Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Questions about Immunization
- Thread starter Eugene Shubert
- Start date
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
I am a Confessing Millerite Adventist.
I did watch it.
Because the pressure below an airplane's wing (and for some distance behind it) varies across the wing itself, and the difference between a contrail and no contrail can be a 1% difference in engine power, or a 1 degree difference in dewpoint, or a 1 degree difference in temperature. Again, refer to the videos of the WWII bombers.
Eugene Shubert
Valued Senior Member
Sorry, the two videos at http://contrailscience.com/memphis-belle-wwii-bomber-contrails-1944/ do not prove that condensation trails can persist for more than a minute.
Bells
Staff member
That's not what I saw.
Okay. But the only sites that report these figures are anti-vaxxer sites and the only people who write about it are anti-vaxxers. It is not discussed anywhere. Not even on legal sites or the CDC. Which would normally have the number of people who had such reactions to it. Does that not make you wonder why?
It's not that I will not address the issues in the video you posted. It is that the issues in the video you posted are not corroborated anywhere that one might consider to be from a scientific or unbiased source at all. Do you understand that part yet?
Demonise? No. I think that it is ironic that he was allegedly poisoned by his own brand of product that he often tries to push for his alternative medicine beliefs. And he claims that it was he and 6 people. Just 6? And do you know how hard it is to overdose on vitamin D? He has proven that his absolute quackery is able to be peddled in a field that is not regulated. Most importantly, the supplement he was consuming still had twice the daily recommended amount of vitamin D, even without the manufacturer's monumental mistake.
That meant that instead of ingesting 2,000 IU of Vitamin D daily, he was ingesting 2 million IU, the suit says. Most doctors recommend 1,000 IU a day.
Doesn't it? Because I was fairly certain it explained how the Vaccine Courts work, which would then explain and make clear to you why there are no "judge" and "jury".
Who is hiding anything?
The CDC have huge information pages on each of the vaccines that are given to children, with everything that can go wrong. There is a large range of scientific literature and studies available on the efficacy and safety of vaccines.
Such as the study by Japanese authorities on the MMR vaccine and autism.
The American Academy of Pediatrics have a comprehensive list of studies conducted regarding vaccines and their results as well.
Without comment on whether the extrapolated 4500 cases -> 43000 cases is valid, lets play with some numbers..
In 2007, approximately 4,500 cases of acute hepatitis B were reported, which after correcting for underreporting and asymptomatic infections, represented an estimated 43,000 new cases...
In the United States, without postexposure prophylaxis, HBV would annually infect 12,000 infants [an estimate, not a fact]
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt04-hepb.html
Overall, about 3.95 million babies were born in 2012. (from a USA today article, close enough for my needs)
12000 infants (WILL GET for this comments purpose) HepB infection at birth. Out of 3.95 million births that is... 0.3% Three tenths of one percent. But you think its OK to vaccinate 3.95 million babies before they are even dried off. 1st 24 hours of life.
HepB testing on the mothers has been recommended since like 1991.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638050
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170
The above was mentioned on some anti-vac site or vid. Cant remember which now. It was a complaint that the cdc ignored studies like this when reviewing the "available data for a link", reviews often done with the discredited (and wanted for fraud) doctor associated with 23 of 25? studies of the literature (he is also mentioned in the video you havent watched yet) ...
1st dose HepB newborns before they leave the hospital. Day olds.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-pocket-pr.pdf
For most people, HepB runs its course with No Serious Effect. Approximately 5% of the people develop chronic HepB symptoms/conditions and of those Five Percent, 10 - 25% will die of a HepB related Liver problem. Sometime in the future. Prematurely yes, but sometime in the future. If they dont die of something else prematurely first....
I'm not anti-vax.
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statisticsreport.pdf
That took me 10 seconds to find.
Of course you will ignore the complaints by the people who cant get a doctor to review the autopsies, fill out well child reports, etc that the video discusses (meaning they dont even get a hearing)... The lady I worked with has not attempted a claim. She didnt know about the vaccine court and there is a statute of limitations on how long to file a claim.
And you will ignore the fact that many adverse side effects are not reported (estimates are 90-95%). Its there on the videos that you wont watch.
Oh, and I am done with you. I welcome critiques of the video, but that requires a discussion of the video itself, not side tracking with vitamin suppliments. Or seeing a name you dont like and ignoring the 15 or so other expert opinions being presented.
