Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Truthers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 12905
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just in case this shows up:

"There’s a post making the rounds courtesy of something called “Whiteout Press” with the headline “Courts confirm vaccines cause autism.” It’s spreading across sites, through chains of elementary school parent communities, and onto radars of other communities that overlap. In other words, it’s viral. If only there were a vaccine for it.

The post itself is a cobbled together retelling of stories everyone’s already known for years. Whiteout Press might have been surprised to learn about this “ongoing story,” but each element of it has been widely reported in the mainstream media over the last decade and a half, in exceptional detail.


The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article is the 2012 finding of a local Italian court that a child was diagnosed with autism a year after receiving an MMR. The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper and the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari, it seems, has written a book on how vaccines cause autism and peddles an autism “cure” that he’s devised.

Italian courts, provincial or otherwise, are not known for basing their rulings in science. They are, after all, part of the system that led to a manslaughter conviction of six scientists for not predicting the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, disregarding completely the obvious fact that such predictions are not, in fact, scientifically possible. In a similar way, the Italian court that made the MMR-autism ruling–the centerpiece of this latest “courts confirm” tripe–ignored completely the science made available to it and focused almost solely on the retracted Wakefield paper and a physician with a COI in making its decision. A decision that is, by the way, under appeal.

The other “evidence” in the misleading viral “courts confirm” article regards the “vaccine court” in the U.S. This “court” is actually a long-standing mechanism for evaluating vaccine injury claims via a federal process and to distinguish claims that are legitimate and not so legitimate. This National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was established in 1988, so it’s not exactly a state secret or breaking news. Its primary service is as protection for those involved in vaccine manufacture and administration because in the hyperlitigious society that is the USA, and given the millions and millions of vaccines administered annually, the litigation risks could be astronomical. Such a threat could limit willingness to manufacture life-saving vaccines. In the words of the Department of Health and Human Services:

The VICP was established to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines, stabilize vaccine costs, and establish and maintain an accessible and efficient forum for individuals found to be injured by certain vaccines. The VICP is a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system for resolving vaccine injury claims that provides compensation to people found to be injured by certain vaccines. The U. S. Court of Federal Claims decides who will be paid. Three Federal government offices have a role in the VICP:

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); and
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (the Court).
A trust fund, funded by a tax on each dose of vaccine administered, exists to pay the claims.

With regard to autism specifically, the VICP lawsuits related to autism and vaccines were lumped together into what became known as the autism omnibus trial. Three special masters were appointed to evaluate three test cases from this group. The court ultimately denied compensation for these cases and then denied compensation for a further three cases, and the court was not impressed with the science or expert witnesses marshalled for the plaintiffs. After the decisions, a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson stated:

“Hopefully, the determination by the special masters will help reassure parents that vaccines do not cause autism.”

In fact, the scientific, not just judicial, evidence to support that statement is overwhelming and the evidence against it scanty at best–and occasionally retracted. Indeed, it’s so sparse that those who insist that autism and vaccines are linked must resurrect old information, repackage it in their skewed agenda, and mispresent the relevance of court rulings to make it look like there’s a link. Even if for obscure reasons you want to rely only on court rulings, what we have here is a ruling against cause in three cases versus a ruling for cause in one case. That’s a 3:1 win for “vaccines don’t cause autism” looking only at the courts.

What baffles me–genuinely baffles me–is why they expend the energy on such an internally inconsistent, crazy-quilt job of an argument to level these false charges against vaccines. No medical intervention is without risks, and vaccines are no exception. But vaccines are among the safest, most-effective, and most widely life-saving interventions of all time. Mispresenting the facts about them does no one any good at all and has done considerable harm."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/08/09/court-rulings-dont-confirm-autism-vaccine-link/

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sashadroogie



Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 9792
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise

PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Johnslat

Reminds me of the well-known Russian proverb: you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot convince a total fool to be vaccinated.

A lot of pravda in that, hic!


Best wishes

Sasha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daveric



Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sashadroogie wrote:
Real scientific research against vaccination? Please direct me to some, and I'll read and re-consider my position.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't you provide the evidence that vaccination is safe and effective? I'll wait.

