Canada vaccine awareness programs

[MariaJLM]

Ah yes the good old "autism is worst then dying from disease" implication...
I am literately worst than disease.

I have addressed that already in this thread. It's just another form of ableism.

 

[Nithavela]

It's sad isn't it? The OP is an atheist according to their profile. I think it's very telling when I'm finding myself agreeing more with atheists than my fellow Christians.

Welcome to christian forums!

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Conspiracies regarding mainstream medicine are unique in that unlike most other nonsensical conspiracies, they don't seem to be unique to a particular ideology or political affiliation like most others.

There seems to be appeal for these theories on both sides. You have people like Chiropractors who will often resort to pandering to a person's religion in order to gain their trust, then give them poor advice about things like this. On the other side, you'll have Naturopaths and Homeopaths who pander to a sort of "new-age", hippy-ish, "everything that's natural from earth mother must be better" crowd in order to gain their trust, then proceed to give them bad advance.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Autism? Really? That has been debunked. Also, even if it was true it's very telling that a person would rather have a child dead from Polio than an autistic one. Is society really so ableist still that autism is seen as something worse than childhood death?

Polio was (and still can be) successfully treated with vitamin C injections, as affirmed by doctors in papers from the era.

I don't have the same objection to vitamin C injections, as these haven't been linked to autism, like vaccination has. I do understand after the vaccines-autism link was established, firms profiting from vaccinations provided funding in an endeavour to refute the claims, although none of the firms did or ever has conducted a study comparing the autism rates between vaccinated and (totally) unvaccinated children.

 

[comana]

Ah yes the good old "autism is worst then dying from disease" implication...
I am literately worst than disease.

Funny thing is that while these anti-vaccer-types fear the autistic, businesses have begun to recognize the unique talents and approach to problem solving that come from the autistic mind. There are active recruiting programs to seek out and hire those on the spectrum.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Funny thing is that while these anti-vaccer-types fear the autistic, businesses have begun to recognize the unique talents and approach to problem solving that come from the autistic mind. There are active recruiting programs to seek out and hire those on the spectrum.

Again, all about money. So vaccinate to put so many people through hell, then justify it on the grounds that some of them are useful for business? Doesn't sound very Christian-like to me.

 

[comana]

Again, all about money. So vaccinate to put so many people through hell, then justify it on the grounds that some of them are useful for business? Doesn't sound very Christian-like to me.

I don't believe vaccines and autism are related at all.

My point is that instead of fearing those on the spectrum as broken, people are finding them to be valuable contributors because they can think in a way neurotypical minds can not.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

I don't believe vaccines and autism are related at all.

My point is that instead of fearing those on the spectrum as broken, people are finding them to be valuable contributors because they can think in a way neurotypical minds can not.

How do you know such minds would not have functioned like that anyway, had they not been made autistic?

 

[comana]

How do you know such minds would not have functioned like that anyway, had they not been made autistic?

Because they did not become autistic, they always were. You must be aware that their are unvaccinated children who are on the spectrum.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Because they did not become autistic, they always were. You must be aware that their are unvaccinated children who are on the spectrum.

Are not all people individuals?

 

[comana]

Are not all people individuals?

And? What's your point?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Polio was (and still can be) successfully treated with vitamin C injections, as affirmed by doctors in papers from the era.

I don't have the same objection to vitamin C injections, as these haven't been linked to autism, like vaccination has. I do understand after the vaccines-autism link was established, firms profiting from vaccinations provided funding in an endeavour to refute the claims, although none of the firms did or ever has conducted a study comparing the autism rates between vaccinated and (totally) unvaccinated children.

Do you have any peer reviewed research papers you'd care to share with the group?

To date, the only vitamin C mega-dosing reports I've seen were all anecdotes reported by the father of the movement, Linus Pauling, who insisted (but was debunked numerous times) that mega-dosing with Vitamin C was a sort of panacea.

...but as far as your claim about there being no large scale studies done comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated, your statement is false.

MMR vaccine is not linked with autism, says Danish study

There have also been 2 large scale studies in Germany (one in 2003, and another in 2013), as well as one in the Philippines, and one in the UK.

Each of these studies was due, in part, to wanting to respond to the anti-vaxxers who are making the same claims you're making. The issue is that no matter how well the study is conducted, you guys always find some reason why the study doesn't have merit. It's always either "well, it's a government conspiracy and they manipulated the results", "BIG PHARMA funded the study", etc...

No matter how well a study is conducted...people who are simply determined to be on the "alternative" side of the debate have a willingness to want to embrace conspiracy theories so no amount of tangible proof will change their mind.

No different than 9/11 truthers, birthers, "the government is poisoning us with chem-trails", "the moon landing was faked", etc...

 

[Sam91]

My daughter had autism from birth. She even retreated from touch in the womb.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

And? What's your point?

So just because someone with autism can think in a way 'neurotypical minds can not', how do you know that these people would not have thought in a similar way, had they not contracted autism? Perhaps it is simply their minds shine through the autism, despite their problems, and such people would have been even more brilliant had they not had to suffer through autism?

Do you have any peer reviewed research papers you'd care to share with the group?

It's all online. Not hard to find if you care. Apparently this link references some papers. Vitamin C and Polio : The Forgotten Research of Claus W. Jungeblut, M.D.

To date, the only vitamin C mega-dosing reports I've seen were all anecdotes reported by the father of the movement, Linus Pauling, who insisted (but was debunked numerous times) that mega-dosing with Vitamin C was a sort of panacea.

It's very useful, but like most things, probably doesn't cure every illness.

...but as far as your claim about there being no large scale studies done comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated, your statement is false.

MMR vaccine is not linked with autism, says Danish study

There have also been 2 large scale studies in Germany (one in 2003, and another in 2013), as well as one in the Philippines, and one in the UK.

Usually these studies are cheats, in that rather than comparing vaccinated populations with unvaccinated populations, they compare the vaccinated populations with the only-slightly-less vaccinated populations. Like comparing bad apples with really-bad apples, instead of apples fresh from the tree with bad apples.

I've wasted my time with too many such 'proof studies', so if you link what you believe to be the best study proving no link between autism and vaccination, I'll have a quick look and identify what I consider to be it's fatal flaws.

Each of these studies was due, in part, to wanting to respond to the anti-vaxxers who are making the same claims you're making. The issue is that no matter how well the study is conducted, you guys always find some reason why the study doesn't have merit. It's always either "well, it's a government conspiracy and they manipulated the results", "BIG PHARMA funded the study", etc...

Well, isn't the first tenet of medicine 'do no harm'? Why do we teach kids in school 'don't do drugs', but then say 'unless the drugs are not-fully tested vaccines. Then it's okay'? Kind of hypocritical, no, unless the first tenet of medicine is really 'let's make money for vaccination companies'?

No matter how well a study is conducted...people who are simply determined to be on the "alternative" side of the debate have a willingness to want to embrace conspiracy theories so no amount of tangible proof will change their mind.

There are courts which have ruled that vaccines have caused autism. It's a conspiracy theory to believe otherwise.

No different than 9/11 truthers, birthers, "the government is poisoning us with chem-trails", "the moon landing was faked", etc...

All valid claims with good evidence.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

My daughter had autism from birth. She even retreated from touch in the womb.

Like cancer and most diseases, I believe autism may have multiple causes. I've read (unconfirmed source) there were cases in the Amish from the times they did not practice vaccination, although the autism rates among the Amish at this time were much lower than among the general vaccinated population.

 

[Sam91]

So just because someone with autism can think in a way 'neurotypical minds can not', how do you know that these people would not have thought in a similar way, had they not contracted autism? Perhaps it is simply their minds shine through the autism, despite their problems, and such people would have been even more brilliant had they not had to suffer through autism?

It's all online. Not hard to find if you care. Apparently this link references some papers. Vitamin C and Polio : The Forgotten Research of Claus W. Jungeblut, M.D.

It's very useful, but like most things, probably doesn't cure every illness.

Usually these studies are cheats, in that rather than comparing vaccinated populations with unvaccinated populations, they compare the vaccinated populations with the only-slightly-less vaccinated populations. Like comparing bad apples with really-bad apples, instead of apples fresh from the tree with bad apples.

I've wasted my time with too many such 'proof studies', so if you link what you believe to be the best study proving no link between autism and vaccination, I'll have a quick look and identify what I consider to be it's fatal flaws.

Well, isn't the first tenet of medicine 'do no harm'? Why do we teach kids in school 'don't do drugs', but then say 'unless the drugs are not-fully tested vaccines. Then it's okay'? Kind of hypocritical, no, unless the first tenet of medicine is really 'let's make money for vaccination companies'?

There are courts which have ruled that vaccines have caused autism. It's a conspiracy theory to believe otherwise.

All valid claims with good evidence.

I think the conference about the release of the hepB vaccine shows that they roll out vaccines to the public knowing it might be dangerous to some groups but continue studies on the mass population regardless.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's all online. Not hard to find if you care. Apparently this link references some papers. Vitamin C and Polio : The Forgotten Research of Claus W. Jungeblut, M.D.

The only sources reporting this are sites like "Natural News", and "What Doctors won't tell you", etc...

Got anything from a non "alternative Medicine" site? We already know what those are going to say.


The source you provided isn't reputable...

Here's their mission statement:
Had enough of vitamin-bashing newspaper, magazine and TV reports? Then you might want to sign up for the ORTHOMOLECULAR MEDICINE NEWS SERVICE (OMNS). Like the Associated Press or Reuters, OMNS is a wire-service style news feed directed to members of the press, radio and TV news media. The difference is that OMNS tells it like it really is: vitamin therapy saves lives.


...and speaking of people with a profit motive. Surprise Surprise, the website you linked from is owned and operated by a "natural supplement" sales website.
Welcome to store.riordanclinic.org

So basically, a website that draws people in based on flimsy research and scare tactics, tells them about all of the natural supplements that supposedly work better, and wow...just my luck, there's a link that shows me where I can buy Vitamin C supplements (for 3x the price of what you could buy it for a regular store...because these online supplement companies are just as shady the pharma companies you're afraid of, and mark up their prices based on unverified claims about how their potency and purity is better...right on the label next to the statement "These claims have not been reviewed or verified")

Well, isn't the first tenet of medicine 'do no harm'? Why do we teach kids in school 'don't do drugs', but then say 'unless the drugs are not-fully tested vaccines. Then it's okay'? Kind of hypocritical, no, unless the first tenet of medicine is really 'let's make money for vaccination companies'?

First off, vaccines aren't a huge money maker for drug companies...thus the reason many of them abandoned the practice of even making them which is why there were shortages of them for a certain period of time.

***Article Snippet************
While the main fixation of anti-vaccine groups is an old, discredited study linking vaccination to autism, another is a conspiracy theory circulated onlinethat both doctors and pharmaceutical companies stand to profit financially from vaccination—which supposedly leads to perverse incentives in advocating for the public to vaccinate.


But that argument is historically unfounded. Not only do pediatricians and doctors often lose money on vaccine administration, it wasn't too long ago that the vaccine industry was struggling with slim profit margins and shortages. The Economist wrote that "for decades vaccines were a neglected corner of the drugs business, with old technology, little investment and abysmal profit margins. Many firms sold their vaccine divisions to concentrate on more profitable drugs."

In fact, vaccines were so unprofitable that some companies stopped making them altogether. In 1967, there were 26 vaccine manufactures. That number dropped to 17 by 1980. Ten years ago, the financial incentives to produce vaccines were so weak that there was growing concern that pharmaceutical companies were abandoning the vaccine business for selling more-profitable daily drug treatments. Compared with drugs that require daily doses, vaccines are only administered once a year or a lifetime. The pharmaceutical company Wyeth (which has since been acquired by Pfizer) reported that they stopped making the flu vaccine because the margins were so low.
************************

So while you may be correct about the fact that Drug Company executive teams have profit on the brain...that profit motive is the precise reason why they don't seem to have a huge interest in the vaccination business.


As for your other statement, you've done the same thing that many conspiracy theorists do, which is make a false (or semi-false) statement, and then gloss over and move on as if the first statement is some sort of irrefutable truth that doesn't even require validation. That statement being that vaccines are untested. What exactly do you require in order to consider them "tested". Given that there have been nearly a dozen massive studies (including 10,000+ people, on study including nearly 500,000), and literally hundreds of clinical studies & trials, and thousands of university studies...exactly which studies do you feel still need to be done? Are you just simply holding out for the one that gets published that agrees with your preconceived narrative against vaccination?

You claim about "well, we tell kids to say no to drugs, but then tell them vaccines are okay" is comical...are you really equating recreational drug use with vaccination?

There are courts which have ruled that vaccines have caused autism. It's a conspiracy theory to believe otherwise.

Sources please. I've seen these claims before, and in every case, the court isn't saying that vaccines cause Autism. It's always a ruling that not directly related to that, in which the anti-vaccine crowd has twisted into meaning what they want it to mean.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

The only sources reporting this are sites like "Natural News", and "What Doctors won't tell you", etc...

Got anything from a non "alternative Medicine" site? We already know what those are going to say.

The link was only sent for the papers it referenced about Vitamin C. See below.

