Jump to content

Anti-science that gives me a headache


Recommended Posts

im also more convinced that modern cartoons and advertisements are more likely to cause autism than any vaccine. i think science exists for that, but i dont have any sources (just something i read somewhere).

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who use works of fiction as an authoritative source on medical information (or as a parable for modern politics) aren’t worth getting your blood pressure up over.

A more elaborate argument would be that They have only recently started to hype up measles in order to enforce vaccination at gunpoint, or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are going to believe whatever they want to believe. If you're angry on that then perhaps you should take more vacation...

 

What matters is trying to persuade them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the rejection of authority itself. If they reject the concept of someone having authority, then no amount of "convincing" is sufficient as they do not believe in "being convinced". 

Personally, I believe it is a symptom of overpopulation. People, perhaps disadvantaged, become disillusioned with the idea that they cannot have an impact on the enormous global society (made worse that they can see it all happening through a bajillion different types of modern media, which has multiplied by orders of magnitude over just the last few decades) and they spend all of their time being told what to do, by politicians, nutritionists, 9 out of 10 dentists, "big pharma", "big government", "The Man", MumsNet etc etc etc.

That is just my interpretation but the discussion over what it is and what causes it could go on all day, of course.

I think we just need to stand fast and hold on to the idea that they are a minority and that despite setbacks, we are living in a *relative* "golden age" of enlightenment and science, although at times its hard to believe.

Hopefully in time, the access to information will gradually whittle away at the impact this type of thing can have.

Best we can do is continue to act rationally.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines are extremely effective. I won't argue with that. I do, however, take issue with the way some vaccines are given. I'm no biologist, (yet) but giving an infant 10+ vaccinations in one sitting can't be healthy for the child (who will almost certainly have a significant hangover) or re-assuring for the parent. (I know this was done because unfortunately I saw it take place myself.) We can't just label parents genuinely concerned about their children's health as "the enemy." We should be more concerned about helping them better protect their children. You don't do that by name-calling. In addition, if something works well, people take notice. It may not happen as quickly as many would like, but patience is an important virtue. Don't lose your temper just because someone else is not doing what you want them to. They'll come around to the right point of view eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dunatian said:

Vaccines are extremely effective. I won't argue with that. I do, however, take issue with the way some vaccines are given. I'm no biologist, (yet) but giving an infant 10+ vaccinations in one sitting can't be healthy for the child (who will almost certainly have a significant hangover) or re-assuring for the parent. (I know this was done because unfortunately I saw it take place myself.) 

That's not too well understood, though most infants actually not only survive their time as an infant, but also their childhood. And that's an accomplishment.

Don't forget that child mortality rates used to be enormous. Every third child or so would die before their fifth birthday, potentially more. And now child mortality just keeps going down, it seems. There are multiple reasons, but one of them is vaccines. According to a source I found: 44% of all the children that died from 2000 to 2013 passed within a month of their life, and more than half of all the children died of infectious diseases. 

Children are among the most vulnerable to diseases. Some vaccinations they receive when they're young can improve their health over their lifetime and protect them when they're children.

Not only that but you can look up vaccination schedules. From what I can find there is no occasion where there is 10+ vaccines applied in one sitting. The most I can find is 6, but that doesn't even have to be one sitting since it's a recommendation that the infant receives the vaccines at 2 months old, and that could be 5 vaccines if they get one of the vaccines at 1 month old. And that's CDC recommended, so if someone is applying 10+ vaccines then that is not required, and not necessary.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality#child-deaths-over-time

Edited by Bill Phil
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

Vaccines are extremely effective. I won't argue with that. I do, however, take issue with the way some vaccines are given. I'm no biologist, (yet) but giving an infant 10+ vaccinations in one sitting can't be healthy for the child (who will almost certainly have a significant hangover) or re-assuring for the parent. (I know this was done because unfortunately I saw it take place myself.) We can't just label parents genuinely concerned about their children's health as "the enemy." We should be more concerned about helping them better protect their children. You don't do that by name-calling. In addition, if something works well, people take notice. It may not happen as quickly as many would like, but patience is an important virtue. Don't lose your temper just because someone else is not doing what you want them to. They'll come around to the right point of view eventually.

