Posted on 10/20/2014 4:28:36 AM PDT by bert
We have technology to potentially control Ebola and other viral outbreaks today. But the federal bureaucracy refuses to catch up with 21st-century science. For example, diagnostic startup Nanobiosym has an iPhone-sized device that can accurately detect Ebola and other infectious diseases in less than an hour. Two other companies, Synthetic Genomics and Novartis, have the capacity to create synthetic vaccine viruses for influenza and other infectious diseases in only four days. Both firms can also share data about outbreaks instantaneously and make real-time, geographically specific diagnosis and vaccine production possible. These companies could start producing Ebola vaccine/treatments tomorrow — except that the Food and Drug Administration’s insistence on randomized studies and endless demands for more data means firms have to spend millions on paperwork instead of producing medicines. And for every small company drained by such tactics, many others conclude it’s not even worth trying. These advances aren’t available because the FDA is using 19th-century science to decide which medical technologies should be used in the 21st century.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
And one woman at our FDA refused to vote to approve it in the US because she was not satisfied with the safety data submitted with the drug approval paperwork.
She won a congressional award for that.
How many books have you read from “anti-vax” writers? Or are you just ranting about something when you have NO idea what the other side says, and you have formed a firm opinion without without due investigation.
“Whale.to is not a valid scientific site and has no legitimate information about vaccine safety. “
So are you alleging the deaths cited there from the Salk vaccine are false, or that you just don’t care if people die? Are you also suggesting that Black_Agnes is lying about the people she knew who got severely ill?
Of course it is not a “scientific cite” is quotes medical journals, government reports and doctors. Are you denying all those quotes and references? Try this one from the British Medical Journal http://www.bmj.com/content/2/4669
If you sign up you can verify the quote.
“The statistics collected in this inquiry reveal clearly an association between recent injections and paralysis . . . We must conclude that in the 1949 epidemic of poliomyelitis in this country, cases of paralysis were occurring which were associated with inoculation procedures carried out within the month preceding the record date of onset of the illness . . .” (Reported in the British Medical Journal, July 1, 1950)
It also references Lancet and other science/medical journals, or are you denying those are science journals?
The problem with whale.to and its ilk are that they “cherry pick” from real scientific literature in order to “prove” whatever their anti-vax screed is saying. They take facts out of context. For instance, exaggerating the rare side effects of a vaccine while downplaying the real danger of the disease it causes. For example, vaccine-related paralytic poliomyelitis occurs in about 5 per one million vaccinees, but 1 out of 200 polio victims becomes disabled—meaning that the wild disease is 1,000 times as likely to have a bad outcome than the live attenuated vaccine. The killed vaccine, of course, cannot cause any polio-like disease.
There are not two equal sides on this. There is the one side that does the research, gathers data, analyzes and publishes it, and compiles the data to come up with the best evidence-based practices and recommendations. Then there is the side that will say anything, flavors lies with a touch of facts, does no research, and does its best to convince people not to use vaccines. Since vaccines are responsible for saving hundreds of millions of lives and are one of the biggest factors in our current long life expectancy, the only possible conclusion is that the anti-vax advocates like those over at whale.to want people to die prematurely.
“For example, vaccine-related paralytic poliomyelitis occurs in about 5 per one million vaccinees, but 1 out of 200 polio victims becomes disabled”
So you say. You only mention disabling, not deaths, but there have been many deaths from vaccines. What you are admitting is that vaccines are NOT safe. You just prefer to kill a few innocent people than allow many to take responsibility for their health. I don’t believe that way. Your entitled to believe in killing innocents, but I call that murder. It is a glorified form of Russian Roulette. If vaccinations were only ever voluntary, and the risks were made VERY clear, then fine. But even in that case, evidence shows that the manner of production and delivery (like thimerol) is unnecessarily dangerous. Better options can be done, but they are more expensive and less profitable to the drug companies. Have you not ever wondered why most vaccine producers have gotten special exemptions from lawsuit by congress? They have a license to kill. They know what they are doing is dangerous and likely to cause VERY expensive lawsuits. They are not producing them to help the people they are producing them to make easy profits guaranteed by the government.
“There are not two equal sides on this. There is the one side that does the research, gathers data, analyzes and publishes it, and compiles the data to come up with the best evidence-based practices and recommendations.”
Your faith in the government and powers that be, is astounding. You never did answer the question about how much anti-vax you have read. Because you haven’t, correct? You are operating on blind faith in leaders with a criminal negligence track record which favors profiting industry ahead of health. That is the SIDE you have chosen. And your faith is so complete in these criminals you will not even investigate the other side. SAD!