Last edited:
Right. Sometimes they persist a long time. Sometimes they disperse within seconds. All depends on pressure, temperature, relative humidity and throttle settings.
Interesting video. The chemical imbalance theory without a verifiable test brings up some challenging questions regarding the whole diagnosis process. However, I do have a friend with a schizophrenia diagnosis and know what happened when she stopped her drugs in an attempt to prove she didnt need them (under guidance of her psychiatrist). She was in her 40s when she had her 'breakdown' but on reflection, knows it was an ongoing deterioration that began in her late teens/early 20s. I say this so you are aware I do think there are mental health conditions that require various psychotropic drugs for treatment.
But in regards to the video, I agree there is a massive push to diagnose everyone with some kind of disorder and push a med. The video does a good job emphasizing the 'follow the money' aspect and conflicts of interest. I am so glad my kid isnt in school now with all the crap being attempted 'for the childrens sake'.
Bells
Staff member
You don't think it is best to have a generalised approach when it comes to vaccines? And the vaccine will protect the infant from possible or risk of infection as well. So while the mother may not have HepB present at birth, she could find herself or others in contact with the baby could also have it and pass it on to the child. You are aware it is not just a sexually transmitted disease, yes?
You don't think preventing HepB is better? I happen to believe prevention is better than cure, especially for something that is easily caught and passed on. Do you think it is better to not vaccinate the child and hope for the best that the mother will not contract it without her knowledge and pass it on to the child? Are you aware that child to child contact, though play can also pass on the disease? So sending your baby to childcare, and if a child there has it, they can easily pass it on to other children. Which is why they vaccinate from a point where it is safe to do so. With HepB, it starts from birth, for obvious reasons.
The whole point of the vaccine is to prevent transmission to the baby.
That's interesting.
The study was on adults, twins at that, who had exacerbated auto-immune responses after having the vaccine. I will quote the whole part of the "conclusions", and not just the little bit you posted and it appears, out of context:
Evidence from biological plausibility, case-reports, case-series, epidemiological, and now for positive re-challenge and exacerbation of symptoms, and events in identical twins was presented. One would have to consider that there is causal relationship between HBV and serious autoimmune disorders among certain susceptible vaccine recipients in a defined temporal period following immunization. In immunizing adults, the patient, with the help of their physician, should make an informed consent decision as to whether to be immunized or not, weighing the small risks of the adverse effects of HBV with the risk of exposure to deadly hepatitis B virus.
Note the words "serious autoimmune disorders among certain susceptible vaccine recipients".
The WHO also discussed the Geier study you linked in relation to the HPV:
Guillain–Barré Syndrome (GBS) – The pathogenesis of GBS is poorly understood but it seems that GBS may be triggered by infection such as flu-like illness or with Campylobacter jejuni. Rarely, GBS has been reported to follow hepatitis B infection. Following the introduction of plasma-derived hepatitis B vaccine in the US, the possible association between GBS and a receipt of the first dose of vaccine was suggested (CDC, 1991). In 1991, GBS was reported at a very low rate (0.5 per 100 000 vaccine recipients). A review of case reports of adverse events and positive re-challenge of symptoms after hepatitis B vaccination has been interpreted as suggesting that vaccination could cause or trigger GBS in certain susceptible vaccine recipients (Geier et al., 2004). However, on the basis of a careful review of all available evidence and advice from the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS), WHO considers that the complete data do not indicate a causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccine and GBS (WHO, 2009).
Wasn't that the vaccine that was removed because they found it caused bowel issues or the culture used caused bowel issues?
Are you suggesting HepB is not a serious illness?
Perhaps you can explain, then, why your stance is decidedly anti-vax?
Can you please explain why the figure you cited from the video about the HPV does not match the 3,000 who apparently filed or received compensation from the HRSA page you just linked?
Which is not matched at all in the link you just provided.
Are you able to explain the discrepancy between the total of 172 claims for the HPV, out of which 80 received compensation and 92 were dismissed and the video you linked and which you argued amounted to over 3,000 families.
What you linked for HPV, does not match what is said in the video.
Are you able to explain that vast discrepancy?
The video is nearly 2 hours long, by a known anti-vaxxer, AIDS denier and cancer treatment denier. It's not that I won't watch it. It's that I refuse to waste my time on absolute drivel from a raving lunatic.
I am asking you to support the claims you have made, based on the video, and what you have provided thus far, does not support the claims about Gardasil. Far from it, what you did link completely contradicts his claims in the video and what you parroted here.
And until you can back up the claims you are making in this thread (you are yet to do so with actual science), your video will not be taken seriously.
Because you are unable to comprehend someone can get their shots/kids shots and still want to explore whether or not they were given complete information by the system. That someone is doing the best they can but still think there may be problems needing to be addressed.
1. If you would have watched the video you would realize the OVER 3,000 wasnt just HPV.
2. If you would have paid attention to what I was saying, the HPV portion of the discussion revolved around new born innoculation and wasnt in regards to the OVER 3000
3. I already did:
~~~You are mixing two now 3 or more different portions here which indicates reaffirms that you did not read links/watch video but still feel informed enough to comment on their content or are so convinced (biased) that you cannot receive new input/data that conflicts with what you believe to be true.
Watch the video and then get back to me. Over 3000 families and over 2 Billion dollars so far.
This is why I dont want to engage with you further until you review the information I am talking about. I am very aware of the cdc position on injecting babies/kids/uninfected/low risk persons and am not curious about that aspect. I am curious as to what the critical position presents because it is something I am not informed of and as I have recently revealed, became curious after working with someone who believes vaccines caused the autism in her child.
Translation: I dont need your parroting of the cdc/who position to gain insight. Your input is useless for my questions/curiosity.
Now I hope you understand why I am not going to engage with you further.
Bells
Staff member
And you think turning to quack videos is the way to get those answers?
It never ceases to amaze me at how people can go so far to excuse stupidity and dangerous stupidity at that.
Once again, your video is close to 2 hours long, is made by an absolute quack who is a HIV denier and an anti-vaxxer. What I saw at the start made me turn it off because it was ridiculous. To demand that people subject themselves to such stupidity to be able to discuss the issue is just as ridiculous and I am willing to bet that I am not alone in having refused to watch that video.
Now, you have insinuated and inferred twice, that the 2,000 and then the goal post was moved again and it became 3,000 figure was for HPV:
I even discussed those figures with you about it being HPV, because you basically inferred they were for HPV and it is only now, after I point out the giant discrepancy in how you have been arguing this, that you now say it is for all vaccines.
Which brings me to another point.
You are now saying that it has awarded over 3,000 families in damages for all vaccines, or more to the point, it is in the video, correct?
Are you aware that this is also not matched in the HRSA link you provided? Because what was "compensable" was below 2,000. Unless of course the goal post has moved again and that over 3,000 figure also includes private settlements between the parties, for which being private settlement, how can they know what the amount was? In short, where does the over 3,000 figure come from?
Because at present, you seem a tad confused about what you are saying. You keep changing your mind.
HPV is not for newborns though. That is usually given to children who are around 10-11 years of age. Or that is when the schedule for that starts.
Do you mean HepB for newborns?
Perhaps you should go back and review what you have said and look at what you posted, so that you stop confusing yourself.
I did watch a portion of the video. And it was biased. When I then looked at who made it, that became clear of what that video was.
I am not mixing anything at all. I had initially responded to you about Gardasil. You have then kept moving the goal post and saying one thing, while meaning another in your confusion and you appear to now be getting your vaccines mixed up. In my response to you about your initial comments about the HPV, why you felt the need to then provide a generalised figure for all vaccines.... Were you trying to confuse the issue further? Or were you confused about what you had heard or seen in the video? Had you thought to check the scientific literature before you posted those figures and before or after you watched the dodgy video?
What you have linked does not match what you are saying at all. And they keep not matching. Are you aware of that?
So this is now for all vaccines?
Okay, goal post keeps moving. I just want to make sure.
The problem here is that I am asking for actual science. You have not really delivered in that regard and you keep referring to an anti-vaxxer video, made by an anti-vaxxer who also happens to be an AIDS denier.
There is no evidence that MMR causes autism. Far from it. There is scientific evidence that autism begins in utero. Parents jump to the MMR connection, because of when it starts to present itself and that usually coincided with when their child has the MMR vaccine. And parents, naturally, would rather blame something external than to consider that it is something that happened while their child was still developing in their womb.
And there is critical discussion and then there is utter quackery. You are posting utter quackery to support your position.
I also posted WHO and other scientific papers and news of those discoveries.
Why is it that when quackery is countered by science, people flip out like you are at present.
No, I will not give any credence to the video you linked because it is pure quackery. There is nothing scientific about it at all.
That's no skin off my nose, milkweed. But please understand that when you post quackery, I will do my best to counter it with science.
If you wish to have actual answers to your question, then perhaps you should consider reading scientific studies and journals for your answers, then referring to youtube and watching quackery for your answers. Because that will only result in ridicule.
I won't say never.., but I almost never follow video links... And I am certainly not interested in wasting time on a link from a poster that sounds a little crackers to start with.., even if I am myself a bit off center.
Well as the day has gone along I was doing a bit of searching. Came upon this link from 2013:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46576.0
The link to the described FoI documents was dead, but I had enough of a lead to find it elsewhere:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/HealthHazards.pdf
At least in the UK it appears there is the same conflicts of interest going on as described in the above video.
Society needs to protect itself from those parents who do not vaccinate their children.
Australian parents will lose thousands of dollars of childcare and welfare benefits if they refuse to vaccinate their kids.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...300267462?sv=eab71138068727dbdac0488af89c4a1b
The “no jab, no pay” plan, announced by the federal government today, has bipartisan support.
Thousands of families could lose payments, with the government estimating about 39,000 children under seven have not received immunisation because their parents are vaccine objectors.
But Social Service Minister Scott Morrison said it’s not fair for taxpayers to subsidise parents who choose not to immunise.
“The overwhelming advice of those in the health profession is it’s the smart thing and the right thing to do to immunise your children,” Mr Morrison said in Sydney.
The government says the number of parents opting for the “conscientious objection” vaccination exemption for payments has more than doubled over the past decade.
The “no jab, no pay” policy will remove it as an exemption from January 2016.
The Australian Medical Association, representing 27,000 doctors, backs the plan.
“Vaccination remains one of the most effective public health measures that we have,” AMA President Brian Owler said.
“Whatever we can do to increase vaccination rates is important.”
Dr Owler does have some reservations. He’s concerned the policy won’t catch parents who don’t need the benefits and could lead to children being excluded.
“Kids might get punished because of the position their parents make.”
But the rest of the community had to be protected, he said, particularly sick people such as those undergoing chemotherapy. Under the plan, recommended by the Productivity Commission in a recent inquiry into child care, parents who decide against immunisations could be up to $15,000 worse off per child.
They would lose a childcare benefit of up to $205 a week, the childcare rebate of up to $7500 a year or the Family Tax Benefit A annual supplement of up to $726.
Children can still be exempted on medical or religious grounds, but Mr Morrison warns the latter exemption is “very narrow”.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Labor believed in the science of vaccinations and linking them to welfare payments. “(I don’t accept) people just claiming some sort of loose, undefined conscientious objection not to do the right thing by their children,” he told reporters in Melbourne.
But there are some who strongly oppose measures that mandate immunisation.
An online petition against compulsory vaccinations in Australia that states “all parents deserve to make an uncoerced choice” has received more than 3000 signatures in five days.
Parents have taken to the change.org webpage to express their concerns about vaccinations and what they view is a potential encroachment on civil rights.
“My children, my choice and NOT the governments (sic),” Rima Helal wrote.
Another woman, Jody Fletcher, states: “I will not put my child at risk from further damage from vaccinations”.
Some conscientious objectors fear vaccinations are linked to diseases such as autism.
But the bulk of scientific opinion holds that vaccinations are safe and that objection to immunisation endangers the community by lowering so-called herd immunity to diseases.
NSW preschools already require vaccinations to enrol children and Mr Morrison is hoping other states and territories will also co-operate.
Australian parents will lose thousands of dollars of childcare and welfare benefits if they refuse to vaccinate their kids.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...300267462?sv=eab71138068727dbdac0488af89c4a1b
The “no jab, no pay” plan, announced by the federal government today, has bipartisan support.
Thousands of families could lose payments, with the government estimating about 39,000 children under seven have not received immunisation because their parents are vaccine objectors.
But Social Service Minister Scott Morrison said it’s not fair for taxpayers to subsidise parents who choose not to immunise.
“The overwhelming advice of those in the health profession is it’s the smart thing and the right thing to do to immunise your children,” Mr Morrison said in Sydney.
The government says the number of parents opting for the “conscientious objection” vaccination exemption for payments has more than doubled over the past decade.
The “no jab, no pay” policy will remove it as an exemption from January 2016.
The Australian Medical Association, representing 27,000 doctors, backs the plan.
“Vaccination remains one of the most effective public health measures that we have,” AMA President Brian Owler said.
“Whatever we can do to increase vaccination rates is important.”
Dr Owler does have some reservations. He’s concerned the policy won’t catch parents who don’t need the benefits and could lead to children being excluded.
“Kids might get punished because of the position their parents make.”
But the rest of the community had to be protected, he said, particularly sick people such as those undergoing chemotherapy. Under the plan, recommended by the Productivity Commission in a recent inquiry into child care, parents who decide against immunisations could be up to $15,000 worse off per child.
They would lose a childcare benefit of up to $205 a week, the childcare rebate of up to $7500 a year or the Family Tax Benefit A annual supplement of up to $726.
Children can still be exempted on medical or religious grounds, but Mr Morrison warns the latter exemption is “very narrow”.
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Labor believed in the science of vaccinations and linking them to welfare payments. “(I don’t accept) people just claiming some sort of loose, undefined conscientious objection not to do the right thing by their children,” he told reporters in Melbourne.
But there are some who strongly oppose measures that mandate immunisation.
An online petition against compulsory vaccinations in Australia that states “all parents deserve to make an uncoerced choice” has received more than 3000 signatures in five days.
Parents have taken to the change.org webpage to express their concerns about vaccinations and what they view is a potential encroachment on civil rights.
“My children, my choice and NOT the governments (sic),” Rima Helal wrote.
Another woman, Jody Fletcher, states: “I will not put my child at risk from further damage from vaccinations”.
Some conscientious objectors fear vaccinations are linked to diseases such as autism.
But the bulk of scientific opinion holds that vaccinations are safe and that objection to immunisation endangers the community by lowering so-called herd immunity to diseases.
NSW preschools already require vaccinations to enrol children and Mr Morrison is hoping other states and territories will also co-operate.
Bells
Staff member
Paddoboy, the religious exemptions were scrapped when the only religion who relied on it advised they were no longer advocating for their members to not vaccinate their children.
Minister for Social Services, the Hon. Scott Morrison today announced the Coalition Government will end the one religious exemption on children’s vaccinations for access to the taxpayer funded Child Care Benefit, Child Care Rebate and the Family Tax Benefit Part A end of year supplement from 1 January 2016.
“Over the course of the last week the government has had discussions with the only religious organisation with an approved vaccination exemption, the Church of Christ, Scientist and has formed the view that this exemption, in place since 1998, is no longer current or necessary and will therefore be removed,” Minister Morrison said.
“Having been informed the religion is not advising members to avoid vaccinating their children and following engagement with members, the government no longer sees that the exemption is current and the authorisation for this exemption has been withdrawn.
“Having resolved this outstanding matter the government will not be receiving nor authorising any further vaccination exemption applications from religious organisations.
“The only authorised exemption from being required to have children immunised in order to receive benefits is on medical grounds. This will remain the sole ground for exemption under the Coalition Government.
http://scottmorrison.dss.gov.au/med...religious-no-jab-no-pay-of-benefits-exemption
“Over the course of the last week the government has had discussions with the only religious organisation with an approved vaccination exemption, the Church of Christ, Scientist and has formed the view that this exemption, in place since 1998, is no longer current or necessary and will therefore be removed,” Minister Morrison said.
“Having been informed the religion is not advising members to avoid vaccinating their children and following engagement with members, the government no longer sees that the exemption is current and the authorisation for this exemption has been withdrawn.
“Having resolved this outstanding matter the government will not be receiving nor authorising any further vaccination exemption applications from religious organisations.
“The only authorised exemption from being required to have children immunised in order to receive benefits is on medical grounds. This will remain the sole ground for exemption under the Coalition Government.
http://scottmorrison.dss.gov.au/med...religious-no-jab-no-pay-of-benefits-exemption
Thanks for the update Bells. I really don't keep much of a track on this issue, but just wanted to get a point over re those that question it.
Bells
Staff member
No problem. To be honest, at the time, I was surprised he took that large and final step.
There are people who are against this, of course. Mostly people from more affluent suburbs who are the ones who tend to not immunise and are potential or Liberal voters. But really, with measles making a comeback here, something had to be done and it is probably the one thing I am happy about with the Government.