Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Evidence that a vaccine program can be bad? 1st part

  1. #1
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    North Pacific Coast USA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,146
    Amen (Given)
    100
    Amen (Received)
    141

    Evidence that a vaccine program can be bad? 1st part

    The Theologyweb staff generally thinks I'm an anti-vakker nutjob. But what if I have evidence such as this paper
    http://www.rescuepost.com/files/n-mi...es-article.pdf
    ?
    If you don't accept that as evidence, why not?
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

  2. #2
    tWebber Christianbookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    8,727
    Amen (Given)
    5053
    Amen (Received)
    1609
    How on earth is that even a reliable/valid source?
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  3. #3
    Child of the One True King Raphael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Middle Earth, New Zealand
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,988
    Amen (Given)
    2419
    Amen (Received)
    2851
    Quote Originally Posted by Truthseeker View Post
    The Theologyweb staff generally thinks I'm an anti-vakker nutjob. But what if I have evidence such as this paper
    http://www.rescuepost.com/files/n-mi...es-article.pdf
    ?
    If you don't accept that as evidence, why not?
    Because Miller presents a one sided argument and finds one or two scraps that may support his position while ignoring the mountains of evidence against it.

    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...-vaccine-book/
    This is based on a review of Miller's book, which includes the arguments in your "paper"
    Source: sciencebasedmedicine

    It regurgitates every argument of the anti-vaccine faction without fairly presenting the arguments for vaccines and without acknowledging that every anti-vaccine argument has been thoroughly rebutted. For instance, it repeats reporter Dan Olmsted’s myth that the Amish do not vaccinate and do not get autism.

    It deceptively argues that deaths from vaccine-targeted illnesses were decreasing before the development of vaccines. Deaths were decreasing due to improving medical treatment and other factors, but the diseases were not going away: the incidence of the diseases had not decreased significantly. Graphs of the yearly incidence of diseases like measles, mumps, polio, diphtheria, pertussis, etc. all show a striking reduction after vaccines were introduced. The book does not present those graphs. The real proof of the pudding is that in various countries around the world, when vaccination rates dropped, the diseases returned; and when vaccination rates rose again, the diseases subsided. The book does not acknowledge those inconvenient facts.

    It does rely heavily on horror stories, mainly drawn from VAERS (Vaccination Adverse Event Reporting System) data. For every vaccine it provides a list of cases reported to VAERS. It says these are “just a small sample of the potential side effects associated with vaccines.” This is deliberately deceptive. The fact that a case is reported to VAERS only means that an adverse event occurred after vaccination; it does not even establish a correlation with the vaccine (because we don’t know whether the event occurs with equal frequency in a control group), and it certainly doesn’t establish that the vaccine caused the event.

    It claims that VAERS data show that Rotateq vaccine causes intussusception in children. It doesn’t mention that the CDC investigated those VAERS reports and found that the rate of intussusception after the vaccine did not exceed the expected background rate of intussusception in the population.

    It cites cases of adverse reactions to diphtheria antitoxin; but antitoxin is never needed unless you get the disease, which is prevented by the vaccine. And then it recommends avoiding tetanus vaccine since a tetanus antitoxin is available. It fails to mention the adverse reactions to tetanus antitoxin and the fact that it will not be needed if the vaccine has prevented the disease in the first place. How could anyone think it is preferable to get tetanus and then treat it with antitoxin?

    © Copyright Original Source



    BTW, thanks to MMR vaccination Measles has been obliterated in the Americas and will be gone from the majority of the rest of the world by 2020 (SE Asia will take a little longer)
    TheologyWeb Needs YOU! - Please Help Us Upgrade Tweb! Click here for more info


    "If you can ever make any major religion look absolutely ludicrous, chances are you haven't understood it"
    -Ravi Zacharias, The New Age: A foreign bird with a local walk

    Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.
    1 Corinthians 16:13

    "...he [Doherty] is no historian and he is not even conversant with the historical discussions of the very matters he wants to pontificate on."
    -Ben Witherington III

  4. #4
    tWebber Christianbookworm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northern Hemisphere
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    8,727
    Amen (Given)
    5053
    Amen (Received)
    1609
    About the MMR, how do we keep the idiots who refuse to vaccinate their kids from ruining the plan to eradicate measles?
    If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!

  5. #5
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    37,579
    Amen (Given)
    3416
    Amen (Received)
    17953
    Quote Originally Posted by Truthseeker View Post
    The Theologyweb staff generally thinks I'm an anti-vakker nutjob. But what if I have evidence such as this paper
    http://www.rescuepost.com/files/n-mi...es-article.pdf
    ?
    If you don't accept that as evidence, why not?
    https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...ased-medicine/

    The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons: Ideology trumps science-based medicine
    Posted by David Gorski on June 23, 2008

    ... what I’m about to write is going to be harsh indeed because articles from the journal published by this organization are often cited by cranks and pseudoscientists. Sometimes they even make their way into the mainstream press as though they were legitimate scientific studies. Make no mistake, though, when it comes to medical science, this organization deserves every harsh word that I am about to write because it is a major booster of antivaccinationism, HIV/AIDS denialism, and the now discredited hypothesis that abortion causes breast cancer, while on its pages it regularly attacks the very concept of evidence-based medicine and peer-review. That it is an organization of physicians is all the more appalling.

    The group to which I refer is the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), and its journal is the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (abbreviated JPANDS, because “JAPS” has some rather obvious negative connotations). It is not an exaggeration to say that the AAPS, through its journal JPANDS, is waging a war on science- and evidence-based medicine in the name of its politics.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •