Scientology behind vaccine and autism misinformation?

Page 3 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Nov 2010, 1:23 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
quote:
Joseph Mercola, D.O. (born 1954), is an osteopathic physician, health activist, and entrepreneur practicing in Hoffman Estates, Illinois.[1] He is the author of two New York Times bestsellers, The No-Grain Diet (with Alison Rose Levy), and The Great Bird Flu Hoax, together with several other books. Mercola is best known as founder and editor of the alternative-medicine website Mercola.com, where he advocates dietary and lifestyle approaches to health and markets a variety of health-related products. Mercola criticizes many of the practices of mainstream medicine and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), particularly vaccination and the use of prescription drugs and surgery to treat diseases. He is a member of the politically conservative Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, as well as several alternative medicine-related organizations.[2]

Mercola has received two Warning Letters from the FDA for marketing nutritional products in a manner which violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[3][4] A 2006 BusinessWeek editorial criticized Mercola's marketing practices as "relying on slick promotion, clever use of information, and scare tactics."[5]



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

12 Nov 2010, 2:00 am

Janissy wrote:
Those statistics do make a good case for why more people should have been vaccinated against swine flu. When 246 thousand people are hospitalized and over 11 thousand die, why do you think vaccination is just a $$ scam?

The CDC statistics are somewhat questionable, though, since their estimate of deaths from swine flu in the U.S. evidently exceeds UN estimates of deaths from swine flu worldwide:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 00447.html



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

12 Nov 2010, 9:19 am

I'm of the opinion that it's quite possible to overdo it. Look at antibiotics, for example. It's been observed that the more antibiotics we take, the less effective they become and the more susceptible we become to serious infections, like MRSA. There's also been a bit of a backing off of anti-bacterial soaps as they've been shown to actually weaken the body's natural immunity.

With the flu shots, I have yet to see any evidence that they actually reduce incidents of the flu, or that they've reduced deaths from the flu. It's not like the polio vax where the evidence was certainly in favor. Is it possible that flu shots are actually doing more harm than good by messing with the body's natural development of immunity? I don't have the answer, and I'm certainly no expert on the subject. I also think it's a quite valid question to be asking about the long term safety of these shots considering how new they are. If anyone has some clear evidence about the effectiveness of the flu shot, please enlighten me. For now, I'll be taking a pass.

But no, I'm definitely not in the autism-vax camp. I don't see a scientific link.



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

12 Nov 2010, 10:36 am

number5 wrote:
With the flu shots, I have yet to see any evidence that they actually reduce incidents of the flu, or that they've reduced deaths from the flu. It's not like the polio vax where the evidence was certainly in favor. Is it possible that flu shots are actually doing more harm than good by messing with the body's natural development of immunity? I don't have the answer, and I'm certainly no expert on the subject. I also think it's a quite valid question to be asking about the long term safety of these shots considering how new they are. If anyone has some clear evidence about the effectiveness of the flu shot, please enlighten me. For now, I'll be taking a pass.

The flu vaccine definitely prevents your catching the flu if you are exposed to it. Whether they are doing more harm than good depends on how you calculate it.

The main benefit of the flu vaccine isn't because it protects the individuals who get vaccine, but that it breaks the transmission path, and thus protects additional individuals even if they don't get the vaccine. Swine flu illustrates this well: while it wasn't any more dangerous to people who got it than regular flu, there was little or no vaccine available for months after the outbreak, causing huge numbers of people to catch it. In contrast, far fewer people get seasonal flu even though only a minority get the vaccine, because the minority that get vaccinated prevent most people from even being exposed.

From an overall societal standpoint, the seasonal flu vaccines are definitely good - and it's especially critical that people in positions that tend to have a lot of contact with other people, such as health care workers and day care workers, get vaccinated, so they won't be transmission paths.

However, the calculus is a little different from the individual standpoint. If enough other people are getting vaccinated, then you may have little chance of being exposed, so it may be better from a selfish standpoint for you to skip the vaccination and its relatively minor risks. This is known as being a "free rider" on the vaccination system. Enough "free riders", though, and the system breaks down. Also, as you point out, there may be extra risks for very young children with immature immune systems.

For us, this led us to get some of our family vaccinated, but not all of it. Our 2 year old daughter is vaccinated because even though she doesn't go to day care, which is a transmission hotspot for disease, she does spend a fair amount of time at places that have a lot of kids; that way, we're doing our part for society by preventing transmission through her. My wife is vaccinated because as an adult, the risks of the vaccine are small. I did not vaccinate because I'm working at home, so there's little chance of me being a transmission link, plus I don't tend to get as sick as my wife even when our household does catch something, so the benefits are lower for me. For our 9 month old son, we compromised and got only the first of the two shot series, because we're worried about harming his immature immune system. We also made sure the child care we use was vaccinated.

On the other hand, my wife's sister doesn't get her kids vaccinated at all.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

12 Nov 2010, 11:32 am

LKL wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

[snip]

Mercola has received two Warning Letters from the FDA for marketing nutritional products in a manner which violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.[3]


Take anything from Wikipedia or the FDA with a huge grain of salt. When you examine the laundry list of poisons we're allowed to ingest with the FDA's approval, their "warning letters" could be simply for not following their self-serving rules.

There is a constant push to mandate all "nutritional supplements" to be FDA approved and need a prescription. All in the name of protecting the public.

Of course, that means vitamins will cost $200 a bottle and you will be prohibited from taking more than the RDA limit where there is substantial evidence that megadoses of vitamins and minerals can reverse many disorders regular medicine isn't treating.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Nov 2010, 6:31 pm

I'm all for 'nutritional supplements' being regulated. Most are just total BS, with no science at all backing their claims, and the ones that do have an actual effect have no standards for the dosage levels. It's a scam at best and dangerous at worst.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

12 Nov 2010, 9:26 pm

psychohist wrote:
number5 wrote:
With the flu shots, I have yet to see any evidence that they actually reduce incidents of the flu, or that they've reduced deaths from the flu. It's not like the polio vax where the evidence was certainly in favor. Is it possible that flu shots are actually doing more harm than good by messing with the body's natural development of immunity? I don't have the answer, and I'm certainly no expert on the subject. I also think it's a quite valid question to be asking about the long term safety of these shots considering how new they are. If anyone has some clear evidence about the effectiveness of the flu shot, please enlighten me. For now, I'll be taking a pass.

The flu vaccine definitely prevents your catching the flu if you are exposed to it. Whether they are doing more harm than good depends on how you calculate it.

The main benefit of the flu vaccine isn't because it protects the individuals who get vaccine, but that it breaks the transmission path, and thus protects additional individuals even if they don't get the vaccine. Swine flu illustrates this well: while it wasn't any more dangerous to people who got it than regular flu, there was little or no vaccine available for months after the outbreak, causing huge numbers of people to catch it. In contrast, far fewer people get seasonal flu even though only a minority get the vaccine, because the minority that get vaccinated prevent most people from even being exposed.

From an overall societal standpoint, the seasonal flu vaccines are definitely good - and it's especially critical that people in positions that tend to have a lot of contact with other people, such as health care workers and day care workers, get vaccinated, so they won't be transmission paths.

However, the calculus is a little different from the individual standpoint. If enough other people are getting vaccinated, then you may have little chance of being exposed, so it may be better from a selfish standpoint for you to skip the vaccination and its relatively minor risks. This is known as being a "free rider" on the vaccination system. Enough "free riders", though, and the system breaks down. Also, as you point out, there may be extra risks for very young children with immature immune systems.

For us, this led us to get some of our family vaccinated, but not all of it. Our 2 year old daughter is vaccinated because even though she doesn't go to day care, which is a transmission hotspot for disease, she does spend a fair amount of time at places that have a lot of kids; that way, we're doing our part for society by preventing transmission through her. My wife is vaccinated because as an adult, the risks of the vaccine are small. I did not vaccinate because I'm working at home, so there's little chance of me being a transmission link, plus I don't tend to get as sick as my wife even when our household does catch something, so the benefits are lower for me. For our 9 month old son, we compromised and got only the first of the two shot series, because we're worried about harming his immature immune system. We also made sure the child care we use was vaccinated.

On the other hand, my wife's sister doesn't get her kids vaccinated at all.


I completely understand the theory behind the vaccine, but what I'm looking for is actual raw statistics that clearly display its effectiveness. The best thing I can find are the estimates from the CDC, but even the CDC questions their own data.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5933a1.htm?s_cid=mm5933a1_e%0D%0A

In general, there appears to be an upward trend in deaths along with an upward trend in vaccines given. Although, there seem to be a lot of variables that skew the data, such as general health before vaccination and underlying conditions in the elderly. Basically, I'm confused, but even so, I have yet to see hard and solid evidence supporting the claim of effectiveness.