A comical example of an anti-vaccinationist
A few days ago I received this comical comment on my post “This is what happens with the lying anti-vaccination campaigns“. This is a perfect demonstration of what I have been saying all along: that those who promote the anti-vaccination propaganda are usually stupid!
From 2000 to 2006, an estimated 478 million children received measles vaccine through campaigns in 46 out of the 47 priority countries severely affected by the disease.

Here’s your outbreak of measles asshole.[1]
got this from the article YOU posted.

I was vaccinated for measles….and got them! [2]
I was vaccinated for chickenpox…and got those too! [2]
I was vaccinated for the flu…got that a day later. [2]

WAKE UP RETARD! [3] VACCINES ARE A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY! GUESS WHO MAKES THE VACCINES. THE SAME PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BEEN MEDICATING OUR CHILDREN FOR YEARS! [4]

YOU IGNORANT FOOL. [5] BIG PHARMA NEEDS US TO STAY SICK, SO THEY CAN MASS PRODUCE THEIR DRUGS AND VACCINES…[6] RESEARCH THE FOOD YOU PUT IN YOUR MOUTH EVERYDAY, THE WATER YOU DRINK, THE SHOTS YOU LET DOCTORS GIVE YOUR CHILDREN. ASK YOUR DOCTOR ABOUT THE BONUS HE/SHE GETS FOR VACCINATING A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN. [7] ASK WHY THE ADVERSE REACTIONS (DEATH) ARE NEVER MENTIONED!!!! [8]
[numbers are mine and indicate logical fallacies -see below]

This is just delicious! I could have never done a better job at proving how stupid these people can be!

This guy, comically named VACCINATIONABOMINATION, cannot even read an article properly, let alone discuss science or make use of logic. The quote he mentions:
From 2000 to 2006, an estimated 478 million children received measles vaccine through campaigns in 46 out of the 47 priority countries severely affected by the disease.
is from the same article that says in the introduction:
Measles deaths in Africa fell by 91% between 2000 and 2006, figures from the World Health Organization show
Reading. You are doing it wrong!

Then he goes on to demonstrate that he can easily employ a vast array of logical fallacies in only a few small sentences!
  1. ad hominem
  2. argument from personal anecdotes
  3. ad hominem again
  4. argument from conspiracy theories + red herring combo!
  5. ad hominem again
  6. argument from conspiracy theories again
  7. more red herrings
  8. yet another argument from conspiracy theories
Logic. You are also doing it wrong!
57 Responses to this post
“BIG PHARMA NEEDS US TO STAY SICK, SO THEY CAN MASS PRODUCE THEIR DRUGS AND VACCINES”

Hahahhaha! This guy is out of touch with reality! Yes, EVERYONE in this world is into a conspiracy to keep us sick! Big Pharma, all the doctors, all the researchers, all medical scientists and so on and so forth!!
2. sciencebitches
What’s with the CAPITALS?
I believe he was inspired by Mr John Pitcairn, who follows some small religious community by Anti-Vaccination League

Oh and the “LANGUAGE AND CAPS” just kills everything Looks like he is part of the same crew with a broken caps lock - I am sure he forgot that there is a ‘caps lock’ key and went through burden of pressing shift to capitalize his world message

And not to forget that our dear old friend VACCINATIONABOMINATION proves whole history of his diseases to us
And not to forget that our dear old friend VACCINATIONABOMINATION proves whole history of his diseases to us

:-) and what a history eh? seriously, is there any disease he left out? What about rubella or mumps dude?
Do you enjoy persecuting others and trampling on the rights of individuals, like “anti-vaccination” groups? You seem to be doing a very good job at it.
Chuck, how propagating anti-vaccination misinformation (which has direct grave consequences as we have seen) has anything to do with individual rights I don’t know.

Unless you are suggesting that anyone has the right to lie and spread bad science? In which case, yes, it is his right; but it is also our duty to point out the fallacies and spread the word of science and reason. I am not tramping anyone’s rights here. I am exercising mine and defending science.
So it is safe to say that if anyone chooses not to vaccinate because of religious or philosophical reasons, you would have no problems with that as long as they do not tell others about these reasons.
Chuck, in most other situations yes, I would not have any problem at all of course. However, there is a big difference with the issue of preventing disease spreading: we need herd immunity!

People that do not vaccinate their children endanger herd immunity and the other children around them! Without herd immunity a disease is easy to spread and take down even immunized children.

Also, parents that oppose vaccination due to religious or other reasons *impose* their opinion on their children who are not in a position to judge for themselves!
Ok
Let’s dissect your statements and your numerated logical fallacies from above. I fully agree that this individual in the post is vulgar and very rough around the edges, however he does bring up valid points that you very quickly cast aside:

[2] argument from personal anecdotes

From an unbiased, objective perspective, these statements are not statistically anomalies. Last year you had better odds at calling a coin toss then getting an effective influenza vaccine. The probability of the chicken pox vaccine failing is also double digit. The failure rate for MMR is single digits, but it does exist as well. The probability of all three happening to the same individual is not as high as you seem to believe.

[4] argument from conspiracy theories + red herring combo!

The statement made is a fundamental economic certainty that is currently being illustrated on a global scale as we speak. If pharmaceutical companies do not sell their products (vaccines/medications/treatment) they will indeed go out of business, so it is in their best interest to continue to do so.

[6] argument from conspiracy theories again

Once again, supply and demand. Without demand, the product is worthless.

[8] yet another argument from conspiracy theories

On a global perspective, adverse reactions are under-reported. The accuracy of these adverse vaccine reaction reports are subject to debate. From a societal perspective, it is never in a doctor’s best interest to report all the potential adverse reaction to each vaccine to every patient.

Herd immunity is a poor man’s argument. It has never existed for influenza, Chicken–pox, or tetanus. It is theoretical and cannot be quantified. I can easily say that herd immunity exists and those few that are not vaccinated are not a danger to society, or I can say that Herd immunity has never existed on a global level because of those that have not been vaccinated plus those that have been and the vaccine was ineffective. Herd immunity is region and vaccine specific.

If your argument is that people’s beliefs and behaviors should not be tolerated because it endangers others, then there is a huge list of behaviors that do more damage then not vaccinating. Sexually transmitted diseases, drunken driving, pollution, and violence, kill or disable geometrically or exponentially more then vaccine preventable illnesses. All of these people impose their beliefs on other to the detriment of society. Why don’t you prioritize better and start legislating all of these behaviors and beliefs away.
Chuck you just repeat some of the guy’s fallacious arguments:

[2] the fact that he got these diseases does not in any way mean that vaccines are dangerous or inefficient!

[4, 6] same here. The fact that pharmaceuticals are businesses and need to make money does not mean that drugs (or vaccines in our case) are dangerous or inefficient. It’s simple really. Especially in the light of the numerous scientific studies that demonstrate efficacy and safety!

Herd immunity is very real concept and you an easily determine this by a simple PubMed search. Measles becoming endemic in the UK again is also a very simple demonstration. Some people cannot get the vaccines for various issues. These people RELY on herd immunity in order to be protected!

If your argument is that people’s beliefs and behaviors should not be tolerated because it endangers others” that was not my main argument (it was spreading lies about vaccination) but you have a good point here: such beliefs should not indeed be tolerated!

And my purpose is not to prioritize on all the evils of our societies. It is evident from my blog posts that I am mainly concerned about the misrepresentation of science and the spread of pseudoscience.
I’m going to have to quote you on this

“the fact that he got these diseases does not in any way mean that vaccines are dangerous or inefficient!”

The fact that he DID get these proves that those vaccines were inefficient.

Please provide a study showing any vaccine to be 100% safe and 100% effective (I will give you a hint. You will not find it on PubMed)

We do agree that herd immunity is a concept, a theory, and not a scientific fact. The fact that people who have not been vaccinated have not contracted the vaccine preventable illness does not prove that herd immunity is the sole reason for their health. You are assuming evidence that you cannot prove. Just because an illness is not epidemic does not prove or disprove that herd immunity exists. (logical fallacy - correlation does not prove causation)

In the BBC article “Measles cases jump to record high” 881 of the cases had been previously vaccinated. Can you disprove that statement and what scientific information would you use to do so? Of all the cases, you cannot quantify how many cases were vaccinated other than the 90 that were too young to be vaccinated. Don’t state propaganda. Provide scientifically correct and accurate information. 100% safe and 100% effective is science fiction.
The fact that he DID get these proves that those vaccines were inefficient.

Of course not. A vaccine doesn’t guarantee that you will not get the disease. It just makes it much harder. And if he got it doesn’t mean that the vaccine for that disease was inefficient -it just happened that he was a very unlucky individual.

Regarding herd immunity, as I have told you I am not speculating or assuming evidence. There are concrete scientific studies that explain and quantify the importance of herd immunity. go read on PubMed if you want.

Please provide a study showing any vaccine to be 100% safe and 100% effective

Chuck, this is very low. The 100% safe fallacy? Come on, you can do better than that! Who ever said anything about vaccines being 100% safe or effective?!? Certainly no scientist ever, and certainly not me here.

Chuck I have already told you that there are numerous, hundreds, studies in PubMed demonstrating the efficacy and safety of vaccines. If you want to ignore those that’s fine, it’s your problem. But ignoring those and then referring to personal anecdotes or the “100% safe” and other fallacies to support your case, then that is seriously low…
13. sciencebitches
Chuck, you say: “The fact that people who have not been vaccinated have not contracted the vaccine preventable illness does not prove that herd immunity is the sole reason for their health.”

But no one ever said that.

You also say: “Just because an illness is not epidemic does not prove or disprove that herd immunity exists.”

No one ever said that either.

There are studies ranging from population statistics, detailed cohort studies, and more, that confirm the importance of herd immunity. Read up, then argue all you want. But read up FIRST!

Also: “The fact that he DID get these proves that those vaccines were inefficient.”

Oh dude! No!!!
sciencebitches,

I have read many studies concerning herd immunity and vaccine efficiencies since the subjects are linked. Issues like how the disease is transmitted, population distributions, medical and sanitary conditions, cultural beliefs, and vaccine effectiveness are vital in determining if the necessary threshold has been met to prevent widespread transmission of any illness. Even when that threshold is met, the illness is not eradicated at that point.

When medical conditions, sanitary conditions, cultural beliefs, vaccination coverage, and vaccine effectiveness are sub-standard, it becomes impossible to reach the theoretical “herd immunity”. Is herd immunity EXACTLY the same for every vaccine? Is herd immunity exactly the same for every continent? Is the effectiveness and coverage constant from year to year?

You can see there are a great many problems with herd immunity, you may want to read up as well. Good luck in trying to find vaccine effectiveness from year to year and region to region as well.
“Chuck, this is very low.”

If you are not willing to discuss facts, then you might not want to talk about science because it isn’t always pretty and it isn’t always right.
16. sciencebitches
sorry to say Chuck but Stavros is of course right: the perfect solution fallacy is a pretty low point in any discussion.

and you are making another fallacious argument as well: you are confusing the issues with determining herd immunity levels and the confounding variables in it with wether herd immunity as a practical concept exists or not (as was your original argument). From your latest comment it seems tat you are not denying herd immunity but just questioning the process for determining it?

Chuck here is a question: are you denying the efficiency of vaccines or the successes attributed to the vaccine programs? If so, why?
Which vaccines are you referring to because they are not all successful?

Herd immunity as a theory exists. Practically speaking, it is only achievable for diseases that cannot mutate or in very limited regional areas for a static lengths of time.
Chuck this post was about the MMR vaccine obviously, but the same arguments apply for the vast majority of vaccines.

You are right that defending against rapidly mutating strains is very difficult -e.g. the various fly strains every season. For the flu it becomes a probability game where scientists gather and try to “guess” the strains that will dominate and be the most dangerous each year. Sometimes such predictions fail -but we cannot blame them, can we?
Guessing isn’t science. So we can blame them. There are other vaccines plagued with the guessing problem. Scientist may mandate and enjoy gambling with other people’s health. I do not appreciate that cavalier attitude.
Chuck this is becoming ridiculous on your side. Guessing was inside quotes, to denote that it is not actually guessing but trying to determine based on inadequate information which of the flu strains will be the most dangerous ones. The high mutation rates and unpredictability of the flu viruses makes it so difficult. We surely cannot blame them since they’re doing the best they can on the available evidence. They surely do not gamble on peoples’ health -this is a ridiculous and baseless assertion, just like most of your other assertions that are not based on evidence or science at all.
Guessing is an accurate assessment that has been given to me many times on many more educated blogs than this one. The 40% effective rate given by the CDC for last year is not a statistical anomaly, is it further evidence of poor guessing.

It is becoming ridiculous on your side when you can’t actually defend what science actually does in producing vaccine and your only rebuttal is semantics.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/vaccination/virusqa.htm

“For vaccine to be delivered in time for vaccination to begin in October and November (prior to the start of the flu season), manufactures may begin to grow one or more of the virus strains in January based on their best guess as to what strains are most likely to be included in the vaccine.”

Dr Chan
World Health Organization
“We know, too, that multiple clades and sub-clades of the H5N1 virus are currently circulating. We cannot guess which one has the greatest chance of starting a pandemic.
Nor are we certain that H5N1 is the most likely candidate. Another influenza virus might take us by surprise.”

“Experts have told us. They have long regarded vaccines as the most effective medical intervention for reducing morbidity and mortality during a pandemic. This assumption, which makes sense, has never been tested in practice.”

They are guessing. An educated guess is still a guess.
Chuck, get a hold of yourself: the guessing part is only for rapidly mutating viruses e.g. the flu. don’t confuse this with the majority of other vaccines.

It is becoming ridiculous on your side when you can’t actually defend what science actually does in producing vaccine and your only rebuttal is semantics.

Chuck my irony meter is going to explode! This is of course you that plays with the terminology: even an educated “guess” from the scientists’ side is not “just a guess” as you would like us to assume. They already have some information, they have (even a minor) an idea how the viruses mutate and spread and so they try to come up with the best possible candidate for fighting.

Both me and sciencebitches have been pointing out to you your fallacious reasoning and we have been backing up our statements. But you chose to ignore those and continue attacking the FLU vaccine! Which still had 40% efficiency! You think 40% is inefficient? Compared to what? This is the best measure we have against flu outbreaks. Would you prefer no vaccines at all? Clear up your position Chuck. And stop moving the goalposts all the time.
Which goalposts are you referring to, herd immunity or effectiveness? Influenza has not achieved either. I don’t need to move anything if science cannot currently reach the goal in the first place. Science cannot even accurately report the number of cases, so they report influenza LIKE illnesses. The statistics currently used are dated and overstated. The vaccine isn’t the best measure and it isn’t the only measure of prevention. That is why no one in my family has received the influenza vaccine since 1999 and no one has had an ILI or been diagnosed with influenza since 1999. There are better and more effective ways to avoid influenza. Also to preempt the usual retorts, there are high risk individuals in my family and we are not been locked up in a cave somewhere and enjoy the normal interactions with other friends, family, and society.

You may want to also check around the epidemiology circles. They are not sure if the Chicken-pox vaccine was a good idea from a societal viewpoint. Science was guessing again. The vaccine will continue to fail because they guessed wrong, but that is just the scuttlebutt going around.

The over-prescription of antibiotics by scientists which created resistant pathogens was just a boon to society, wasn’t it? (Not always pretty and not always right).
For the sake of “The herd”, let’s grow the influenza strains for the vaccine, which will only protect a minority of the minority of the population vaccinated, in a solution that will cause an allergic reaction in an unknown percentage of the population and administer the vaccine to the very young prior to testing for the known allergy.

BRILLIANT!
There are better and more effective ways to avoid influenza

Which one is it? Show the evidence. Show that it is better for high risk populations.

Science cannot even accurately report …” and “Science was guessing again” and “Not always pretty and not always right“: no one ever said that the scientific method is infallible! It involves humans! But: do you have a better methodology? If so then tell us! If not then stop pointlessly attacking science as if it is trying o hurt people!

#25: assertions, assertions, assertions… stop that. It just shows your ignorance, your inability to engage in meaningful discussion, and your single goal of attacking science.
It is the goal of every good debate to attack every single one of you opponents assertions.

The goal of any GOOD scientist is to disprove theory to make sure the theory is sound. You don’t believe that this should be done?

If you can disprove my assertion through a good PubMed article and prove that you have any experience in this subject matter, by all means, please do so.

Right now all you use is ad hominum making you no better then VACCINATIONABOMINATION.
Chuck the goal of a good debate is not to present baseless assertions like you do, but to present arguments backed up by either logic or evidence. You have failed at both.

Also, please show me where exactly I used an ad hominem against you?
Also, Chuck, while I and sciencebitches have tried to counter and respond to all of your baseless assertions, you have failed to answer any of my questions. We responded to your “herd immunity”and “guessing” arguments and your latest attacks on science in general. We also pointed out your fallacious reasoning in the form of the “perfect solution” fallacy and your attempted exploitation of the equivocation of the word “guess”.

However, #16, #23, #26 are full of questions you have miserably failed to answer. This is not a good debate on your side Chuck…
30. sciencebitches
“It is the goal of every good debate to attack every single one of you opponents assertions.” Chuck, don’t confuse yourself with being good at debates. you are the only one here making assertions not backed by evidence or even logic! And you fail to respond to questions. How is this a debate really?

“The goal of any GOOD scientist is to disprove theory to make sure the theory is sound. You don’t believe that this should be done?” Also do not portray yourself as the good scientist (a laughable idea really) since as mentioned numerous times you are only making baseless claims not based on reality. Good science requires evidence and concrete logic. It is not enough to simply attack or question a scientific idea or theory. You need to back up your attacks. You have failed to do so. Please refrain from delusionary self-congratulatory statements -they just illustrate your distance from reality
“We responded to your “herd immunity”and “guessing” arguments”
Actually all you did was try to spin what was actually said in my presented statements with your beliefs and opinions and no factually supporting information. There is NO learning curve from year to year. There is no way to build on prior year vaccine’s effectiveness. But, your request is fair enough and you are correct that I have not responded to all of questions.

#16 Yes, because the information presented is not based on evidence based observations.

#23 Yes I do believe that 40% is not efficient, especially since the 40% is also a guess and is not based on any actual objectively based information.

#26The flu vaccine attempts to reduce the risks contracting influenza. There are better ways of reducing you risks. Maybe you have even heard them before. Eat well, sleep well. Proactively reduce potential exposure. Funny how the demographics of the higher “effective” vaccine groups do more of these and the demographics of the lower groups do little to none of these. It isn’t the vaccine that is “effective”, it is the individual that is “effective”.

Quid pro quo #11, #14, #24

Sciencebitches,
If a wanna-be scientist, such as yourself is deemed to be a “good” scientist, then you are absolutely right that I do not want to be a “good” scientist. You may also want to change you name to Psychicbitches since you have a delusional belief that you can read anyone’s mind or know what anyone is really thinking.
Chicken Pox
N Engl J Med. 1983 Dec 8;309(23):1434-40

MMR
Vopr Virusol. 1976 May-Jun;(3):371-9
Folia Biol (Praha). 1993;39(5):270-6

Influenza
Folia Biol (Praha). 1994;40(5):225-35.
Cancer Detect Prev. 1995;19(6):472-86

Educated critiques of these studies is always welcome.
There is NO learning curve from year to year. There is no way to build on prior year vaccine’s effectiveness. ” Cool! another straw man argument! Whenever did I say that?

#16 Yes, because the information presented is not based on evidence based observations.

Pathetic, really. A simple search on this blog will give you hundreds of scientific references on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. Same on PubMed.

#23 Yes I do believe that 40% is not efficient, especially since the 40% is also a guess and is not based on any actual objectively based information.

Also out of touch with reality: even 40% on a bad year is WAY better than no protection at all! don’t you think? And we have already discussed the “guess” thing but you ignore it still.

Eat well, sleep well.” Great! If only everyone would do that! So more protection is not a good thing, right? Also, prove that these are more effective. Otherwise this is only another assertion.

It isn’t the vaccine that is “effective”, it is the individual that is “effective”” Again, prove this, otherwise you are only pulling stuff out of your ass (as usual).

#32 Again, great work on your side Chuck! cherry picking on the literature!! Yes, go on, ignore the hundreds of scientific papers and present a few significantly outdated “critiques”!

Surely you can see where the problem lies with all your “arguments”, right?
If anything can be learned from year to year, then why is there such variability in the estimated effectiveness? Supply the study to support your assertions. You keep saying there are plenty to support your assertion and yet you supply none. If you are as good at this topic as you believe you are then there are very easy ways to argue around a straw man.

“Pathetic, really.” , “Also out of touch with reality” ad hominem

“So more protection is not a good thing, right?” Is the expense worth the protection? That is a gamble that people should be able to choose to take, not be forced to take.

The CDC has provided the age stratified effectiveness. You are more than welcome to do your own homework.

“#32 Again, great work on your side Chuck! cherry picking on the literature!! “
Why souldn’t I be able to cherry pick the studies, which you obviously have not review, when all you do is make very vague references to Pubmed without supplying specific studies. You are cherry picking from a source in hopes that it is out there.

“Yes, go on, ignore the hundreds of scientific papers and present a few significantly outdated “critiques”! “You are apparently too lazy to actually present any that support your assertions.

I patiently wait for rebuttals to #32 and answers to #11, #14, and #24.
Chuck it is really impossible but you are again wrong in EVERYTHING you say! You seem to have comprehension issues so let’s take it slowly:

You keep saying there are plenty to support your assertion and yet you supply none.” I specifically told you that a simple search in this blog on vaccines will give you plenty of links. If you are lazy I will not do your homework for you. Same for PubMed.

“Pathetic, really.” , “Also out of touch with reality” ad hominem

Err, no Chuck, even here you are wrong. Ad hominem is when you are attacking the person WITHOUT discussing the arguments. I specifically mention why you are pathetic and out of touch with reality. Can you read?

Is the expense worth the protection?” how much do you value human lives Chuck?

should be able to choose to take, not be forced to take” who is forcing you to take a fly shot?!?

Why souldn’t I be able to cherry pick the studies” because you should look at all the evidence and especially modern scientific results not two decades ago!

very vague references to Pubmed without supplying specific studies” again, a simple search on vaccines will reveal a lot of things. I have done this many times. I am not willing to do this for every lazy person that questions basic things. Do your own homework. It is impossible to cite the hunderds of available studies!

To your specific comments:
#32, nothing there. What rebuttal do you want?

#11: the perfect solution fallacy. Easily dealt with by me and sciencebitches. Pathetic argument.

#14: Chuck, you are making assertions about the effectiveness of vaccines and herd immunity. I don’t have to answer anything. You should provide your evidence.

#24: baseless attacks on science in general. Another pathetic “argument”.

Anything else?
You have made your pathetic augments without submitting a single study or concrete reference. All you have ever offered is your opinion. I sincerely doubt that there is anything of any real substance you can contribute to the discussion. You have your opinions and I have mine and that is all we have here from some computer doctor and a guy on the internet. Neither argument has been justified or settled here.
Come on Chuck, don’t embarrass yourself any more! I have repeatedly told you that a simple search in this blog would reveal a load of links for you! Don’t expect others to do your homework!

OK, OK, I will repeat some of the links here because it seems you cannot comprehend what others say and cannot do your own research. So here are just a few links to an array of scientific references: here, here, here, here, and here, with a little bit of emphasis on autism and MMR but you get the point, no? OK, OK, we know it is very difficult for you to get any valid points so let me make it dead clear: it is very *VERY* easy to find scientific references for the safety and efficacy of vaccines in PubMed. Try it for a change, you might be surprised…
“it is very*VERY* easy to find scientific references for the safety and efficacy of vaccines in PubMed”

I have sited specific studies to support my assertions, you have sited ZIP in specific studies to support your opinions. Does handing in a laundry list of potential answers from a valid source cut it as a test answer in one of your classes? Are you just too lazy to give any specific evidence to support your beliefs?

You have not even proved to have the ability to objectively analyze or refute any scientific information that is presented to you. The date of any study does not invalidate the finding, just in case you didn’t know that. The manufacturing process and ingredients in most vaccines is the same as it was twenty years ago.

Autism, and Thimerosal are topics that we have not even broached, but I would be glad to debate with you Ad nauseam.
Chuck, I gave you a host of scientific references. You ignored them. I told you where to go look for scientific studies. you ignored me. Many times.

It’s not me that I am lazy. I have told you that I have done this many times in this blog before. go and look. I will not do this over and over again for every lazy guy ignorant of the literature that attacks science. It doesn’t work this way. Science has proven vaccines to be effective and safe -otherwise they wouldn’t be delivered. It is you that makes opposite assertions so it is you that must provide evidence.

Does handing in a laundry list of potential answers from a valid source cut it as a test answer in one of your classes? Are you just too lazy to give any specific evidence to support your beliefs?

Of course that’s not what I did and once again you demonstrate your comphrehension issues. I always explained to you where you were wrong, what is the scientific reality, and your fallacious arguments. THEN I told you where to look for the references -because they’re hundreds!

The date of any study does not invalidate the finding, just in case you didn’t know that. ” No, but newer and better studies DO invalidate older studies Chuck, just in case you didn’t know that.

The manufacturing process and ingredients in most vaccines is the same as it was twenty years ago

This just proves your huge ignorance and inability to read scientific sources. The number of antigens has been reduced, thimerosal has been removed, other preservatives have been significantly enhanced etc. etc.

Chuck, you make me repeat myself over and over again. You are boring and cannot engage in meaningful argument-based conversation.
40. sciencebitches
Chuck is a member of the antivaccination militia:

he doesn’t like the way science makes or administers vaccines but he cannot support his claims with evidence. Oh, apart from very old studies that are completely irrelevant by the way!

he has demonstrated an array of logical fallacies throughout this thread, yet he keeps repeating them!

he seems to not like science yet he doesn’t provide a better methodology!

he is too lazy to follow all the evidence and tries to cherry pick his way through the literature!

he attacks people that actually have science and evidence on their side and projects his inadequacies to them!

yeap, Chuck you are an honored member of the antivaccination militia! congratulations!

#33 and #35 tell the whole story really! But chuck will just ignore the criticism and repeat those “arguments” ad nauseam…
“Oh, apart from very old studies that are completely irrelevant by the way!”

Based on what scientific studies?

Lets have an informed discussion based on actual science rather then hyperbole and straw man arguments like “how much do you value human lives Chuck?”

Here is a nice reference concerning methyl mercury (not thimerosal)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fda-reluctantly-admits-mercury-fillings-have-neurotoxic-effects-on-children.html

Chicken pox vaccine is only 44% effective
https://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/24/1909

and why it is a danger

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-45FYY5Y-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5ecff59fb0795f4db6f8adc3b330e55f

MMR is only 69% effective
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TD4-4GCWYMD-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bb1649dbb6413274fc33cb2db2e945c9

Pertussus may be unreliable
http://eprints.maths.ox.ac.uk/375/01/157.pdf

I can also pull “hundreds of studies. These are just the consequential tip of the iceberg. If you want to do the goalpost shifting of what “effective” and “guessing” are and “expiration dates” on studies should be, then please tie yourself in knots to conform to your own biased viewpoints.
Chuck, once again you embarrass yourself…

You provide a blog post on mercury in dental fillings!! How the hell is this relevant?!? And how scientific is that blog post?!?

Chicken pox vaccine is only 44% effective

You once again demonstrate an inability to comprehend or even read properly a scientific study, and your biased attitude to evidence. This is a case study with questionnaires of 85 children. The results are 44% efficiency against disease of any severity FOR THAT PARTICULAR GROUP of students, and 86% against moderate or severe disease! Your mindblowing interpretation and unwarranted extrapolation of this study says a lot about your attitude…

This and your last reference on Pertussus are only saying: “hey, sometimes, some of the vaccines may not be as reliable as we would like to”. the scientific response to this observation is: “let’s figure out why exactly, and let’s try to rectify the situation”. Your ridiculous response to this observation is: “vaccines are bad and cause harm, scientists are only guessing, science is not reliable, let’s stop vaccination”. Way to go Chuck!

[The science direct links are not working]
My err, they seem to work now…

But again, your interpretation and extrapolation is just out of touch with reality!

The first reference I can only read the abstract, and it is not a clinical trial of any short. Further, it doesn’t say that the vaccine is dangerous! The vaccine is protective but as a result immunity from a secondary virus is reduced. This is way different than saying that the vaccine is dangerous Chuck. And clinical trials would probably shed more light in this case.

The second reference just shows that you live in a different reality than ours. And once again shows that you cannot comprehend scientific studies. From the abstract:

[the 69% efficacy] is consistent with the results of other observational studies of mumps containing vaccines, but lower than the immunogenicity of mumps vaccines reported by clinical trials. This discrepancy is because observational studies tend to underestimate vaccine effectiveness, and because immunogenicity is not necessarily an accurate biological marker of vaccine effectiveness. Two doses of vaccine were more effective (88% (95% CI: 62–96%)) than a single dose (64% (95% CI: 40–78%)). The current two-dose vaccination programme remains the best method for controlling mumps infection in the community.

And from this you make that “MMR is only 69% effective”?!?!? Chuck, for the millionth time: stop embarrassing yourself!!!
44. sciencebitches
OK, so now we have:

#33, #35, #42, #43

that show that Chuck is just not suitable to discuss anything that contains science, evidence, logic or even reading.

Chuck please save yourself from any further embarrassment and go play with the anti-vaccination charlatans that share your unsupported claims.
45. sciencebitches
Funny, the latest published study, available in PubMed on the issue of chickenpox vaccine being dangerous, is from 2008.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18419397

This is a prospective cohort study that has actively surveilled a large number of individuals (2000) vaccinated with the chicken pox vaccine and concluded:

“Overall, the incidence of HZ in this cohort, therefore, is similar to published data for the US population in the prevaccine era.”

See Chuck? this is a case where a modern cohort study has shown that the vaccine is not affecting the incidence of the HZ virus as your first sciencedirect reference suggested (remember that was not a clinical trial).

Chuck, where you too lazy again to find all related studies on this issue? Rhetorical question of course
Stavros,
“The results are 44% efficiency against disease of any severity FOR THAT PARTICULAR GROUP of students”

So that means that 54% of that group wasted time and resources and now have better immunity then in spite of the vaccine, not because of it, and no longer need to waste further time or resources on a follow up booster.

“The number of antigens has been reduced, thimerosal has been removed”
Thimerosal has not been removed from the manufacturing process and the consumer has to just trust that they did remove it before shipment. They just don’t ADD any more as a semi-effective anti-bacterial/preservative.

Sciencebitches,

“We now present long-term follow-up data on a group of individuals WHO RECEIVED VARICELLA VACCINE [my emphasis] as healthy young adults 10-26 years ago and who have been followed prospectively by means of active surveillance. Among some 2000 person-years of follow-up, 2 cases of HZ have occurred, for a rate of 1.00 case/1000 person-years. Overall, the incidence of HZ in this cohort, therefore, is similar to published data for the US population in the prevaccine era.

Current rate (1.00 case/1000) WHO RECEIVED VARICELLA VACCINE = 1.00 case/1000 WITHOUT VACCINES in the prevaccine era.

Without the adult vaccine THE RATE HAS INCREASED compared to the prevaccine era (the danger to society that I referenced). Wasn’t too smart to push the vaccine in the child population before the adult population was it? Now the reactivated “Shingles” strains are jumping the weaker vaccine strains and causing the vaccine to fail.

The study fails to mention the age at vaccination or the age of onset for the adults, which may or may not be statistically different then the prevaccine era as well.

I am not ashamed of my biases. In fact I am proud of what my family has had to endure in order to create our biases. I often speak at group meetings and to politicians at every level about my family’s biases. I am not anti vaccine and I can prove it. Every single member of my family, including myself, has had at least one vaccine fail. My eldest child has had three different vaccines fail. Half of my family has had life long medical complications from failed vaccines and adverse reactions causing them decade(s) of pain and suffering. We always tell our politicians that we are thankful that we do not live in states like Maryland (USA) which will criminally charge parents for not vaccinating their children, even if they have natural immunity. We do not choose to work in professions like healthcare, that will fire employees if they do not receive the flu vaccine (some news articles have put the unvaccinated percent of educated healthcare workers above 50%). These draconian oversights have not helped these institutions in reducing the amount of paid sick leave to employees.

