Woo is woo, religious or not.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-03-2013, 11:53 AM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(04-03-2013 11:49 AM)I and I Wrote:  Speaking of measles in particular, why is a vaccine necessary for this?

When did the decline in measles begin? Stats say that measles wasn't deadly and was on the decline before the vaccine was even given on a massive scale.

Are vaccinated people threatened when a non vaxer is around them?
From World Health Organization:
  • In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
  • Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
I hear this same 'non-deadly' crap from every anti-vaxer. We vaccinate for a reason.


I don't feel threatened, I feel horrified at the ignorance.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 11:54 AM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
Measles can kill kids, so yes. There was a huge scare in the UK a few years ago over the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine . Totally unfounded in fact, hyped up by the media and the result was a much higher infection rate the following year. Even if not fatal, kids bodies aren't helluva tough - and childhood infections lead to dicey health in later life.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
04-03-2013, 11:56 AM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(04-03-2013 11:50 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 11:41 AM)Chas Wrote:  Yes, because your statements are crazy.

The flu vaccine prevents flu, it doesn't cure it. Vaccines are preventatives, not treatments.

The flu vaccine is generally 60% to 90% effective at preventing influenza, varying year to year.

Evidence for your flu prevention claims?

Oh yeah, does having the flu vaccine decrease ones chances of getting the flu? Yes or no


The CDC, WHO, AMA, and so on. Go to their web sites.

Yes, getting the flu vaccine reduces the risk of contracting the flu.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
04-03-2013, 11:57 AM
Woo is woo, religious or not.
(04-03-2013 11:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 11:49 AM)I and I Wrote:  Speaking of measles in particular, why is a vaccine necessary for this?

When did the decline in measles begin? Stats say that measles wasn't deadly and was on the decline before the vaccine was even given on a massive scale.

Are vaccinated people threatened when a non vaxer is around them?
From World Health Organization:
  • In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
  • Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
I hear this same 'non-deadly' crap from every anti-vaxer. We vaccinate for a reason.


I don't feel threatened, I feel horrified at the ignorance.

And these deaths occurred in what kind of living conditions and health oversight?

Please don't be so stupid to lump third world measles deaths to laughingly mean that it was solely the measles that shortened the lives of poverty stricken third world.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 11:59 AM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(04-03-2013 11:50 AM)I and I Wrote:  Evidence for your flu prevention claims?

Oh yeah, does having the flu vaccine decrease ones chances of getting the flu? Yes or no

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Wrote:In the United States, annual vaccination against seasonal influenza is recommended for all persons aged ≥6 months. Each season since 2004–05, CDC has estimated the effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine to prevent influenza-associated, medically attended acute respiratory infection (ARI). This season, early data from 1,155 children and adults with ARI enrolled during December 3, 2012–January 2, 2013 were used to estimate the overall effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccine for preventing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infection associated with medically attended ARI. After adjustment for study site, but not for other factors, the estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) was 62% (95% confidence intervals [CIs] = 51%–71%). This interim estimate indicates moderate effectiveness, and is similar to a summary VE estimate from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trial data; final estimates likely will differ slightly.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml...mm6202a4_w

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 12:05 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(04-03-2013 11:57 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 11:53 AM)Chas Wrote:  From World Health Organization:
  • In 2011, there were 158 000 measles deaths globally – about 430 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
  • Measles vaccination resulted in a 71% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2011 worldwide.
I hear this same 'non-deadly' crap from every anti-vaxer. We vaccinate for a reason.


I don't feel threatened, I feel horrified at the ignorance.

And these deaths occurred in what kind of living conditions and health oversight?

Please don't be so stupid to lump third world measles deaths to laughingly mean that it was solely the measles that shortened the lives of poverty stricken third world.
I see, the deaths of children outside of the U.S. don't count. Consider

Nearly half of the cases in the U.S. resulted in hospitalization for supportive care, thereby lowering the risk of complications or death. The worldwide statistics show that the disease is deadly.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 12:07 PM
Woo is woo, religious or not.
How effective is the flu vaccine? Not very effective at all.
http://m.naturalnews.com/news/038826_flu...itals.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
I'm only anti-vaccine when it comes to the flu shot and the chicken pox vaccine. Luckily the chicken pox one I dont have to worry about. Somehow i managed to survive that on my own. (must be a miracle.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-03-2013, 12:09 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(02-08-2012 11:01 PM)Filox Wrote:  Look, I get what you are saying, but my last years decision to not take the swine flu vaccine (or was it 2 years ago?) has proven to be a good decision, because that vaccine was not tested enough and it had nasty side effects for more percentage than it should have. The immunologists have said it was not tested enough. A lot of doctors gave advice to their patients that they are better to take only the normal flu vaccine, but not the swine flu one. From that point on, I tend to be far more careful about those things. Every year there is a new vaccine and their transparency and known facts about that years vaccine influence my decision about taking it. I think this is very intelligent and smart option, far better than just take whatever somebody produces, without questioning and checking what it is about.
I agree. Testing is important, especially if there is a significant change in production methods. If you're allergic to eggs, you need to be very careful re which vaccines you take, but if the H1N1 flu had been as deadly as the 1916 flu, you would still have been better off taking it and taking your chances with the possible side-effects rather than taking your chances with that flu. We dodged the bullet with H1N1, next time we might not be so lucky.

In your case the people who took the shot before you were the test subjects and your doctor was probably right with his advice. Where your GP and a researcher working specifically in research on a particular disease disagree about something, I think you would be better off taking the advice of the researcher who would typically have more up to date information. If that kind of disagreement happened to me, I would point out the disagreeing article to my doctor and ask him to consider it. If he still disagreed, I would get a 2nd opinion from another doctor. So far, my doctor has kept up to date, so the problem has not come up. It is a good idea to keep up to date with the latest scientific discoveries, but it is a terrible idea to reject science altogether and get your health advice from anti-vaccine propaganda sites or from purveyors of woo like Dr. Oz or the thousands of "naturopathic" or "alternative medicine" sites out there. Despite the ongoing efforts of magic based "medical" groups like the chiroquacter's associations to be recognized as primary care physicians, the fact remains that it takes at least 8 years of intensive scientific and practical education to become a real doctor vs at most 3 years and sometimes even only a few weeks to become "certified" in one of the woo-woo hand-waving magic-based branches of Big Quack. Here are some links to more useful information on this and related topics -- from real medical doctors and medical researchers who actually took the time and trouble to learn a lot about what they are talking about:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/inde...-efficacy/
http://www.quackwatch.com/
http://edgydoc.com/

"Heresy makes for progress" - Hypatia Bradlaugh Bonner
[1 Corinthians 13:11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. - The Bible King James Version. See? Even the Bible says "Put me down!" Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ufo42's post
04-03-2013, 12:12 PM
Woo is woo, religious or not.
(04-03-2013 12:05 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-03-2013 11:57 AM)I and I Wrote:  And these deaths occurred in what kind of living conditions and health oversight?

Please don't be so stupid to lump third world measles deaths to laughingly mean that it was solely the measles that shortened the lives of poverty stricken third world.
I see, the deaths of children outside of the U.S. don't count. Consider

Nearly half of the cases in the U.S. resulted in hospitalization for supportive care, thereby lowering the risk of complications or death. The worldwide statistics show that the disease is deadly.

So you are attributing measles deaths in third world poverty that has many other variables affecting their health.

A kid getting the measles in a poor part of Haiti vs the u.s.

Your stupid brain has to use common sense for this one: the kid in Haiti with measles is far more likely to die from measles than a kid in the u.s. with measles.

Are vaccinated kids in danger from non vaccinated kids?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: