, Breitbart isn’t allowed either?
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/07/23/worst-ice-conditions-in-20-y…
For god's sake read the bloody source. (the blue link that says The Globe and Mail)It's a paraphrase of the Globe & Mail article and omits the key point.
As the Globe and Mail says: (my emphasis)
Blast it. Blockquote failure.
Almost on topic
We seem to have a nasty outbreak of pertussis in the province among a small community of unvaccinated Old Order Amish. (Menonite?) .
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/toronto/story/1.3167801
That last statement seems a bit optimistic. I am not sure but I don't think our vaccination rates are high enough. On other hand there is not a lot on interaction between the Old Order Amish and partying holidaymakers,.
And who's afraid of a little bout of measles. You get over them in no time. Err, don't you?
http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/a-new-study-with-big-implications-for-… Unfortunately the Science article is paywalled.
If these results are supported by further research it seems to me that parents holding “measles parties” could be crimanally charged with something like reckless endangerment or child abuse but IAMAL,
Time for a cup of tea. That should have read IANAL.
Liz Ditz #806,
“Our findings indicate that the neutralizing activity of breast milk could be one of the many factors that might explain the lower observed immunogenicity and effectiveness of live oral rotavirus vaccines among children in developing countries."
Is the interaction of a pediatric oral vaccine with breast milk an unimaginably bizarre event? I am sure the vaccine scientists would have thought about it. Looks more like a case of senior pharmaceutical company management cutting corners to profit at the expense of vaccine efficacy and safety.
Excellent replies all worthy of review and response. And I know some are patiently waiting for me to get through some reading at a number of links generously provided.
As for Julian Frost, this one should be easy. "Then why do you use videos posted on it as “evidence”?! FFS, if you yourself realise it’s not a source, why are you citing it?!"
16mm Film Reels (common in the old days when I went to grade school) and VHS/DVD's are also "not a source" but a form of "media". When one loads a reel of film in a projector they aren't "citing" a "source" of 16mm film are they?
The "reels" I serve via Youtube generally include clues on the sources of whatever facts and or notions being presented. Will it make a difference to you if I find some clips on Vimeo instead?
As my good friend AdamG proves, it is possible to challenge specific points made on a given clip. Most clips also have their own open comment sections that will tend to reveal the assessment of any other viewers.
With AdamG's generous help I now recognize that not all who make the investment of watching what was a favorite documentary of mine agree with points made.
For this reason I will look more closely at the points he called to attention as disputed and will also be more inclined to look for other possible errors that will help me form an overall opinion as to whether it's still a favorite or even worthy of sharing.
Here's a documentary once presented on more main stream old media that is now available on YouTube as an example:
https://youtu.be/ei-_SXLMMfo?list=PLVzkiC8oZ1g4CsQiJiU8BmJYnBjOem1Wp
And obviously neither of us would be inclined to accept the content as "good science".
ann... lots of good questions, but real quickly on the easy one: "As far as I can see, temperature trends on Mars are unknown. But it’s beyond me what difference it would make if they were" That big red fire ball at center of our solar system has warming and cooling cycles of its own and does not provide the same energy output at all times. So if other planets warm and cool in a corresponding way on a timeline, that strongly indicates solar input is by far the more likely cause than whatever CO2 levels here on Earth.
As for the motives of the folks that may or may not be responsible for the Georgia Guidestone and it's message to "keep" population globally at under 500 million, along with all that anti-human rhetoric owed to "Earth First" that describe a human infestation on the otherwise splendid blue marble, there are countless examples where the royal elite speak out loud about a need to reduce population.
The end game of Agenda 21 is a big worldwide Natural Park with pockets of highly contained and controlled humans on what we might count as reservations. A big playground for those in the club free of all the piles of garbage and urban plight they associate with that "infestation" of "too many humans". From a practical standpoint, in an age of automation, 6.5 Billion is more folks than they'd need to bring them their afternoon tea and otherwise toil at their feet. So a more manageable number can provide them all they need without the inconvenience of all those "useful eaters".
For those in the club, such a Utopia might be argued to have a certain appeal. But obviously for those of us on the ground when the next orchestrated world war hits, it certainly won't be fun and games.
Science Mom #905,
"Except that there is nothing in the abstract that denotes “injected food protein”."
The Pa vaccine is an injected vaccine. The beta-lactoglobulin is a food protein contaminating the Pa vaccine.
AAAAI: Kids May React to Milk Proteins in DPT Shot
http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/AAAAI/25520
I must admit I have mixed feelings about the RTS,S vaccine. On the one hand, even a 30% reduction in malaria would make a huge difference in holoendemic areas like sub-Saharan Africa. But I worry that its going to poison the well for future, more effective vaccines when people who get the vaccine still get malaria. And even 30% reduction might be over-optimistic, given that 4 doses of vaccine are required to attain even that level of efficacy; that's going to be difficult to manage in areas with little to no health infrastructure.