In the meantime, let's take the Gardisil vaccine as an example. According to the CDC's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 80 young women have died after receiving it. Tens of thousands of others have experienced other adverse effects. They are not conspiracy theorists, are they?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sashadroogie



Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 9792
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Couldn't access the report you refer to. But I did note this disclaimer on the website you directed us to:

"The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on UNVERIFIED reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines. Reports are accepted from anyone and can be submitted electronically at www.vaers.hhs.gov. "

And as for the burden of proof, there is endless medical evidence available to support the efficacy of immunisation. It's already there. However, any extraordinary claims to the contrary would require some extraordinary evidence. So far, that is quite lacking. And without any, any attempt at discussion and debate fails.

All very much along the same lines trying to discuss Darwin's ideas with a fundamentalist. The evidence in support of his thought is all there to be seen in any natural history museum. But that nevers seems to be enough for those with a non-rational view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 12905
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2014 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/30/the-real-reason-pediatricians-want-you-to-vaccinate-your-kids.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-pox-on-your-bank-account-failure-to-vaccinate-and-its-legal-consequences/

http://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

And as for this:

"Well, the US CDC admitted that there had been Simian Virus 40 in polio vaccinations. The virus is known to cause cancer. Unfortunately, they removed the page fairly quickly. If you search for info on it many people were able to copy the page before it disappeared. "


There's this: "One notes that this most recent article by Adams is close to a verbatim republication of an article from two years ago by Adams. It regurgitates a claim that SV40 that contaminated some early batches of the polio vaccine in the late 1950s were the cause of the “cancer epidemic.” Other variants of this claim are that the polio vaccine was responsible for creating AIDS. The first is a distortion and exaggeration; the second is even worse."

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/another-antivaccine-zombie-meme-sv40-and-cancer-and-polio-oh-my/

But this is all useless, of course. Conspiracy theorists simply ignore facts - love this one:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54845/snow-down-south-fake-say-conspiracy-theorists


Yup, it's a snow job.

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sashadroogie



Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 9792
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Johnslat

I have to admit to a sneaking suspicion, a lurking feeling of doubt, about your good self. I think it is entirely possible that you are not merely a tool of 'big pharma', engaged in activities designed to discredit truthers, but may in fact be a holographic projection who doesn't even have existence in our reality plane beyond your postings here on Dave's. To tell you the truth even more, I am beginning to suspect that I too may be nothing more than a cynical ploy by the Shadow Masters to pull the wool over the eyes of those who wish to know what is really going on with immunisation/11 September/area 51/ Loch Ness monster/ UFOs/ Obama's birth cert/TEFLology/ etc.

My head is spinning. I think I need to sit down and have my 10:55 constitutional a little earlier...


Best wishes

Virtual Sasha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daveric



Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sashadroogie wrote:
Couldn't access the report you refer to.

OK, I'll walk you through it. Here's a shortcut to the VAERS database. In #3, choose "HPV4" which includes Gardisil. Scroll down to the bottom and click on "Send." You will see a report of 26,088 cases of adverse events. If you now go back and in #2, select "Death," you will get a report of 80 deaths.

Quote:
But I did note this disclaimer on the website you directed us to:

"The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database contains information on UNVERIFIED reports of adverse events (illnesses, health problems and/or symptoms) following immunization with US-licensed vaccines. Reports are accepted from anyone and can be submitted electronically at www.vaers.hhs.gov. "

The vast majority of these reports are made by physicians.

Quote:
And as for the burden of proof, there is endless medical evidence available to support the efficacy of immunisation. It's already there.

I strongly disagree, but if you are right, it then should be very easy for you to provide the double-blind, real placebo-controlled studies proving safety and efficacy published in peer-reviewed professional journals, right? Or should I simply tell you, "All the evidence is there showing vaccination to be quackery. Just look it up."

Quote:
All very much along the same lines trying to discuss Darwin's ideas with a fundamentalist. The evidence in support of his thought is all there to be seen in any natural history museum. But that nevers seems to be enough for those with a non-rational view.

Yes, let's just skip straight to the ad hominems. Why waste time actually discussing the issue, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sashadroogie



Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 9792
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2014 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not a doctor, but are you trying to suggest that "double-blind, real placebo-controlled studies proving safety and efficacy published in peer-reviewed professional journals" do not exist? There is plenty of peer-reviewed material if you want it. The problem you may have is with the word 'prove' and 'safety', if by that you mean 100% proof that all vaccines are 100% safe. This is never the case for any medical procedure - even having your tooth extracted under anaesthetic. There is always an element of risk. But in the case of vaccines, that risk is miniscule compared to the millions of lives saved each year as a direct result of immunisation.

Here's an article from your CDC. Plenty of references listed, if you wish to follow them up.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056803.htm

Then you can have a read of this, if you want to:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/immunise/publishing.nsf/content/1FC63A2886238E6CCA2575BD001C80DC/$File/full-publication-myths-and-realities-5th-ed-2013.pdf

Still cannot get past the Wonder Message. There's no #3 to be found. Perhaps if you cut and paste, then your argument will be easier to assess.

There was no ad hominem attack there, by the way. But thanks for fulfilling my guess that any debate would be devoid of hard facts, and would centre around rhetorical games. Yawn! Been there, done that.

Disagree all you want, as strongly as you can, but the onus is as much on you to show me the dangers of immunisation when there is near total agreement everywhere amongst MDs that it is a huge boon to public health, and is heavily supported by medical evidence, as the onus is on Darwin doubters to disprove his notions with scientific facts that refute it in scientific terms - and not metaphysical or pseudo-scientific terms.

I won't be holding my breath for either though. While both cases are possible, they are highly improbable...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wangdaning



Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Posts: 2210

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, Sasha, the only way to prove it would be to run human experiments. I don't think any of us would like that, except those who sell vaccines. You think they want you to be healthy? Their business would dry up if we were all free from illness.

More important than vaccines is making sure you stay healthy. Good health to everyone and Happy New Year Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sashadroogie



Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Posts: 9792
Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People get old and sick all the time. Business will never dry up, so I cannot see the need to spread artificial illnesses when there are so many natural ones generating enough work for 'big pharma'.

And as for 'human experiments' I believe the usual term is called 'human trialling' and is a standard part of any new drug's development.

In answer to your last point, it is precisely because of vaccines that so many of us do indeed stay healthy. Just look at the rise in measles and mumps in the UK when there was an MMR scare, and panicky parents stopped their children from getting immunization.

We live in a time of unprecedented public health. We are so lucky, we don't even know it. Yet some of us seem to think that this state of affairs is the 'natural' one and that vaccines are a devilish plot to weaken us or steal our money. Blind to the truth about the efficacy of vaccines, there exist some gullible parents who will remove the very prop that sustains their children's health. Don't they know that death is a much more 'natural' outcome for young children than surviving to adulthood? I find their attitudes truly shocking. And I'm surprised that any educated person, on this board or off it, could ever be so naive as to not have their children vaccinated.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daveric



Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sashadroogie wrote:
I'm not a doctor, but are you trying to suggest that "double-blind, real placebo-controlled studies proving safety and efficacy published in peer-reviewed professional journals" do not exist?

That's exactly what I am saying. In none of all the references in the two links you gave is there a double-blind, placebo-controlled study comparing a vaccinated group with an unvaccinated group. A ploy they use is to compare two vaccinated groups, the only difference being a single ingredient, and since both groups have similar rates of adverse effects there is no increased incidence in the group they focus on.

So I am still waiting for you to provide that scientific gold-standard study.

Quote:
There is plenty of peer-reviewed material if you want it. The problem you may have is with the word 'prove' and 'safety', if by that you mean 100% proof that all vaccines are 100% safe.

No, I'll settle for accepted scientific standard of 95%. Let me save you the time looking: it does not exist.

Quote:
But in the case of vaccines, that risk is miniscule compared to the millions of lives saved each year as a direct result of immunisation.

Miniscule? Apparently you have never heard of the Vaccine Court which Big Pharma's lobbyists convinced the government to set up. At least you have immunization, right? Yup, drug companies are immune from liability for any damages, and all such claims must go through this specially set up court system in which the government admits to hundreds of millions of dollars of damages each year as a direct result of vaccines.

Quote:
Still cannot get past the Wonder Message. There's no #3 to be found. Perhaps if you cut and paste, then your argument will be easier to assess.

There was no ad hominem attack there, by the way. But thanks for fulfilling my guess that any debate would be devoid of hard facts, and would centre around rhetorical games. Yawn! Been there, done that.

Sorry you are unable to figure out how to query the database. Do you mean to say that when you click on this link, in the middle of the page you don't see a button that says "VAERS Data Search"? Do you also mean to say that you think I am making it up about the 80 deaths and 26,000 adverse reactions from Gardisil? Anyone who can figure out how to use the website can see for themselves.

I can't query the database for you. Each search is a new report, especially seeing as to how it is being updated all the time. So because you cannot access the data, I am making up facts and a rhetorical game? And that's not ad hominem either, right?