In the 1800’s a doctor across the atlantic was drummed out of the medical profession for suggesting that doctors wash their hands after doing an autopsy, and before doing surgery on a live patient. All because despite of the evidence he presented of the dangers, they knew better. The whole profession had decades of operations to support their premise.
Fast forward to the 1950’s. We are more “evolved” now and not subject to such superstitious nonsense, or pig-headedness. We let evidence guide us. Several studies show that a deficiency of folic acid in pregnancy can cause neural tube defects; a serious birth defect. Folic acid supplements posed NO risk. Yet they would not recommend it. More studies came out. More babies with needles serious defects. Still no recommendation of a harmless nutritional supplement. It took more than three decades of defective babies born, and virtually every other organization on the planet pressuring them, before the AMA finally gave in and recommended it. Of course once they got past their ego, now it is considered a primary recommendation. All is forgotten, and no health professional would consider not recommending it. These are the people you are putting your faith in!!!
The same holds true for lead in gasoline. We had a couple of thousand years of evidence of the dangers. The people working on actually getting the lead into the gasoline for pilot testing were dying from lead poisoning, yet the surgeon general ruled no conclusive evidence, and approved it uses. After more than 50 years of destroying the health of people, and no one left alive that made the decision to hold accountable, and other viable substitutes available, lead is banned as dangerous. You trust these people and their “science”. SAD!
As already indicated the epidemic of polio was CAUSED by similar environmental pollution weakening the nervous system of people and making what was once a scarce disease into a near epidemic. So the “NEED” to kill a few innocent people to save great numbers from suffering was manufactured, literally.
I suggest you take your head out of the government is always right sand, and do your own research. I read original publications in or from science journals most every day, and have for decades, and further read books which discuss many studies on health.
I went through this same nonsense with artificial sweeteners and someone the other day. The faithful believers in government believe the “Cherry picking” lie. In less than 5 minutes I had 68 studies that each showed significant dangers of only one of the many artificial sweetners. Do you really believe 68 studies showing danger are just cherry picked poorly done studies, and that the ones funded by an industry which stands to makes billions are all perfect and show no danger? SMH! Are you sure you are “EX” dem?
I’m not going to bother with reading your screed.
No one who thinks that anti-vax sites provide genuine information is worth reading, and I knew before I first pointed out that whale.to is not a source of medical information that you would not like the truth. Anti-vaxers seldom like real medical information.
So, go ahead and screed away. I won’t be reading it.
If I have said *anything* that is incorrect, you are completely free to post the correct information, with references.
Everything I have said is based in the scientific literature. The fact that the experts who have to make public statements base those statements on the exact same body of literature is why we all seem to be saying the same message.
If I am lying, then there is a truth against which to compare the lies. Either produce the evidence that I am lying, or stop calling me a liar.
Either vaccines produce antibodies or they do not. If they do, then they are effective. That doesn't mean they are safe, particularly with the preservatives you mention.
But if you have better ideas, then put up some links. I would prefer scientific studies showing the natural generation or enhancement of antibodies without using vaccines. If that is the case, and it certainly happens a lot in African Ebola cases, then we must also recognize that not everybody is able to do that and we need a treatment for the rest of the disease victims.
I would antidote all the previous vaccinations homeopathically and search for people with mumps/measles/rubella in order to expose my children to them. I would then nurse them through their illness and watch them have a growth spurt after them. If I had a dog bite or deep penetrating wound I would wash it out thoroughly with water and peroxide and then I would treat it homeopathically.
http://whale.to/m/donegan7.html
That might be ok for us in the first world with good nutrition, but still carries risks. In the third world going without measles vaccine means about 10% mortality if you catch it. The kind of information this site whale.to gives out is mainly a mantra for which one size fits all. According to them if your kids gets complications from the measles you probably didn't give him the right homeopathy or some other modern medical intervention screwed up his system. That may actually be true in some cases, but those are rare.
That site is as bad as modern medicine in not recognizing the fact that medicine is always case by case. In the vast majority of cases a vaccination is preferred to the risks of complications from the disease. However in a few cases the outcome from vaccination is worse. In some cases the disease runs its course and the outcome is the same as if you had been immunized (in both cases you have antibodies and no other effects). Their claim that vaccines do other unspecified damage and make you more susceptible to other diseases is mostly unscientific and unfounded.
“Either vaccines produce antibodies or they do not. If they do, then they are effective.”
I don’t think it was in this thread, but I did indicate in a thread for freepers that I DO believe in the general principle of vaccination. I do NOT believe in the safety of its current implementation. Further, resistance to disease is more complicated than simply anti-bodies. If interested see here for some comparisons of both sides, but only at a high level.http://healthybeing4u.com/natural_immunization2.html
“I would prefer scientific studies showing the natural generation or enhancement of antibodies without using vaccines.”
So would I. Maybe you can convince some drugs companies to spend millions on studies for something they will not get their money back on.
People used to hold Pox parties, some still do I guess. I don’t do this but here is a very simple procedure which is far safer than a pox party, but maybe a little grosser. Have a person quite infected with a known contagion cough on your plate. Cook it in the oven at temperatures know to kill said contagion, then have your dinner. Government funded research could surely come up with something better and safer, but profit and expediency reign.
On his deathbed Louis Pasteur is rumored to have said “Bernard was correct. I was wrong. The microbe (germ) is nothing. The terrain (milieu) is everything.” True or not, a healthy body is your best defense.
Since anti-vaxers don’t use studies, I thought I would throw one more in here.
Alum to the brain from vaccines with medical Journal source link.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/new-study-links-aluminum-adjuvants-in-vaccines-with-neurological-disorders/
from http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data.html
Since the first National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP) claims were filed in 1989, 3,764 compensation awards have been made. More than $2.8 billion in compensation awards has been paid to petitioners and more than $117.1 million has been paid to cover attorneys’ fees and other legal costs.
The above suits were serious enough to average over $743,000 each. How many more did not file suit?
“Whale.to which I have just looked at for the first time “
Congratulations
“is a crackpot site ... That might be ok for us in the first world with good nutrition”
So making recommendations that “might be ok” for the intended audience is crackpot. Hmm
“That site is as bad as modern medicine in not recognizing the fact that medicine is always case by case. “
To some degree, I agree with you. The site is a bit extreme. But it does reference legitimate dangers of vaccines including scientific sources, which is why I included it, as one of the first links that did so.
“In the vast majority of cases a vaccination is preferred to the risks of complications from the disease. “
I agree for serious diseases like polio. Flu vaccines are a different ball game. Injecting yourself yearly with mercury to avoid the flu is nuts for a normal person who is not at high risk of death for flu.
“Thimerosal is a compound that is 49.6% mercury by weight.” Look at the zillions of studies on mercury safety. CDC mercury toxicity level >= 10 MICROgrams per liter
vaccine ingredients:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf
“Their claim that vaccines do other unspecified damage and make you more susceptible to other diseases is mostly unscientific and unfounded.”
Now I think you are treading into an area in which you are mostly unread. But it IS very difficult to prove long term effects of low biological burden items, from low level of environmental poisons to vaccines. There is information out there showing danger, but there is none that I have seen showing PROOF of long term safety. The principle is first put the people at risk for profit and then if there is not a provable rash of deaths and serious illness attributable, make more. If deaths do occur, justify, divert, or get the government to cover your butt.
At age 50 I started doing the flu shot. The risk is essentially zero. The reward is modest, I don't get the flu. I didbn't get it much before so it might be even more modest, but I balance that against a negligible risk compared to the mercury containing fillings in my mouth, the mercury I ingested when I was a kid (it was a valid toy to play around with back then), etc.
But it IS very difficult to prove long term effects of low biological burden items, from low level of environmental poisons to vaccines. There is information out there showing danger, but there is none that I have seen showing PROOF of long term safety.
Just like the website, you veered from science into nonsense. Science does not prove or disprove anything. Some "poisons" are a necessary ingredient to health, even what I quoted above supports that (homeopathy). A "biological burden" has to correspond to a measurable item like the mercury that has built up in my body that I have not flushed out. I have never had that measurement but I suppose it is possible. Most of what you are referring to for biological burden is imaginary.
The one thing I would agree most with that website is holism. You cannot simply get injected with anything (vaccine or not) for one syndrome or one purpose and expect to not have effects on other body systems. Long term health is impossible without that recognition. But like everything else we ingest or get injected with, there are good and bad properties. E.g. oxygen is great for survival but it also contributes to oxidization.
Well, your entire documentation of my supposed lies consists basically of complaining that I criticized a well-known crackpot kook website that NO legitimate medical person takes seriously. In other words, you cannot find within the peer-reviewed literature about Ebola any research that would refute a single fact about Ebola (or anything else) that I have presented.
I have found that people who love and believe in pseudoscience do not want to know the real science about anything. Your beliefs are dangerous—people, especially infants, die because of your beliefs and those of people like you. I wish it was only your life that you would put in danger with your pseudoscience—but it isn’t, it’s the lives of innocent children. I have absolutely no use for pseudoscience or those who cling to it.
As I said before, if you find something that I said that you can demonstrate to be wrong with references from the peer-reviewed literature, you are more than welcome to say what I got wrong, and to show what is correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.