Gawd. Eric H is an Agenda 21 conspiracist as well. Truly crank magnetism at its finest.
Science and engineering are about measuring and controlling quantities.
NO SAFE LEVEL has been established for allergens contained in vaccines/injections.
THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION FOR ALLERGEN CONTENT IN VACCINES/INJECTIONS.
So it is a fact that there is NO SCIENCE in vaccine safety. Indisputable and irrefutable.
It is funny (tragically) that people with science backgrounds here are trying to twist and spin their way out this.
Thus vaccine safety is an oxymoron.
In contrast, vaccine active ingredients are controlled, specified and tested. As any scientifically engineered product should be. So, as expected, VACCINES WORK MOST OF THE TIME.
Given that his heroes seem to consist of Glenn Beck, Brietbart, and Mercola, I'm not surprised that he's bought into every conspiracy theory out there....I'm sure he also believes that Chemtrails are real too.....
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/14/global_cooling_no_w…
And of course, we he can't deal with his sources being questioned, he just changes the topic.
Christ, you can't even get your moronic Laibow line straight. BTW, wasn't "the Great Culling" supposed to start quite some time ago?
In prior comment I had intended "useless eaters" not "useful eaters".
Narad... "wasn’t “the Great Culling” supposed to start quite some time ago?"
Well... 200 million murdered in the last century alone. Seems like that might count at least as "a start" and "a long time ago"
At Shay...
If the appropriate mistrust of government as recommended by Thomas Jefferson makes one a "conspiracy theorist" then I suppose it'd be a badge of honor. So thank you!
I have to ask what kind of a mush head would think some government on Earth conducts business less any "conspiracies" and cover-ups? Are you that naive?
Do you honestly think folks maintain control over populations by full disclosure and true transparency? Do you really feel those in charge place public interest ahead of their own, and that there are no agendas pushed without first campaigning for public awareness and majority consent?
I suppose in your washed mind the smaller percentage of folks that read "too much", pay closer attention, blow a few whistles and connect a few dots are the real problem. Or is it possible you've unwittingly become one of the Borg that's been conditioned to decry any questioning at first listen on the basis that it registers as example of the ominous catch-all of "conspiracy theory?"
Lawrence... "Youtube" isn't a source. And when it comes to the actual source of whatever clip or link, limiting response to rejection of source is a sorry substitute for refutation of the combination of facts and disputable notions presented by whatever source.
YouTube _is_ a source - one used mostly by lazy and/or ignorant people who can't or won't summarize the arguments made in these videos, and expect people to wade through lengthy, badly produced presentations instead of linking to concise articles that can be dealt with more rapidly and conveniently.
Eric H: "And I know some are patiently waiting for me to get through some reading at a number of links generously provided."
You don't see any irony in harping on time needed to read linked articles when you're linking to YouTube videos?
"The “reels” I serve via Youtube generally include clues on the sources of whatever facts and or notions being presented."
Hint: Journal articles have these things at the end called "references", so you don't have to go hunting down "clues" to sources.
(I realize that appealing to the better judgment of someone who believes in an Area 21 conspiracy is fruitless, but what the heck)
Lawrence "I’m sure he also believes that Chemtrails are real too….." There are certainly real enough discussions about the geoengineering of putting particles into the atomosphere on purpose. What makes the notion of using an airplane seem so outrageous? Sure hope "Scientific American" is an acceptable source.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uk-researchers-to-test-artifi…
Dangerous Bacon... I thought it was "Area 51" and "Agenda 21" And as previously demonstrated by what I thought was an acceptable link, Agenda 21 is not any sort of wild speculation.
Dangerous Bacon... "You don’t see any irony in harping on time needed to read linked articles when you’re linking to YouTube videos?" It takes very little time to offer responses in areas of confidence. Reading and fully comprehending the links I intend to explore is a much larger investment. Not sure if I can give you or Narad a badge for the virtue of "Patience" today, but good things sometimes come to those who wait.
I can’t think of a single scenario in which a putative all-powerful elite class would even benefit by substantially reducing the population.
The Elite today don't seem to be very competent at achieving their objectives. In my day we had better elites.
Excellent herr doctor!
"NO SAFE LEVEL has been established for allergens contained in vaccines/injections.
THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION FOR ALLERGEN CONTENT IN VACCINES/INJECTIONS."
No safe level has been established for owl snot, either - should we just assume there's owl snot in vaccines until someone comes up with an assay to test for it? The best way to make sure vaccines aren't contaminated with foreign substances is to avoid contamination in the first place by following Good Manufacturing Practices, not testing the end product for whatever random substance you're perseverating on this week.