You initially presented yourself as someone who was genuinely open to hearing the arguments against vaccines, although that has become doubtful now. I am not going to spend tons of time dealing with someone in less than good faith so I leave you with this for anyone who may be truly interested:

Gary Null's award-winning Vaccine Nation documentary. You may then want to watch another award-winner from him, Autism: Made in the U.S.A .

The films feature leading scientists and physicians, as do the articles below. No pseudoscience or metaphysics here.

You may also want to read:

Vaccination: A Mythical History ~ by Roman Bystrianyk and Suzanne Humphries MD;

Why is the CDC Ignoring Explosion of Recorded HPV Vaccine Injuries, as Other Countries Move to Take Protective Action?

I would not want to play Russian Roulette with my daughter's life by giving her Gardisil, recommendation for which has been halted in Japan due to concerns about its safety. Would you?

The CDC, like the FDA, is a well-known pimp for Big Pharma. You'd strengthen your argument if you had some independent sources.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 12905
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Sasha,

Come on, droogie - whom are you going to believe: a bunch of leading scientists or an ex-Playmate of the year?

I mean, Jenny has uncovered the conspiracy; it's so obvious:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daveric



Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

^What a disingenuous article!
Quote:
An investigation had deemed his research an elaborate fraud.

It completely fails to mention that the co-author of the paper in question, Dr. John Walker Smith, has been completely exonerated of all fraud charges, boding very well for Dr. Andrew Wakefield himself.
Quote:
Courts eventually found no proven link between vaccines and autism.

Yet the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out billions of dollars in such cases, like 6,702 cases averaging $933,000 each over a 20-year period.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Daveric



Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 37

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Truther takes over Super Bowl post-game show!

Quote:
"Investigate 9/11. 9/11 was perpetrated by people in our own government."


This is great!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 12905
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Andy Wakefield exonerated because John Walker-Smith won his appeal? Not so fast there, pardner…
I sense a disturbance in the antivaccine crankosphere.

Actually, maybe “disturbance” is the wrong word. Unabashed whooping it up is closer to correct. High-fiving is perhaps a better term. Or maybe partying like it’s 2005. The question, of course, is what is the inciting event was that sparked such widespread rejoicing in the antivaccine world. I’ll give you a hint. It has to do with the hero of the antivaccine movement, the man who arguably more than anyone else is responsible for the MMR scare that drove down MMR vaccine uptake in the UK to the point where measles, once vanquished, came roaring back. Yes, we’re talking about Andrew Wakefield, whose incompetent and now retracted research launched a thousand biomedical quacks. (Actually, that’s probably an underestimate.) However, we’re not talking about Andrew Wakefield directly. Rather, we’re talking about Professor John Walker-Smith, one of the co-authors of Andrew Wakefield’s now rightly discredited 1998 Lancet paper. The anti-vaccine crank blog is going wild with the news that Professor Walker-Smith has succeeded in his appeal of the General Medical Council’s decision that he should be struck off the medical record along with Andy Wakefield:

A High Court judge quashed the finding of professional misconduct against Professor Walker-Smith, who had carried out some of the tests for the controversial paper that suggested a link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Mr Justice Mitting also called for the reform of the General Medical Council’s disciplinary hearings after the lengthy battle by Professor Walker-Smith to clear his name.

The Wakefield paper prompted a nationwide scare over the safety of the jab after the study of 12 children was published in the medical journal The Lancet.

On AoA, we’ve been treated to some articles with titles like this:

Quashing of GMC Findings Against Prof Walker-Smith
Read the Full UK Court Decision in John Walker Smith MMR Autism Appeal
Professor John Walker Smith Exonerated in Autism MMR Case
The full ruling can be found here. Let’s dig in, shall we? "

Read more at - http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/03/08/andy-wakefield-exonerated-because-john-w/


And this:

"I’m writing this opinion piece not for those who vaccinate themselves or their children, because they accept the science either because they reviewed it and accepted it, or they just know that vaccines work and are relatively safe.

On the other hand, this article is not written for the antivaccinationists, because they don’t listen to logic anyways. They ignore real science to invent their own, based on lies, pseudoscience, and logical fallacies.

No, this article is written for those who may be on the fence about vaccines, and thinks there’s some sort of balanced discussion or debate about vaccines. It’s time to dispel the false-balance discussion pushed by pseudoscience for the simple reason because they lack the intellectual and scientific evidence".



http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/opinion-vaccine-denialism-annoying/
Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 3 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2011 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Road2Spain - TEFL and Spanish with one year student visa
EBC