 

Doctors/People make mistakes, procedures can be outdated, things are never perfect.

Absolutely, we require the right to question our authority figures.

 

 

Im using the term "authority" rather broadly here, meaning generalised expertise rather than "official" authority like a government organisation. Thats a whole other discussion.

 

 

But this type of statement:

"I'm no biologist...but XYZ can't be healthy"

...is problematic. Logically, rationally, its a mess. Sorry to be harsh but the statement as-is has almost no merit.

 

 

People in general, you, me, everyone, are far too reluctant to make this statement instead:

"Im no biologist...what are the effects of giving 10+ vaccines in one sitting?"

 

Yes, I am absolutely guilty of all of this myself too, as I am sure we all have been to some extent.

 

Dont reject authority without reason. Reason, rationale.

Question authority. Get an answer.

Rejecting it and replacing it wholesale with gut feeling is not just a step backwards, its a running jump into the dark ages.

 

Then if you dont like the answer, you can take that answer and stick it in someones face.

 

 

 

@The Dunatian

I believe this comment to be applicable to almost everyone, myself included, I wouldnt want you to think I was having a go at you :)

I believe that if you are concerned you absolutely should question your doctor or your doctor's service about a vaccine "hangover" and if there was any reason you couldnt have them administered in several sessions instead of one.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We actually have a increase of measles in some countries in the EU.

I am vaccinated against lots of nasty stuff, i have at least one digital and two handwritten vaccination diaries for my whole live until now and i will take any vaccination suggested by the government and the responsible doctors, 

for good reason...

I was never ever seriously sick in my life and i feel great. I am quite old btw.

Good luck with measles when people get them in their age.

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, first of all: I am a biologist! In fact one of my primary focuses in school was viruses and immunology. It's fascinating stuff.
There have been some good, well-reasoned comments already, but just to ensure people have a good enough understanding of vaccines, here's a brief (and pretty basic, but still accurate) rundown of how they work, why, and the effect they have on the body (regardless of age). 

First, let's think about what happens when you get infected by a virus for which you have not been vaccinated. There are certain types of cells called "antigen-presenting cells" (primarily B cells) running around in your body which are specifically trying to find anything that they recognize as "foreign", or "non-self". The term "antigen" refers to anything that the immune system will react to. If one of them finds a viral particle (our antigen in this case), it will process it and present the antigen to a T cell. When a T cell binds to the antigen, it does a whole slew of things, the important one for this discussion is activating the B cell. When a B cell is activated, it is basically taking that antigen and calling dibs on any instances of the antigen it finds. It will primarily produce antibodies for that particular antigen, and it will split into a bunch of daughter cells which will be on the lookout specifically for any more of that antigen. I think I might be getting too detailed here, so I'll tone it down a bit. After the first B cell is activated, whenever antigens are found, cytokines are released. These chemicals do a lot of things, but some of their main functions include initiating inflammatory responses, attracting white blood cells (the ones that try to eat bad stuff). There is also an increase of B cell production (specific to that antigen), which helps find more antigens. The goal is to remove all traces of non-self. 

Basically what's happening here is: you're getting sick! Throwing up when you have the flu is not a direct result of the flu virus, it's a result of your immune system trying to get rid of it. But, I can hear you ask, why do some viruses cause a stronger reaction, or even kill people? Well, the reaction depends on what types of cells they infect. The flu, for example, primarily infects skin cells. This includes the respiratory and intestinal tracts! HIV/AIDS, you probably know, infects immune cells themselves. When viruses replicate, it usually involves killing the host cell, so if it takes awhile for the B cells to find them, potentially you could lose many cells in a particular area, which of course will be detrimental to your health (Incidentally, without your immune system, you'd die of losing too many cells from your body). In addition to cell types, rapidity of replication is another factor (if more antigens are being created, there's more for B cells to react with, leading to enhanced immunological response). If too high of an immunological response occurs, you could die. 