@Eric #932 - Then maybe you should quit wasting everyone's time until you've educated yourself on the topic(s) you want to discuss.
Eric H...there's a healthy skepticism about government, and then there's swallowing conspiracy theories whole because it's easier than critical thinking. Your very first post here demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding the subject under discussion. You keep demonstrating your ignorance and gullibility with each new post.
No, dipshіt, the "revelation" was given to krayzee "Dr. Rima" in 2002.
When other people know your material better than you do, you're in pretty fυcking sorry shape. Now, is your "technologically savvy" ass and its fake Web-design company going to get back to these simple questions?
Given that posting links to videos in lieu of even being able to summarize them on one's own is worse than posting nothing at all, no. Protip: The default assumption should be that nobody's going to look at them. It's a complete fυcking waste of time.
Jesus, I block Y—be on this browser. It beats blocking reading papers at the brainstem level, which seems to be your setting.
(a) You don't need to take the temperature on Mars to find out what's going on with the solar cycle. You can just go directly to the solar cycle.
(b) Nobody knows what climate trends on Mars are. A comparison between one (1) day in 1977 and one (1) day in 1997 indicated that the latter was warmer.
^^That's the basis on which the oil-and-gas-industry shills you listen to are alleging that "It's warming on Mars, too!"
But even if it were warming on both Mars and earth, in itself, there would not (in fact) be any more of a reason to think that solar variation was responsible for both trends than there would be to think that arson was the cause of two house fires that occurred in Aleppo and Paris at approximately the same time.
And there would be no reason to think that, absent evidence of arson in both places.
Then it should be easy for you to point me towards some of them.
But just to save you the trouble:
Don't bother with the one said to be from the Initiative for the United Nations, Eco 92 Earth Charter that goes:
Because I searched the entire 169-page document for both "present" and "vast" and that sentence does not appear anywhere in it.
It would be both stylistically and substantively out of place if it did, fwiw.
According to whom? The very wealthy already live lives that are unafflicted by piles of garbage and urban blight. (Or plight, as the case may be. But I think you probably meant "blight.")
Furthermore, things have been doing nothing but getting more and more scenic and user-friendly for the wealthy right here in my hometown of NYC for decades, to the point that they're now virtually the only ones who can afford to live in Manhattan.
That process did involve a transformative reduction in piles of garbage and urban blight. But it did not involve any population reduction. When you can outbid everybody else, It's not necessary. So why would anyone bother with it?
I don't know how the existence of other people whom one doesn't care about and never has to interact with or think about constitutes an inconvenience.
I honestly don't see why. Out of sight, out of mind.
In other anti-vax fol de rol...
( as you may know, I never criticise youngsters for their views on altmed or suchlike - I wait until they are 18 or more- instead I critique their editors or parents for encouraging nonsense in public places)
Today @ AoA, Mamacita Jameson is off duty and is replaced by her daughter who is quite young. Ms Jameson Jr discusses the film, Trace Amounts and I imagine her mother would be in total agreement with her review.
Then I ask: where is teenaged rebellion when we most need it?
I mean, isn't that a part of developing own individual point of view appropriate to your age cohort and to your parents' dismay? Especially when your parent holds up such easily refutable woo-bent, conspiracy-mongering intellectual detritus as an example.
Unfortunately, the youngster dismisses what she learned in school as wrong and supplants it with Anti-Vax 101.
Shame on you, Mr Ms Jameson for mis-educating your daughter.
Sarah A
@Eric #932 – Then maybe you should quit wasting everyone’s time until you’ve educated yourself on the topic(s) you want to discuss.
I believe I explained clearly that the "topic I want to discuss" is whether a collective body has some right to inject others against their will, whether by direct force, or threat of consequences.
The little trip down "conspiracy lane" was in answer to the usual smear and ASSumptions of the Borg collective that brought up the subject as an effort to substitute ridicule for refutation with evidence.
As much as it deviates a bit from the main point I'm perfectly well qualified to make (a strong "no" answer to shots by coercion) the many proven cases and current speculation about the wholesome goodness of government certainly helps to establish that only a complete imbecile would place enough trust in government to allow bureaucrats to decide which shots all must receive.
@Narad... none of the strongly worded banter impresses any but the most gullible that accept shock language and smear rants as a replacement for evidence based refutation.
@All... I am completely open to the possibility that the present set of injections declared "safe and effective" are essential to saving humanity. I will review the links previously provided to learn as much as I can. Although the answers to APV's challenges that concern "owl snot" hardly helps to make the sale.
Also as amazing as it seems, my earlier pun about "The Renaissance" might never have happened less vaccination clearly confused some of the Borg. That was sarcasm. My intended point was that plenty of human history (good and bad) happened long before injections became all the rage.