Jungeblut CW. Inactivation of poliomyelitis virus in vitro by crystalline vitamin C (ascorbic acid). J Exper Med, 1935. October; 62:517-521
Jungeblut CW. Vitamin C therapy and prophylaxis in experimental poliomyelitis. J Exp Med, 1937. 65: 127-146.
Jungeblut CW. Further observations on vitamin C therapy in experimental poliomyelitis. J Exper Med, 1937. 66: 459-477.
Jungeblut CW, Feiner RR. Vitamin C content of monkey tissues in experimental poliomyelitis. J Exper Med, 1937. 66: 479-491.
Jungeblut CW. A further contribution to vitamin C therapy in experimental poliomyelitis. J Exper Med, 1939. 70:315-332.

The source you provided isn't reputable...

Lots of papers published aren't what I'd call reputable. But there are papers published.

Here's their mission statement:
Had enough of vitamin-bashing newspaper, magazine and TV reports? Then you might want to sign up for the ORTHOMOLECULAR MEDICINE NEWS SERVICE (OMNS). Like the Associated Press or Reuters, OMNS is a wire-service style news feed directed to members of the press, radio and TV news media. The difference is that OMNS tells it like it really is: vitamin therapy saves lives.


...and speaking of people with a profit motive. Surprise Surprise, the website you linked from is owned and operated by a "natural supplement" sales website.
Welcome to store.riordanclinic.org

So basically, a website that draws people in based on flimsy research and scare tactics, tells them about all of the natural supplements that supposedly work better, and wow...just my luck, there's a link that shows me where I can buy Vitamin C supplements (for 3x the price of what you could buy it for a regular store...because these online supplement companies are just as shady the pharma companies you're afraid of, and mark up their prices based on unverified claims about how their potency and purity is better...right on the label next to the statement "These claims have not been reviewed or verified")

This is about the website, not the papers referenced. Again, the question was raised about whether any papers had been published. The link was posted to demonstrate there had been.

First off, vaccines aren't a huge money maker for drug companies...thus the reason many of them abandoned the practice of even making them which is why there were shortages of them for a certain period of time.

If there was no money in it, drug companies wouldn't manufacture them. Cold, hard facts of Business 101.

As for your other statement, you've done the same thing that many conspiracy theorists do, which is make a false (or semi-false) statement, and then gloss over and move on as if the first statement is some sort of irrefutable truth that doesn't even require validation. That statement being that vaccines are untested. What exactly do you require in order to consider them "tested". Given that there have been nearly a dozen massive studies (including 10,000+ people, on study including nearly 500,000), and literally hundreds of clinical studies & trials, and thousands of university studies...exactly which studies do you feel still need to be done? Are you just simply holding out for the one that gets published that agrees with your preconceived narrative against vaccination?

Vaccines are drugs. The same testing requirements as required for other drugs should be required for vaccines. No excuses.

You claim about "well, we tell kids to say no to drugs, but then tell them vaccines are okay" is comical...are you really equating recreational drug use with vaccination?

Some recreational drugs are probably safer than vaccines.Cannabis, for example. I don't promote sorcery, but smoking cannabis is probably safer than getting a vaccination (I don't know that anyone's ever died from smoking).

Sources please. I've seen these claims before, and in every case, the court isn't saying that vaccines cause Autism. It's always a ruling that not directly related to that, in which the anti-vaccine crowd has twisted into meaning what they want it to mean.

For example - case referred to in Italy below.
https://www.mondialisation.ca/u-s-media-blackout-italian-courts-rule-vaccines-cause-autism/5430940

There's to and fro, as some of these were overturned by higher courts, which refer to Wakefield's research being refuted, which it never was - just withdrawn due to political pressure. But basically, enough reasonable doubt to make avoidance of vaccination a sound decision until conclusively proven safe, in my opinion.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Lots of papers published aren't what I'd call reputable. But there are papers published.

Peer reviewed research and published papers are two totally different things...I asked for the former

This is about the website, not the papers referenced. Again, the question was raised about whether any papers had been published. The link was posted to demonstrate there had been.

When the only websites that push these papers are linked to websites that sell the thing that they papers claim are the supposed cure, or better alternative to mainstream medicine, then it's perfectly reasonable for me to point that out...and to point out why those papers are suspect.

The websites that make these vitamin C claims aren't unlike the websites that are nothing more than sales affiliate sites for things like essential oils. They run a bunch of other sites that have "scientific-sounding" names, publish regular articles about the benefits of said product, and then have links that redirect to a sales site where they happen to sell said product.

