Neurosurgeon Speaks On How Vaccines Harm

[Little Fish]

You seem to have rather deliberately lied to me. I will remember.

what are you talking about?

are you trying to rescue the other poster?

[Space Commander Travis]

what are you talking about?

are you trying to rescue the other poster?

rescue? From what? From his egregious error? Do you think that whatever it was called, WorldofAutism.com, is likely to be an unbiased and objective source?

[Little Fish]

The claim is that flu vaccines are ineffective. That is a lie as already proved.

so you don't want to acknowledge publicly that the article is looking at and referring to the 2013 data (it was carefully stated four times in the article http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/flu-vaxed-vs-unvaxed-revealed.html)

you said:

"To made <sic> a rash assertion as in that doofus article that a bad guess for one year means that all years involve bad guesses is the height of nonsnese although par for the anti-vax loonies."

it seems you are fighting with your own phantom imaginations rather than addressing anything the article said.

[Space Commander Travis]

Do you think that WorldofAutism.com is likely to be an unbiased and objective source? I keep asking this, but so far you don't appear to have noticed, so I'll just put it up again in case you do notice it.

[Little Fish]

as we all know, you can prove anything with stastistics

so you are saying we should be skeptical of all statistical pronouncements, or just those that challenge your beliefs?

[stereologist]

so you don't want to acknowledge publicly that the article is looking at and referring to the 2013 data (it was carefully stated four times in the article http://www.ageofauti...d-revealed.html)

you said:

"To made <sic> a rash assertion as in that doofus article that a bad guess for one year means that all years involve bad guesses is the height of nonsnese although par for the anti-vax loonies."

it seems you are fighting with your own phantom imaginations rather than addressing anything the article said.

The article is wrong as I showed by providing a link to an article which used that very data source to show that vaccines are effective.

The doofus article has no bearing on whether or not influenze vaccines are effective.

Edited November 8, 2013 by stereologist

[stereologist]

so you are saying we should be skeptical of all statistical pronouncements, or just those that challenge your beliefs?

The doofus article does not provide a statistical analysis of the situation. It simply repeats what is found in a data collection which as I have shown does not determine if the people posting had influenza or not.

[Little Fish]

The article is wrong as I showed by providing a link to an article which used that very data source to show that vaccines are effective.

The doofus article has no bearing on whether or not influenze vaccines are effective.

you linked the data reference from previous periods not covered by the article. the ageofautism article is only looking at the 2013 data, it states this to you four times within the article and i have stated it to you several times. the flu vaccine is different every year, you said so yourself. you are showing a yellow car to demonstrate all cars are yellow. you have not shown the article to be wrong in any rational respect, responding to an imaginary argument which the article never stated, or comparing data from different vaccines does not show the article to be wrong in any way.

The doofus article does not provide a statistical analysis of the situation. It simply repeats what is found in a data collection which as I have shown does not determine if the people posting had influenza or not.

and yet in the the previous paragraph (bolded bit at the top of this post) you claimed that the data from the same data source from previous periods shows "that vaccines are effective" and now you state the data for 2013 cannot show that the flu vaccine is effective, so it can show when it suits your position and it cannot show when it doesn't? holding two contradictory ideas at the same time is called doublethink. the fluttracking site records flu like symptoms which would catch actual flu cases. if the 2013 vaccine was effective it would be obvious in the numbers comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. Edited November 8, 2013 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

"The quality of influenza vaccines studies is so bad that our systematic review of 274 vaccines studies which had published between 1948 and 2007 found major discrepancies between data presented, conclusions and the recommendations made by the authors of these studies. There was an inverse relationship between methodological quality and direction of study conclusions. Conclusions favourable to the use of influenza vaccines were associated with lower quality studies, with the authors making claims and drawing conclusions unsupported by the data they presented. In addition, industry funded studies were more likely to have favourable conclusions, be published in significantly higher impact factor journals (ie the more prestigious journals) and have higher citation rates than nonindustry funded studies. This difference is not explained by either the size or the methodological quality of the studies (26). So, we have little reliable evidence on the effects of influenza vaccines. What we do have is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies."

"Vaccines and antivirals have a weak or non-existent scientific evidence base After reviewing more than 40 clinical trials, it is clear that the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, perhaps 1 adult out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group. To put it another way we need to vaccinate 100 healthy adults to prevent one set of symptoms. However, our Cochrane review found no credible evidence that there is an effect against complications such as pneumonia or death"

http://assembly.coe.int/CommitteeDocs/2010/Jefferson_statement.pdf

[stereologist]

you linked the data reference from previous periods not covered by the article. the ageofautism article is only looking at the 2013 data, it states this to you four times within the article and i have stated it to you several times. the flu vaccine is different every year, you said so yourself. you are showing a yellow car to demonstrate all cars are yellow. you have not shown the article to be wrong in any rational respect, responding to an imaginary argument which the article never stated, or comparing data from different vaccines does not show the article to be wrong in any way.

and yet in the the previous paragraph (bolded bit at the top of this post) you claimed that the data from the same data source from previous periods shows "that vaccines are effective" and now you state the data for 2013 cannot show that the flu vaccine is effective, so it can show when it suits your position and it cannot show when it doesn't? holding two contradictory ideas at the same time is called doublethink. the fluttracking site records flu like symptoms which would catch actual flu cases. if the 2013 vaccine was effective it would be obvious in the numbers comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated.

A few reasons this is a doofus article.

1. The article discusses results over a 4 year time period, not just 2013

2. The article claims that "14,000 citizens (up from10,000 for 2009) were faithfully recorded weekly by" which is not true

3. The article treats a raw data collection in a manner which may or may not be meaningful

4. The article claims that differences are irrelevant which may or may not be correct

5. The article relies on demagoguery such as "so laden with such toxic preservatives"

6. The article makes a suggestion that the elderly may be dying due to receiving the flu vaccination

7. The article is wrong about ribavirin, for example this is a lie "immediate red blood-cell death"

It is light on evidence and heavy on emotional nonsense.

And you might want to take the time to read my posts instead of misrepresenting what I posted. So please learn to read befgore making wacko accusations such as you did.

Edited November 8, 2013 by stereologist

[stereologist]

"The quality of influenza vaccines studies is so bad that our systematic review of 274 vaccines studies which had published between 1948 and 2007 found major discrepancies between data presented, conclusions and the recommendations made by the authors of these studies. There was an inverse relationship between methodological quality and direction of study conclusions. Conclusions favourable to the use of influenza vaccines were associated with lower quality studies, with the authors making claims and drawing conclusions unsupported by the data they presented. In addition, industry funded studies were more likely to have favourable conclusions, be published in significantly higher impact factor journals (ie the more prestigious journals) and have higher citation rates than nonindustry funded studies. This difference is not explained by either the size or the methodological quality of the studies (26). So, we have little reliable evidence on the effects of influenza vaccines. What we do have is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies."

"Vaccines and antivirals have a weak or non-existent scientific evidence base After reviewing more than 40 clinical trials, it is clear that the performance of the vaccines in healthy adults is nothing to get excited about. On average, perhaps 1 adult out of a 100 vaccinated will get influenza symptoms compared to 2 out of 100 in the unvaccinated group. To put it another way we need to vaccinate 100 healthy adults to prevent one set of symptoms. However, our Cochrane review found no credible evidence that there is an effect against complications such as pneumonia or death"

http://assembly.coe....n_statement.pdf

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1967306,00.html

People always ask me if I am against other vaccines. I am not. I have five children. They have all been vaccinated against the major diseases as part of the standard childhood-vaccination program. Those vaccines have strong evidence to back them up. I am not antivaccine. I am anti–poor evidence.

So Jeffereson is against bad evidence. He states that the studies were not up to snuff. Alternative medical claims are based on poor to bad studies.

[Space Commander Travis]

so you are saying we should be skeptical of all statistical pronouncements, or just those that challenge your beliefs?

Yes, or at least, look at what the source is and whether they'd be likely to bi biased.

[Little Fish]

The article discusses results over a 4 year time period, not just 2013

the article is talking about the 2013 period, why don't you get this?

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/11/flu-vaxed-vs-unvaxed-revealed.html

The article claims that "14,000 citizens (up from10,000 for 2009) were faithfully recorded weekly by" which is not true

the article states:

"For year 2013, 14,000 citizens (up from 10,000 for 2009) were faithfully recorded weekly by "FluTracking"

why is it not true? what are you talking about?

http://www.flutracking.net/survey/Reports/LatestReport.pdf

[stereologist]

the article is talking about the 2013 period, why don't you get this?

http://www.ageofauti...d-revealed.html

the article states:

"For year 2013, 14,000 citizens (up from 10,000 for 2009) were faithfully recorded weekly by "FluTracking"

why is it not true? what are you talking about?

http://www.flutracki...atestReport.pdf

The article is about a 4 year time period at a minimum. Why can't you get that? I see. You choose to cherry pick.

The article you reference in post #228 states:

For the last six years ...

For the last three flu seasons

All of this follows the recent 2010 ...

Really, who cares because of the poor quality of the article in question? Who cares that you are trying to misrepresent this poorly written opinion piece?

Let me repeat this short list of reasons this is a doofus article.