Also it's interesting that "injections" are argued to slow population growth by having more kids survive infancy. Not sure exactly how the math works out... but if in the horrid old days one would have 12 babies to achieve 6 teenagers, they can now have just 7 and expect them all to survive, how does that mean, as Bill Gates proposes, that the "new vaccines" reduce net global population exactly? Don't most families turn to the numerous birth control product pills and contraptions when they believe they have adequately filled the family van?
Please read your own reference again. It is from a 4 year old poster presentation that infers highly allergic children may react to milk proteins that may be present in trace amounts in some vaccine lots. Not that there is definitive evidence and certainly not that vaccines caused the severe allergy to begin with which is what you claim. You have a long way to go to establish causation. Nothing you have posted comes close.
Really? In spite of the fact that your own reference specifically identifies a potential reaction to be aware of. Also, please show me the SCIENCE in disease safety. Because that's the alternative you know. There are hundreds if not thousands of PubMed references regarding vaccine safety and continuous monitoring through passive and active surveillance schemes.
Says the person with zero science chops who can't even be arsed to read her own studies. Disagreeing with you and pointing out the flaws in your "hypothesis" is not consistent with "twisting and spinning".
If the Sun were red, global warming would be the least of our problems. Perhaps you should figure out what a fυcking blackbody is before leaping into prattle about some bonus item from your overstuffed closet of phenomenal stupidity.
Ann... "For those in the club, such a Utopia might be argued to have a certain appeal.
I honestly don’t see why. Out of sight, out of mind."
If the elite honestly believe CO2 is a pollutant, and that every single life, however simply lived bears a cost in "carbon footprint", than having "6 million too many", perhaps having audacity to cook a fish on some can of Sterno might not be a case of "out of sight out of mind" at all.
But, if it's a big hoax, and they themselves don't believe the dogma they're selling, the answer is more a matter of more pristine wilderness reserved to their enjoyment, more assets for themselves (less sharing of finite global resources), easier management of a smaller set of better slaves toil at their feet.
Not sure how this all seems so implausible. The "fewer is better" attitude is shared well outside the elite circles.
Back to the subject of potential harm by at least some early and current vaccination campaigns....
I had heard about this before and only rediscovered the link. On the surface it would seem a seemingly wild statement about the Spanish Flu. My own great grandfather died as a result of Spanish Flu, so obviously there's an extra measure of personal interest.
http://yournewswire.com/1918-spanish-flu-was-caused-by-vaccinations-sho…
Now... I know... there's the word "truth" on the article. It's obviously not a mainstream publication. One with any sort of logical though knows that not all stories make prime time, and stories that are not useful to those in power are often intentionally buried.
Before the townspeople storm the castle... I am neither placing faith in this writing, nor discounting it. I'm sure there will be volunteers here to do the discounting and dismissing and I sure won't take it personally if it's completely debunked here assuming that's possible.
On that note, I'm not certain if anyone has satisfactorily ruled out the notion that AIDS might have been introduced via carelessly formulated vaccines. So the very mention of that should stir things up a bit.
Since no one here wants to forcefully inject you against your will, Eric H, you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of demonstrating what a fool you are.
Good work Narad... Our sun is technically "a yellow dwarf star". I must have been wearing the wrong Maui Jim's when I last checked. I'm so glad you're here to correct for the important errors. Thank you again sir!
Thank you shay! And here I thought I used rather precise language to avoid such confusion about what a "fool" I might be. Do the words "whether by direct force, or threat of consequences." have any meaning to you? Is English your primary language?
Eric H...please explain how one gets the flu from a vaccine against something else entirely? In your own words, if you please. Your extensive reading in virology, immunology and infectious diseases ought to help you out, here.
Everything has consequences, Humpty Dumpty. Sorry, you don't get to make up definitions.
So, Eric believes in time traveling vaccines?
The first yellow fever vaccine wasn't developed until 1936.
Thanks Lawrence... that would seem ridiculous. Inoculation began much earlier though if that makes any difference to the discussion.
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/timelines/all
So the very mention of that should stir things up a bit.
Not trolling, no, not at all.
Interesting that they passed vaccination laws before vaccines existed... (the previously posted timeline must be bogus... apologies all around)
1855
Vaccination Law Passes
Massachusetts passed the first U.S. law mandating vaccination for schoolchildren.
Shay!
"Everything has consequences, Humpty Dumpty. Sorry, you don’t get to make up definitions." and other nursery rhymes by shay!
Since you're the accomplished children's book author, what "definition" did I "make up" exactly?
Shay
"please explain how one gets the flu from a vaccine against something else entirely? In your own words, if you please. Your extensive reading in virology, immunology and infectious diseases ought to help you out, here."
Not sure how much expertise might be called upon to speculate. Perhaps someone sneezed in the batch? (or some other cross contamination during a time when contemporary protocols might have been a bit harder to work out)
This is why it is useless to engage someone like Eric.
They are incapable of holding an honest conversation or admit that they are wrong (such as using a source that attempts to blame vaccines that didn't even exist at the time for the Spanish Flu).
Also then notice that he attempts to divert the conversation again with vaccine laws.
The first vaccination / inoculation law was passed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1792.
Can't you find another bogus link to entertain us with
"Perhaps someone sneezed on a batch?"
There are no words.
As for "how" reducing childhood mortality leads to people having fewer total children, the fact is that it does. The difference isn't that people have seven children in order to have seven survive: they have two or three children, being able to expect that all of them will survive. I am guessing from your username that you have never carried a pregnancy to term: few women consider that an actively pleasant experience, however much they want the resulting children. (The other way to reduce birthrates with no coercion whatsoever--also by observation--is more education and autonomy for women.)
On the off chance that you were actually asking for information rather than throwing out a rhetorical "I know this because someone told me," the way you cite "I talked to scientists" is by giving the scientist's name, the date, and the phrase "personal communication." This of course means that you actually had a conversation that both you and the scientist in question will remember—not six people chatting idly over a couple of beers, with a brief mention of global warming between discussions of the Mariners' chances for the season and the best way to make clam chowder.
Lawrence,
The first yellow fever vaccine wasn’t developed until 1936. Deepest apologies for confusion. I was multi-tasking and incorrectly read "first vaccine wasn't developed until 1936".
As for the rant about your imagining me "incapable of holding an honest conversation or admit that they are wrong" ... I believe I correctly qualified that the Spanish Flu bit was submitted less any personal commitment to the notion presented therein.
The exact words: " I am neither placing faith in this writing, nor discounting it."
But, again, I most certainly do accept the general wrongness for misreading your post about Yellow Fever vaccines as they pertain to the timeline.
Shay,
You didn't like the historyofvaccines.org link?
Vicky!
You are right that in spite of advances in the glorious field of "male pregnancy" I had never personally carried a child to term! Nor have I had any abortions.
Narad, "If the Sun were red, global warming would be the least of our problems"
As it turns out "global warming" is "the least of our problems", but obviously that doesn't make the Sun red!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
So, you readily admit that you don't bother to read or fact-check the sources you present.
Good to know.
I guess you are the "trust a book by its cover" kind of guy.
No wonder you believe all manner of conspiracy theories.
Eric has achieved JAQ'ing off status....
@ Eric H
No one's been twisting your arm to get your ill-informed opinions on rape culture, political theory, the Illuminati depopulation plot, global warming, etc. And unfortunately, you don't get to sidestep the scientific issues surrounding vaccination by waving the word "consent" like some sort of magic talisman. As long as you choose to live in a society your freedom is limited insofar as your choices affect others, and in real life it's not always as obvious as the effect of swinging your fist if it collides with someone else's face.
You continue to misrepresent the issue as some imaginary plot by the gov't to break down your door and forcibly inject you, when it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that the only "forced" vaccination is for children attending school with other children. Large numbers of children in a shared airspace creates certain hazards (e.g., enhanced disease transmission) just as large numbers of cars on the road creates certain hazards (e.g., collisions.) Hardly anyone questions the government's authority to require its citizens to take reasonable precautions to avoid harming others when engaging in activities that create the opportunity for harm to occur. The problem lies in the disagreement over what constitutes "reasonable" precautions. The overwhelming consensus of doctors, scientists, etc., is that vaccination is a "reasonable" precaution because the risks of not vaccinating far exceed the risk of vaccinating, not only for the individual but for everyone that individual comes into contact with. Antivaxxers have failed utterly to prove otherwise, which is why they're increasingly falling back on the "I don't wanna and you can't make me" argument. But you don't get to go around punching people in the nose because you choose not to believe in inertia.
I think the quality of Eric H's reference regarding Spanish Flu is probably best demonstrated by this:
No diseases are contagious?
Science Mom #943,
You keep beating around the bush. Why can't you post a specification for allergen content in vaccines? Simple question.
Should be easy for a "Science" Mom?
Science Mom #943,
"So it is a fact that there is NO SCIENCE in vaccine safety. Indisputable and irrefutable.
Really? In spite of the fact that your own reference"
I DON'T have to post any reference for that comment because the comment is based on YOUR INABILITY to post a specification.
LW,
Agree... indeed this is a poorly written piece. The subject struck me as interesting since my own Great Grandfather was lost to this particular epidemic. Not much is proven either way by poor presentation.
I did post it with a pretty big disclaimer however: "I am neither placing faith in this writing, nor discounting it. "
If there was a cover-up, probably not much historical record from which to draw more solid conclusions. Looks like the primary inspiration for the author's attempt was his own family history and his own understanding about those surviving being the ones that turned down the shots.
Oh Rully?
# Eric
I was fascinated by that influenza link. It does show just how parochial Americans are.
The influenza outbreak was a world wide occurance and IIRC started in the last stages of the war. I find it difficult to believe that millions of returning solders in Russia, Austria, Germany, Serbia Turkey, Canada Australia Britain all got yellow fever. shots.
I find it a bit hard to believe that drug manufacturers would manage to sell yellow fever vaccines (which I see others point did not even exist) to the various warring faction in the Russian revolution. I can just see it, dedicated drug company salesman (aka capitalist lackey), "Oh yes Comrade Lenin your brave comrades in Arkhangelsk need this. We can start deliveries in Minsk and then go from Minsk to Pinsk and then Omsk to Tomsk in no time".
Sarah A #935,
"No safe level has been established for owl snot, either – should we just assume there’s owl snot in vaccines until someone comes up with an assay to test for it? The best way to make sure vaccines aren’t contaminated with foreign substances is to avoid contamination in the first place by following Good Manufacturing Practices, not testing the end product for whatever random substance you’re perseverating on this week."
You don't understand. If vaccines were allergen free using good manufacturing practice, there would be no reason for me to be posting/complaining here at all.
Our vaccine are contaminated with numerous food proteins including egg, milk and gelatin.
If you know you are going to contaminate the vaccine with excipients or growth media that includes food proteins, YOU HAVE TO TEST for the safety of that level of contamination and establish a specification.
The FDA has FAILED to do that. Good manufacturing practice will not help.
You don't need to establish a safe level for owl snot in vaccines unless you have a patent to use it is a growth media.
Sara A.
Glad you're following the diverse range of subjects covered.
According to Trump and Huffington Post we are actively importing some "rape culture".
Other than that not sure what opinion of it you might presume I'd have. I am personally 100% opposed to rape. I'm also 100% opposed to any conditions or consequences that might coerce sexual relations with an otherwise unwilling participant. I'm also 100% opposed to any conditions or consequences that might coerce one to accept shots they otherwise don't want.
Blast from the past:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/09/25/forced-to-be-an-antivaccin…
If the only way to reduce CO2 emissions was to reduce the population, that might make sense. But it's not. Nor is it the best way.
Nor is it even necessarily a way at all, ftm. Depends on what the remaining population does.
In short: That doesn't make sense.
Why would they want more of those things when they already have access to as much of them as they want and (in fact) often more than they can use?
Exclusivity and selectivity are both popular, it's true. But if you're wealthy and powerful you can stay in your exclusive, selective elite bubble perfectly well without going to all the trouble of killing a bunch of people you don't care about and never see who aren't an encumbrance to you in any way. Especially when you can just ignore them.
As far as I'm aware, there is zero precedent for a powerful elite deciding to reduce the population simply so that they can have more pristine wilderness to play in. I mean, who does that? When they want pristine wilderness, they buy it.
I stand by my already stated opinion. Basically.
Sara A... more on topic with...
"Antivaxxers have failed utterly to prove otherwise, which is why they’re increasingly falling back on the “I don’t wanna and you can’t make me” argument. But you don’t get to go around punching people in the nose because you choose not to believe in inertia."
Cute analogy. The burden of proof of safety is not on the patient but the doctor. The patient has final word on whatever medicine.
Comparing skepticism and an appropriate opt-out of government shots to "punching others in the nose" is hilarious. Now that there is some fancy "rape apology." Like saying "Your not allowing me the spoils of love is like stabbing me in the heart!"
I admit that Theodore Roosevelt probably thought about it.
But even still. That was a long time ago. And all that happened was that we got national parks.
Now he's citing Donald Trump. It couldn't possibly get better.
Eric H.
I have nothing to contribute scientifically to your quest to do whatever it is you are doing here. However, that doesn't matter since science, logic and reason are already well covered by the knowledgeable here.
But I'm curious about a couple of your debating tactics thinking perhaps it is a product of your occupational experience.
1. Deflection: When customers ask about mpg do you start talking about safety tests? When they ask about trunk dimensions do you start talking about the quality of the service dept.
2. Emotional Manipulation: Do you use fear, arrogance, pandering or obfuscation to win whatever it is you're after.
My n=1 subjective experience is your comments are highly annoying to the point of creating a parody of yourself. It would be probably not be as fun if you demonstrated more integrity and a lot less snark but it would certainly make it easier for your customers (other readers). Unless of course you really aren't concerned with sharing anything worthwhile but are happy just being a contrarian.
