Comments on: A comical example of an anti-vaccinationist http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/ Discussions on science, skepticism, pseudoscience; trips on the borders of religion and science; brief adventures in hi-fi; this is a Journey through a Burning Mind... Sat, 19 May 2012 17:38:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-2/#comment-35051 Stavros Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:08:07 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-35051 Chris, <blockquote>trying to persaude [sic] someone into your own way of thinking helps to clarify and crystallise your own understanding</blockquote> 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" :-)
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” :-) ]]> By: Chris http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-2/#comment-34943 Chris Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:28:07 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-34943 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.
The only thing that has surprised me is that no-one seems to be working hard on the Monty-Hall problem.]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-2/#comment-33546 Stavros Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:23:37 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-33546 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
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]]> By: Chris http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-2/#comment-33544 Chris Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:02:04 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-33544 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:)). By: HCN http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-2/#comment-16427 HCN Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:18:19 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-16427 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! <a href="http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=chuck+vaccine+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fscienceblogs.com%2Fdenialism%2F&sa=Search" rel="nofollow">Chuck bits on the Denialism blog!</a> And I should include PalMD's comment on Orac's blog: <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/the_cost_of_antivaccinationism.php#comment-1052428" rel="nofollow">Orac, you always get the good trolls. I just stuck with Chuck.</a> (I was reading Gimpy's blog when I saw being called nasty, so I came to check you out.)
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.)]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-2/#comment-14353 Stavros Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:21:58 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14353 "<b>I don't expect intelligent informed analylitical thought...</b>" and "<b>to confirm their assertions or biased opinions</b>" Oh damn! My irony fuse was just blown to pieces! "<b>from a computer geek or a wanna-be student</b>" even more ad hoc assertions. this is also called "pulling stuff out of your ass". the story of your life Chuck? 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?]]> By: Chuck http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14352 Chuck Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:16:03 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14352 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. By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14351 Stavros Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:37:00 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14351 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.
However, feel free to continue your baseless rants in this thread and perhaps someone else might respond to you. Good luck with that.]]> By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14319 sciencebitches Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:20:05 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14319 Chuck, you have become very tiring with your fallacious reasoning and personal anecdotes. Please see #44 on why I will just ignore you... By: Chuck http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14314 Chuck Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:10:18 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14314 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.”
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.”]]> By: Chuck http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14312 Chuck Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:46:56 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14312 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. “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.]]> By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14303 sciencebitches Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:46:59 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14303 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
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]]> By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14302 sciencebitches Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:31:09 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14302 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.
#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.]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14300 Stavros Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:59:20 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14300 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: "<b>[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.</b>" And from this you make that "MMR is only 69% effective"?!?!? Chuck, for the millionth time: stop embarrassing yourself!!!
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!!!]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14299 Stavros Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:51:44 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14299 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?!? "<b>Chicken pox vaccine is only 44% effective</b>" 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]
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]]]> By: Chuck http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14296 Chuck Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:25:44 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14296 "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.
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.]]> By: sciencebitches http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14289 sciencebitches Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:05:18 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14289 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...
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…]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14286 Stavros Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:09:48 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14286 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. "<b>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?</b>" 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! "<b>The date of any study does not invalidate the finding, just in case you didn’t know that. </b>" No, but newer and better studies DO invalidate older studies Chuck, just in case you didn't know that. "<b>The manufacturing process and ingredients in most vaccines is the same as it was twenty years ago</b>" 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.
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.]]> By: Chuck http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14273 Chuck Fri, 26 Dec 2008 05:14:32 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14273 “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.
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.]]> By: Stavros http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/comment-page-1/#comment-14216 Stavros Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:17:47 +0000 http://www.isaiadis.com/2008/12/15/a-comical-example-of-an-anti-vaccinationist/#comment-14216 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: <a href="http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/Aboutus.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.iom.edu/?SearchText=autism" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/3/793" rel="nofollow">and here</a>, 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...
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…]]>