These sites promoting the benefits of vitamin C aren't really about promoting a cure or informing people of a miraculous fix for any illness, they're about selling vitamin C.

If they were that confident in their claims, then why haven't they taken their hypothesis & findings and submitted them to any number of interested universities who would love to perform a clinical trial? If I were doing independent testing or came across something that cured a major disease...for instance, if I had cancer, and just on a whim decided to take 6 teaspoons of lemon juice and 100mg of l-arganine just to see what would happen, and by some chance my cancer went away, the first thing I would be doing would be submitting this information to every cancer research institutes email I could get my hands on (hospitals, doctors offices, universities, etc...), and not spending a bunch of time making a poorly constructed blog and starting a pyramid scheme to sell lemon juice for 3x the price you can buy it at the grocery store.

If there was no money in it, drug companies wouldn't manufacture them. Cold, hard facts of Business 101.

Did you not read the links I provided? Many drug companies did stop making them, and other vastly reduced their production, pricisely because they weren't big money makers.

Vaccines are drugs. The same testing requirements as required for other drugs should be required for vaccines. No excuses.

I'm okay with rigorous testing standards...that's fine. The problem is that even after testing standards are met, people in the anti-vaxxer community still just move the goal posts and claim the tests were rigged. No matter what, they want to cling to the conspiracy position and won't budge no matter how much evidence is provided that they're safe and effective.

Some recreational drugs are probably safer than vaccines.Cannabis, for example. I don't promote sorcery, but smoking cannabis is probably safer than getting a vaccination (I don't know that anyone's ever died from smoking).

For example - case referred to in Italy below.
https://www.mondialisation.ca/u-s-media-blackout-italian-courts-rule-vaccines-cause-autism/5430940

There's to and fro, as some of these were overturned by higher courts, which refer to Wakefield's research being refuted, which it never was - just withdrawn due to political pressure. But basically, enough reasonable doubt to make avoidance of vaccination a sound decision until conclusively proven safe, in my opinion.

And is a court ruling confirmation in your opinion? You realize that lawyers and judges aren't scientists, right?

...but again, you've provided a sketchy source, that has no corroborating links referencing it anywhere that I can find.

Given that Italian courts have a less-than-stellar track record on their medical/scientific rulings
Court Rulings Don't Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link

...this case ruling by no means validates your opinion.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Peer reviewed research and published papers are two totally different things...I asked for the former

I'm not really interested in whether the papers are peer reviewed or not. Science is not a democracy.

If they were that confident in their claims, then why haven't they taken their hypothesis & findings and submitted them to any number of interested universities who would love to perform a clinical trial? If I were doing independent testing or came across something that cured a major disease...for instance, if I had cancer, and just on a whim decided to take 6 teaspoons of lemon juice and 100mg of l-arganine just to see what would happen, and by some chance my cancer went away, the first thing I would be doing would be submitting this information to every cancer research institutes email I could get my hands on (hospitals, doctors offices, universities, etc...), and not spending a bunch of time making a poorly constructed blog and starting a pyramid scheme to sell lemon juice for 3x the price you can buy it at the grocery store.

Today's medicine is about money, not cures. Vitamin C and most useful cures are not patentable, so no money.

Did you not read the links I provided? Many drug companies did stop making them, and other vastly reduced their production, pricisely because they weren't big money makers.

The ones left are obviously making money. They're not charities.

I'm okay with rigorous testing standards...that's fine. The problem is that even after testing standards are met, people in the anti-vaxxer community still just move the goal posts and claim the tests were rigged. No matter what, they want to cling to the conspiracy position and won't budge no matter how much evidence is provided that they're safe and effective.

Vaccine manufacturers won't ever meet the goal posts without rigging, because vaccines are drugs, and are neither completely safe nor effective. Due to the lower standards required for vaccine testing, these are currently probably some of the most dangerous drugs on the market. With proper testing, vaccines would likely be taken off the market, but certainly not mandated.

And is a court ruling confirmation in your opinion? You realize that lawyers and judges aren't scientists, right?

Obviously, depends on the case and it's findings, but hard to imagine that with all the money of vaccine manufacturers, they'd lose a case were vaccines not the cause of the damage claimed.

Court Rulings Don't Confirm Autism-Vaccine Link

As I stated, I understand the rebuttal case was based on Wakefield's paper having been retracted - a move that was politically forced, rather than due to any demonstrable dishonesty on Wakefield's part.