There were cases of AIDS a decade before the vaccination campaign in question. So I'd say that one's been ruled out.
That's a horrifying statistic.
Eric H. We have plenty of homegrown rape right here in the USA. It affects millions of women and girls quite horribly. And quite a few boys and men, too.
The vast, overwhelming majority of rapes go unpunished. Even more go unreported. That's been the case for eons. It's pretty much always been the case, in fact. And the culture is fine with it.
Please stop putting quotation marks around the words rape culture.
Thanks.
. The burden of proof of safety is not on the patient but the doctor.
The burden of proof that the benefits of vaccination exceed the risks by a large enough margin to consider them a "reasonable" precaution to avoid spreading disease have been amply met by the standards of practically everyone with expertise in the relevant fields.
Comparing skepticism and an appropriate opt-out of government shots to “punching others in the nose” is hilarious
Do try to keep up - it's not refusing vaccines but sending unvaccinated children to school that is analogous to punching someone in the nose. And frankly, you wouldn't recognize "skepticism" if it bit you in the @$$. If the government issued a statement that the sky was blue, a skeptic would go outside and check. Someone who thinks that the gov't stating that the sky is blue is irrefutable evidence that it's actually orange is what we generally call a "conspiracy theorist."
OK, so I write this, quoting you:
And you respond with this?
Have you recently suffered a serious head injury? Why the fυck are you directing me to W—dia about something I brought up in the first place? Blackbodies are freshman physics. And you are knuckle-dragging about fυcking Mars?
You have demonstrated over and over again that what emanates from your keyboard has had no fυcking thought whatever put into it.
Do you want to make a legal argument about SB 277? What the fυck have you been waiting for? All you've presented so far on that front has been bona fide, grade AA, drooling puffery.
@ann
Don't worry - all those women weren't really raped, they just had "morning after remorse."
I'm almost sorry I brought the whole thing up again, but since we're nearly 1000 comments on I wanted to make sure any latecomers to the party were aware of the full depth of Eric H's moral turpitude.
No, it's a demonstration that you've been reduced to simple, pathetic attention-whoring.
Narad, thank you for getting straight to the point and for your creative use of text formatting.
Oh, so Eric H. is ranting about the Messicans now, too? Big surprise.
Ann @ 911
RE:Antarctica
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83672
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/what%E2%80%99s-my…
Eric H @ 927
Narad… “wasn’t “the Great Culling” supposed to start quite some time ago?”
Well… 200 million murdered in the last century alone. Seems like that might count at least as “a start” and “a long time ago”
Citations please.What are we talking about.The Nazis? Pol Pot? Idi Amin?
LW @ 967
You might be better of asking Eric the question I asked back at 844 that did not get an answer
Eric,are you a germ theory denialist?
Eric H #977,
"The burden of proof of safety is not on the patient but the doctor."
Great point. The burden is also on the FDA and the vaccine makers.
Sarah A wrote:
"... benefits of vaccination exceed the risks ..."
That's bogus. The FDA has not studied the risks of the allergen contamination in vaccines. Without knowing the risk level, how can ANYONE conclude that benefits exceed the risk?
We are discovering years after vaccine approval that gelatin in vaccines is causing gelatin allergy. Obviously, this risk was not accounted in the risk/benefit calculation.
He was invoking "Dr." Rima Laibow. It generally goes like this:
Thence comes Men Who Stare at Goats, Project Stargate, etc. (Krayzee Rima is married to Krayzee Stubblebine, whose head is probably in a vat of liquid nitrogen at this point.)
Next up will probably be the "Hilleman video." To paraphrase Roger Ebert,
This doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This isn't the bottom of the barrel. This isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.
Science Mom, #971,
I asked for a SPECIFICATION. Say, how many ng/ml of milk protein is safe in a vaccine. Not the excipient list. Sounds like you DON'T know the meaning of "a specification for allergen content" ...
Nailed it.
Science Mom, #971,
BTW, I posted the CDC excipient list that you provided, back in #858.
Eric H #977,
“The burden of proof of safety is not on the patient but the doctor.”
Also, it is unacceptable that the vaccine injury court places the burden of proof on the victim. The burden of proving that the vaccine did not cause the injury should fall on those who manufactured/approved the vaccine.
Then there is the vaccine injury table! Why is there a vaccine injury table? If a vaccine is known to cause an injury, fix the darn vaccine!
Eric H, there's something about your position that baffles me. You strenuously object to the vaccination law being discussed because, in your eyes, it is an invasion of personal autonomy, because it requires children to have receive certain vaccinations in order to attend public school.
You have explained that you have similar objections to people being required to receive certain vaccinations if they wish to have certain jobs.