I know the cold hard facts of “reality” that are very contrary to the fictional “reality” that you attempt to cling to.
Where are all the epidemics when there is no herd immunity?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121555791320637323.html

“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, only 2.1% of adults aged 18 to 64 are immunized against tetanus, diphtheria and whooping cough, even though since 2006 there has been a combination vaccine that can protect against all three. This is especially worrisome amid a current resurgence of whooping cough in the U.S. The disease can have symptoms in adults such as fractured ribs from coughing and vomiting, and can be fatal. Adults also can pass it along to young children who have smaller air passages and are far more vulnerable.
A vaccine against shingles, developed by Merck & Co., was first approved in 2006 and is recommended for all adults over 60. But only 1.9% of adults have been immunized for the disease. Shingles, caused by a reawakening of the chicken pox virus, can result in severe nerve pain that can last for years, and can involve nerves around the eye that might lead to blindness. Adults are at risk if they had chicken pox as a child, or even if they previously had shingles. Those who haven’t had chicken pox should also get a separate vaccine against that disease, called varicella.
Among other immunizations, only about 10% of women aged 18 to 26 have received the new vaccine for human papillomavirus, linked to cervical cancer. And though seasonal flu vaccines are widely available each year, fewer than 30% of the adults at highest risk get the shot.”
48. sciencebitches
Chuck, you have become very tiring with your fallacious reasoning and personal anecdotes. Please see #44 on why I will just ignore you…
Sorry Chuck but I fully agree with sciencebitches. For every hint of actual evidence you have provided we have shown you how you have either: misunderstood it, misinterpreted it, or misrepresented it. Then you ignore our criticism and questions and provide yet more irrelevant or misunderstood information. Sorry but I cannot go on pointing out to you every silly error that you make.

However, feel free to continue your baseless rants in this thread and perhaps someone else might respond to you. Good luck with that.
I don’t expect intelligent informed analylitical thought from a computer geek or a wanna-be student who fail to actually present specific studies to confirm their assertions or biased opinions, but it has been a pleasure exchanging opinions with you.
I don’t expect intelligent informed analylitical thought…” and “to confirm their assertions or biased opinions

Oh damn! My irony fuse was just blown to pieces!

from a computer geek or a wanna-be student

even more ad hoc assertions. this is also called “pulling stuff out of your ass”. the story of your life Chuck?
Oh no, it’s Chuck!!!

He trolled on PalMD when he was on the Scienceblogs Denialism blog. The classic was getting him to tell us how he was going to avoid tetanus (I figured he locked himself in his house and stayed away from sharp objects). And yes, he has been told several times that no vaccine 100% safe or effective, but that does not mean that they are harmfull (or that getting the disease is better). Also, he tends to bend the discussion to other vaccines that are not the main subject.

I am going to post a link, which will put this into moderation. You do not have to publish it. It is the search results of that blog of “Chuck vaccines”, I just could not choose one!

Chuck bits on the Denialism blog!

And I should include PalMD’s comment on Orac’s blog: Orac, you always get the good trolls. I just stuck with Chuck.

(I was reading Gimpy’s blog when I saw being called nasty, so I came to check you out.)
Hi Stavros, personally I’d give an idiot like Chuck a couple of chances and then walk away (unless I was really enjoying the correspondence). Chuck’s model of reality is too different from yours (and reality’s:)).
Hi Chris,

yes you are probably right. I spent too much time dealing with this lunatic. I remember being baffled by how bad a (supposedly) human can be at thinking :-)

Thanks for the comments
Hi Stavros, I’m guilty of preaching what I don’t practice. I’ve been very patient with davidh in the coin flipping “paradox”. My excuse is that I don’t think davidh is an idiot, just confused, and like you, I’m very patient. It’s also in part because trying to persaude someone into your own way of thinking helps to clarify and crystallise your own understanding. I’m sure I probably didn’t understand the coins result at first.

The only thing that has surprised me is that no-one seems to be working hard on the Monty-Hall problem.
Chris,

trying to persaude [sic] someone into your own way of thinking helps to clarify and crystallise your own understanding


I totally agree with this, although I would not call it “persuading into my way of thinking” but more like “persuading into the scientific and logical way of thinking” :-)
You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to
be actually something that I think I would never understand.
It seems too complex and extremely broad for me. I am looking forward for your next
post, I will try to get the hang of it!
Add a comment
Leave a comment
(Email required for authentication purposes only and will not be published. Please also note that if your comment contains links, profanity, or other sensitive content it might be held for moderation. In that case it will not appear until accepted by the administrator. Please do not post the same comment twice.)
Name *:

Email (not published) *:

URL:


Comment: (you may use HTML tags for styling)