Now, let's move on to vaccines. Vaccines are generally either a weakened version of a harmful virus or a dead virus (dead == physiologically inactive). But they cause a reaction in the body just like a fully active virus would do! But, since they are dead or weakened, it takes much less time to isolate and destroy them than live ones, and there will be fewer viral particles overall, so the obvious immunological effects are minimal. 

Now, is there any danger in giving vaccines to someone? Well, if someone has an autoimmune or immunodeficiency disease, administering a weakened virus could still be very harmful. But, assuming they have a nominally functional immune system, the quantity of viral particles injected into the body is minuscule, well within the capability of the even a baby's body to handle. But what about multiple vaccines at once? If more viral particles means a stronger immune response, couldn't that cause problems? We have to keep things in perspective. Virus replication, unchecked, is exponential. The body can catch and stop a major infection! A vaccine is nothing compared to that.

 

Edit: If you really want citations, I can provide them.

Edited by mattssheep4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

That's not too well understood, though most infants actually not only survive their time as an infant, but also their childhood. And that's an accomplishment.

Don't forget that child mortality rates used to be enormous. Every third child or so would die before their fifth birthday, potentially more. And now child mortality just keeps going down, it seems. There are multiple reasons, but one of them is vaccines. According to a source I found: 44% of all the children that died from 2000 to 2013 passed within a month of their life, and more than half of all the children died of infectious diseases. 

Children are among the most vulnerable to diseases. Some vaccinations they receive when they're young can improve their health over their lifetime and protect them when they're children.

Not only that but you can look up vaccination schedules. From what I can find there is no occasion where there is 10+ vaccines applied in one sitting. The most I can find is 6, but that doesn't even have to be one sitting since it's a recommendation that the infant receives the vaccines at 2 months old, and that could be 5 vaccines if they get one of the vaccines at 1 month old. And that's CDC recommended, so if someone is applying 10+ vaccines then that is not required, and not necessary.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality#child-deaths-over-time

This, and we all know it, you own childhood, more so if you had younger sister or brothers. You know how much coworkers has to be away because of sick kids. 
You get lots of diseases once. You don't get so much sick unless you have an medical problem as an adult. 

Now doing 10 vaccination in an go might be done to save money or to catch up. Its not something you would recommend because of the shock. An vaccine will after all put the immune system on alert. 
Suspect more autism has more to do with either some unknown chemical or immune system overreaction as kids don't get dirty enough. 

Still leaves the issue of herd immunity, as most is immune the disease will not spread even if 2% is not immune as the immune block progress. 
 If the non immune grows to 10% the disease have an easy access route

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mattssheep4 said:

Edit: If you really want citations, I can provide them.

Too bad antivaxers are not interested in citations. However, I have one interesting observation from meetinge one of the afflicted: pointing out medical side of things fell on idiotic ears (one noteworthy response was that treating any illnes (including viral!) with antibiotics is safer and less stressing for body then vaccines), what did have noticable effect was pointing out business side of things – how all those nice people saving us from evil medicines have this or that finacial interest. Looks like people care more about being fooled off their money then health.

I would like to point out different angle. I think reason these people cannot be persuaded by medical facts is because they dont care about medicine at all. They do this to fight The System. Consider this:

  • While chaining oneself to a tree requires effort, antivaxers "fight" by literally by not doing a thing. It's perfect form of protest for age of consumerism.
  • Beats up being beaten by a riot squad. Serious protesting can be unhealthy, while antivaxing conveniently outsources any health risk onto your children.
  • It's perfect for helicopter parenting since it does not take up your time. Care about dangerous chemicals in toys or food requires constant attention. Evil Shots will bother you just a handful of times.
  • It's does not cost anything. Donating to a cause will never be this cheap.
  • Politicaly neutral issue in itself, but any half competent party will have issue with it. You can asociate with other afflicted across political spectrum and still fight any political party you don't like, or all of them at once if you feel extra radical.
  • It gets more attention then old, boring fight against Evil Corporation. Having a transmission vector running around tends to grab attention even from people who do not care about Important Causes. And number of Bad Pharma agents around guarantees warm feeling of being Important anytime.
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Dunatian said:

Look at the way people get head up over something that doesn't even effect them. If someone doesn't vaccinate and suffers the consequences, that is their decision to make, it always should be, and it's also their funeral. .

How is it the baby's fault they're not vaccinated?

Also, please please please look into herd immunity. How is it Baby A's responsibility that it got the measles before it could get vaccinated, due to Baby B's parents who didn't bother, or worse didn't vaccinate due to thinking they knew better than everybody who actually learned about this stuff?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dunatian said:

Look at the way people get head up over something that doesn't even effect them. If someone doesn't vaccinate and suffers the consequences, that is their decision to make, it always should be, and it's also their funeral. .

There are some people who can’t be vaccinated who depend on herd immunity. Not only that but children regularly go to school with other children, and school is well known as an unhealthy place.

The former doctor (medical license revoked) who led the study that found a connection between autism and certain vaccines (the study was later found to be lacking in scientific quality, small sample size and things like that) is going to communities and giving speeches to people, reducing vaccination rates, and causing actual harm and outbreaks of diseases that have been almost eradicated. I can not accept that. He is actually causing harm to people.

If someone doesn’t vaccinate their child they’ve made a choice for their child, and potentially others.

That choice may not just affect the ones who make it. It’s a public health issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Okay I'm not touching that one lest we break a forum rule.

That's a good idea.   We're watching this one closely, as it does flirt with some of our prohibited topics.   As long as the discussion stays civil, informed, and in the realms of science, as the thread has pretty much done so so far, it'll stay open.   But you guys know the rules, if there is an outbreak of bickering....   A learned debate is good, arguing is bad. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hmmm. The forum rules have pretty much vaccinated this forum against bickering, flaming, and other ‘net maladies, enforced by the immuno-moderators (T-moderators?). 

I find the political and religious vaccines to be especially welcome. 

It’s my understanding that aside from the quack factor, some of the early concerns about vaccines was that a mercury compound was used as a preservative 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Dunatian said:

That's very well and good if you have complete trust in the medical community and the CDC. I don't.

I don’t need complete trust in the medical community and the CDC. What I do is pay attention: vaccinations in particular have been responsible for entire diseases no longer affecting the human race. 

The last case of smallpox was in the 1970s.

Polio is close to eradication, but this anti-vax movement is giving it a bit of a comeback.

Measles is on its way out, too, or it was.

Vaccines have saved tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of lives. I don’t need to trust anything if something has results like that.

There is healthy skepticism and questioning things, but it’s documented that diseases like measles, polio, and others do not affect vaccinated populations nearly as bad as unvaccinated populations. That’s enough for me.

That said, other procedures and such might be a different story.

Edited by Bill Phil
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2019 at 10:32 PM, benzman said:

It beggars belief that some people think that they know more about medicine than has been discovered by thousands of professional researchers over the last two centuries.

 

Medicine is a science that has more than 200 years old, only those who have been doing it for the last 200 years reject the discoveries that have been made before, because they believe that they already know everything and can fix everything. It is strange that the number of patients is increasing and there are no free beds in hospitals.

On 4/30/2019 at 1:16 AM, Nuke said:

im also more convinced that modern cartoons and advertisements are more likely to cause autism than any vaccine. i think science exists for that, but i dont have any sources (just something i read somewhere).

Just because the vaccines do not cause autism (that is, they have not yet been found to cause) does not mean that they are safe and do not cause other diseases.

22 hours ago, p1t1o said:

It is the rejection of authority itself. If they reject the concept of someone having authority, then no amount of "convincing" is sufficient as they do not believe in "being convinced". 

Personally, I believe it is a symptom of overpopulation.

 

Science should be based on arguments, not authority?
Do you think that there are too many of us? Ok, who do you want to kill first?

21 hours ago, The Dunatian said:

Vaccines are extremely effective. I won't argue with that. I do, however, take issue with the way some vaccines are given. I'm no biologist, (yet) but giving an infant 10+ vaccinations in one sitting can't be healthy for the child (who will almost certainly have a significant hangover) or re-assuring for the parent. (I know this was done because unfortunately I saw it take place myself.) We can't just label parents genuinely concerned about their children's health as "the enemy." We should be more concerned about helping them better protect their children. You don't do that by name-calling. In addition, if something works well, people take notice. It may not happen as quickly as many would like, but patience is an important virtue. Don't lose your temper just because someone else is not doing what you want them to. They'll come around to the right point of view eventually.

I can argue with this, if we vaccinate everyone, we have no comparison as in advanced society, vaccines are effective, and to what extent diseases have been limited by our lifestyle.
In principle, with the growing standard of living, the effectiveness of vaccines may go down, but we do not see this because we only study one statistic.

I agree with the fact that too many vaccines for children can be harmful. After birth, your immune system is just learning how this new world works and if you give it something like this you can change this learning process, stop it or cause it to not develop as it should. Again, if we vaccinate all children, there is no research that would say anything like that.

Edited by Cassel
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, p1t1o said:

 

Doctors/People make mistakes, procedures can be outdated, things are never perfect.

 

 

 

Vaccines can be harmful, they can be of low quality or not tested enough, right? An example of a flu vaccine for the current season, how long has it been tested if it is to work on the mutation of the virus discovered this season?

17 hours ago, mattssheep4 said:

So, first of all: I am a biologist! In fact one of my primary focuses in school was viruses and immunology. It's fascinating stuff.
There have been some good, well-reasoned comments already, but just to ensure people have a good enough understanding of vaccines, here's a brief (and pretty basic, but still accurate) rundown of how they work, why, and the effect they have on the body (regardless of age). 

 

As a biologist, do you think that natural selection is harmful to the species or is it beneficial? If survives more weak individuals who find weak partners and have weak children, is it better or worse?

I can judge it from the point of view of economics. The costs of public health in a society in which even the weakest survive childhood and suffering for the rest of their lives, generate enormous costs for society and if we continue to do so economically we will not be able to bear this burden. It will not be possible to build a sufficient number of hospitals and to train doctors to heal every patient.

Quote

Now, let's move on to vaccines. Vaccines are generally either a weakened version of a harmful virus or a dead virus (dead == physiologically inactive). But they cause a reaction in the body just like a fully active virus would do! But, since they are dead or weakened, it takes much less time to isolate and destroy them than live ones, and there will be fewer viral particles overall, so the obvious immunological effects are minimal. 

 

I thought that the reaction to vaccination is milder than the normal virus. Can you write something more about this topic?

I am also happy to learn something about virus mutations. In which communities are the viruses mutating faster? In those where there are many people with similar genes, or where the community is more genetically diverse?
 

11 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

There are some people who can’t be vaccinated who depend on herd immunity. Not only that but children regularly go to school with other children, and school is well known as an unhealthy place.

You misunderstand the herd's resistance. If everyone is vaccinated, they lose their immunity with each generation, because their immunity comes from vaccines and not the effectiveness of their immune system.

Quote

If someone doesn’t vaccinate their child they’ve made a choice for their child, and potentially others.

That choice may not just affect the ones who make it. It’s a public health issue.

Everyone makes the decision for themselves and their children. Schools can be divided into those to which only vaccinated children can go, both are allowed or only for unvaccinated children. Let everyone decide about their family, stop distributing this oppressive propaganda that only scares people that every unvaccinated child will die or is sick. The fact that you did not get vaccinated does not mean that you are ill and infectious.

The opponents of vaccination are not responsible for how viruses spread, so they should not bear the cost of your fear of illness. If you are scared to get sick, then you have to figure out how to protect yourself without interfering with other people's lives.

Edited by Cassel
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...