Yet you raised an enormous stink about the idea of a woman... pardon me, a "gal", working in a restaurant but not washing her hands in the way you felt she should. In that situation you were outraged that she was increasing the risk that you'd catch a, shall we say, hygiene preventable illness.
It seems that you do in fact understand social contract. You do want other people to take steps to reduce the risk of transmitting diseases to you. But only the steps you approve of. Bodily autonomy and personal liberty were only convenient excuses to you.
How else am I to view this? What is the distinction, to you, between compelling someone to receive a vaccination and compelling them to wash their hands, in terms of the personal liberty which so motivates your thinking. Do I not have the right to determine what I do with my own hands? Once it goes beyond injections do you believe that I lose all rights to control my body?
Why the fsck are you wasting everyone else's time by posting things that you "[are] neither placing faith in this writing, nor discounting"?
You seem to think that your time is so much more valuable than anyone else's that it's reasonable to ask 100 people to read something that might not be a lie, so you don't have to take the time to decide whether you think it's true.
It may be more valuable to you, but not to us.
A question for the rest of the commentariat: is it worth my while reading any future posts of Eric's that he explicitly says he stands behind?
^ Oh, I almost forgot: Krayzee Rima has kept this turd* in the freezer and is still trying to polish it.
This is what MRA "gal" Eric Hanson has been shoveling into the main aperture to his sadly denuded head.
But, there's a bonus! He resorted to priggishness:
This could also properly be described as the "Betsy Wetsy Defense," given that Eric is "playing mental chess."
Jesus, this is leaving aside the attempt to hide behind the skirts of monomaniac Vinu Freaking Arumugham, who is noteworthy solely by virtue of lying about being a medical student at Medscape.
So, by all means, get the fυck on with something that somehow inolves a G-ddamned "evidence based refutation" to start with. Wiping up after you with paper towels doesn't count.
* "She look pretty, how you call him, stolid."
** This is what Y—be is "for," Peaches.
@Nomad:
After a fashion, I suppose.
Excellently put, though.
Eric H allows:
So nasal and oral vaccination is OK with you?
------------------------------------------------------------
The universe, and the way it works, have no concern with your antipathy toward consequences affecting you. For any action, including the null action (i.e., inaction) there are consequent conditions. Your greed and narcissism do not immunize you from them.
The bottom line:
Reality doesn't give a rip about your druthers; "I want" does not get you anywhere, absent action; "I don't wanna" does not excuse inaction.
------------------------------------------------------------
Consequences may be physical or social. You were born vulnerable (whether immediately or eventually) to a raft of VPDs. You can reduce that vulnerability by the action called immunization; you can also reduce it by participating solely a society that values and implements social (herd) immunity: these go together quite nicely. You can also reduce your vulnerability by surviving the various VPDs, although that's the really iffy, unpleasant option. Or you can hope that you are one of the lucky ones: that's the iffyest of all. These are all physical consequences. "Do you feel lucky, punk?" asks reality.
------------------------------------------------------------
There are precious few forms of contracts that must be signed; these are "Statute of Fraud" contracts. Nearly all contracts are accepted, and become binding, when you accept the benefits of the contract. Your parents accepted the 'social contract' for you, when you were a minor. One presumes that you are no longer a minor, despite your 'philosophy'.
In any contract, the benefits you are due are offset by the consideration due from you. You may abandon/abrogate a contract (in the absence of contract terms for abrogation and termination) by making the balance even: forfeit all benefits, past and future, and render all consideration to the other party.
You are, by act of your parents, and by your failure to terminate (if applicable), bound by the social contract. Under SB277, the interesting features are: you get the benefit of society in education for yourself and your children; in consideration for which, you are to do your part to help society provide societal immunity to all (whether they need it or not).
In the past, California, in its rôle of administrator of the social contract for its territory, has been pretty lenient in collecting the consideration just mentioned. In particular "I don't wanna" was been accepted in lieu of participation. SB277 arose and was passed to rectify that past mistake. If you want that benefit of the social contract, you must now pay your consideration. Theft of public safety is not longer acceptable.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty-odd years ago, I was an Objectivist and one of the earliest card-carrying Libertarians in California. At that time,he Libertarian Party rightly considered itself the party of principle. The discussion was how to implement those principles without screwing people over. Eventually, the LP was taken over by greedy aσσwholes (the 'w' is intentional) less interested in principles and more interested in power over, and theft from, society. By the time of the Bob Barr takeover, I was long gone, my membership expired and my LP card discarded.
The LP had abandoned its principles; I wouldn't abandon mine.
And that's why I recognized your neolib babblings right away. They are no more valid now than they were forty years ago.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to have made this so long, but Eric's immorality finally got to me. I'm too tired, now, to review and edit. I hope it's readable.