1. The article discusses results over a 4 year time period, not just 2013

2. The article claims that "14,000 citizens (up from10,000 for 2009) were faithfully recorded weekly by" which is not true

3. The article treats a raw data collection in a manner which may or may not be meaningful

4. The article claims that differences are irrelevant which may or may not be correct

5. The article relies on demagoguery such as "so laden with such toxic preservatives"

6. The article makes a suggestion that the elderly may be dying due to receiving the flu vaccination

7. The article is wrong about ribavirin, for example this is a lie "immediate red blood-cell death"

The guy is a clown and makes asinine inferences such as the following:

Since 75% of these targeted pregnant women refused the shot it's reasonable to conclude a considerably larger percentage of Australia's general population likewise reject it

That's not a reasonable assumption just as his false statements about ribavirin point out the author's willingness to flat out lie.

Let me also remind you that the data in the FluTracker reports is not flu data. It is not collected by the staff as suggested in the article. It is posted by people that may or may not provide input and that input is a self diagnosis with no follow up by the staff. The question is whether or not this data is in anyway useful. The journal article I provided shows that it is useful. But can it be interpreted in the way it is in the opinion piece?

[Insaniac]

I was also diagnosed with autism, at 4 years old. It's interesting because I remember my father, a few years ago mentioning to me how he thinks vaccinations could be (or were) responsible.

[Peter B]

Apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but as this issue was mentioned earlier in this thread it seemed an appropriate place to mention it:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/02/04/3937909.htm

Young women who get the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine don't see it as a license to have more sexual partners or forgo condoms, a new study confirms.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calls for both girls and boys to be vaccinated against HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

Some parents and community groups have been concerned that the vaccine might promote risky sex.

But in the new study, even the small group of girls who misunderstood their risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) after getting vaccinated didn't change their behaviour as a result, researchers found.

"There are so many contributing factors to whether an adolescent decides to have sex or not, and whether they decide to limit their number of partners or use condoms," says Dr Jessica Kahn. "Getting a vaccine probably just plays a very, very small role in their decisions."

I was also interested by this:

...since the vaccine was released on the market [in Australia] in 2007, the rate of HPV infections has declined.

"We've already seen rates of infection go down by 77 per cent, while genital warts have almost disappeared in young women and men," she says.

In other words, clear health benefits.

[rodentraiser]

I was just thinking, maybe the reason for autism is ultrasounds. Think about it. How many more women now are having ultrasounds than before? Think of how they work - and your fetus is getting blasted right through the skin.

Well, it's as good a reason as any. *shrugs*

[RaptorBites]

I was just thinking, maybe the reason for autism is ultrasounds. Think about it. How many more women now are having ultrasounds than before? Think of how they work - and your fetus is getting blasted right through the skin.

Well, it's as good a reason as any. *shrugs*

Maybe the reason is because advancements in detection shows an increasingly broader range of autism.

[stereologist]

The definition has also changed. The changes allow for greater inclusion. It is also due to a better understanding of what autism is and the spectrum of symptoms it exhibits.

[ambelamba]

This doesn't happen in Asia. Maybe Asian physiology can handle vaccines better than Caucasians? I mean, there's no other way to explain why vaccination and autism connection was NEVER an issue in Asia.

[DecoNoir]

This doesn't happen in Asia. Maybe Asian physiology can handle vaccines better than Caucasians? I mean, there's no other way to explain why vaccination and autism connection was NEVER an issue in Asia.

Maybe you guys are better at shutting out quacks who spew that kind of nonsense. In the west we have the oh-so-lovely (absolutely terrible) habit of giving every idiot a soapbox to stand on, no matter how obviously unqualified they are.

[Rafterman]

This doesn't happen in Asia. Maybe Asian physiology can handle vaccines better than Caucasians? I mean, there's no other way to explain why vaccination and autism connection was NEVER an issue in Asia.

It was never an issue anywhere else either.

[ambelamba]

Maybe you guys are better at shutting out quacks who spew that kind of nonsense. In the west we have the oh-so-lovely (absolutely terrible) habit of giving every idiot a soapbox to stand on, no matter how obviously unqualified they are.

Correct that to "snuffing out".

[DecoNoir]

Correct that to "snuffing out".

Oy vey!

[Frank Merton]

Correct that to "snuffing out".

We have our share of quacks and forms of "alternative" medicine, but I must admit they all give Western medicine due respect and don't try to undermine it and I can't recall anyone showing any fear of vaccines.

All babies nowadays go through a pretty lengthy routine of free vaccinations at various ages, and at least in the cities the local committeewoman keeps track and goes and talks to parents who haven't kept up. I've never heard of anyone having any trouble over it though -- they just take it as a kindly reminder. (Kinda like not putting out your Vietnamese flag on certain special days, although nowadays also putting out a Communist hammer and sickle has fallen by the wayside).