Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post

funchy · 11-04-2009, 04:03 AM

I just logged in here, after being away for a few days.

I can't reply to everyone, but here are a few things that stuck out :

The idea I'll get cancer from the vaccine: There is no proof people who rarely-to-never get vaccines get cancer any more or less often than the general public. Cancer is a serious disease, but the word cancer is a blanket term covering various triggers, cell types, and outcomes. If we're going to say X causes "cancer", we'd need to be specific and say what kind of cancer and how.

The idea Amish don't get X because they're not vaccinated: The Amish I know are vaccinated. I live just minutes from Lancaster County, Pa, one of the largest Amish populations in the country.
The other thing people don't realize when they claim Amish don't have such-and-such problem: generally the Amish don't use our healthcare insurance, Medicare, our long-term care, or our mental heath services. They take care of their extended family, in the home, away from government statistic gatherers. They also vary a great deal in how much outside (processed) food their families eat, their vaccination levels, their expose to the 'English' and our germs, etc. Some of them live such closed lives, they rarely leave their farm communities to be seen by outsiders. Do we really accurately know what heath problems they face?

It is true if you've gotten this strain of the H1N1 and got over it, you'll also have immunity from reinfection -- for that one strain. But the thing about influenza is that this is one of those viruses which changes often. It doesn't help that it's crossing back and forth to livestock, and then us humans keep reinfecting ourselves with new versions thanks to the livestock farming/processing industry. Expect to see slight variations in the strain every year. Don't be surprised if in another 10-20 years another really horrible strain appears.

Is a study accurate? Are the results of a study "fact"? A study is just a collection of data attempting to see how closely one variable follows another. Just because one variable follows (correlates) with another doesn't necessarily mean A causes B. B could cause A. Or there could be a lurking variable, C, which cause A and B. Or it could be coincidence, too small sample size, or data collection error which gives an honest researcher misleading results. It's just a starting point, to justify doing a larger study or to investigate causative factors. Ask who is funding it and/or conducting the study. A study is just one of many tools used to learn about our world.

How do I know I am immune? Why do I believe what the CDC tells me? Vaccinations are the same thing which allowed me to survive childhood alive and uncrippled; before vaccinations and antibiotics were common, about 50% of American babies didn't make it to adulthood. I know from firsthand experience that I've never been sick with mumps, measles, rubella, tetanus, pertussis, or polio. If they said I was immune to those diseases and I am, why would they lie only about influenza? And in a world where anyone can test if a vaccine works (including competitors who suspect a vaccine might be a fraud), why would any negative findings be kept secret? Immune response CAN be tested. In fact, before getting all the shots I did this summer, they did bloodwork first to see how much resistance I had left from previous shots (eg. MMR and Polio) so I wouldn't have to repeat vaccinations unnecessarily. [Ask for a "blood titer" at your doctor's office] An independent lab did my blood, and I got a copy of the detailed results. Unless diseases such as measles don't exist, there's no reason for me to think it's a worldwide conspiracy.

The whole mercury-thimerosal thing: It is true this vaccine may be preserved with thimerosal. thimerosal breaks down in the body into ethyl mercury. (Ethyl mercury is NOT the same thing as elemental mercury, eg the kind in thermometers) People need to also understand we're exposed to both kinds of mercury in our environment, even if we're never vaccinated. One scientist stated the amount of mercury in a vaccination is the same as that found in a can of tunafish. Why aren't those fearing thimerosal also wanting to see fish banned as a food? There is some form of mercury in everything from fluorescent light bulbs to disposable batteries to electronics items, yet where are the mercury-is-deadly people when it comes to these things? I am not saying I believe mercury is good; I am saying is that exposure to it is inevitable. If those who believe thimerosal is toxic want me to take them more seriously, I need to also see them working just as hard to get people to stop eating fish... and yet on many of the "natural" health web sites, eating fish is being promoted.

Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know I'm not dead yet from vaccines.

If I do experience something negative or if I come across solid proof there is a problem, I will post it.

11-04-2009, 04:03 AM	#74 (permalink)
funchy Family Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: east coast, USA Posts: 1,628	I just logged in here, after being away for a few days. I can't reply to everyone, but here are a few things that stuck out : The idea I'll get cancer from the vaccine: There is no proof people who rarely-to-never get vaccines get cancer any more or less often than the general public. Cancer is a serious disease, but the word cancer is a blanket term covering various triggers, cell types, and outcomes. If we're going to say X causes "cancer", we'd need to be specific and say what kind of cancer and how. The idea Amish don't get X because they're not vaccinated: The Amish I know are vaccinated. I live just minutes from Lancaster County, Pa, one of the largest Amish populations in the country. The other thing people don't realize when they claim Amish don't have such-and-such problem: generally the Amish don't use our healthcare insurance, Medicare, our long-term care, or our mental heath services. They take care of their extended family, in the home, away from government statistic gatherers. They also vary a great deal in how much outside (processed) food their families eat, their vaccination levels, their expose to the 'English' and our germs, etc. Some of them live such closed lives, they rarely leave their farm communities to be seen by outsiders. Do we really accurately know what heath problems they face? It is true if you've gotten this strain of the H1N1 and got over it, you'll also have immunity from reinfection -- for that one strain. But the thing about influenza is that this is one of those viruses which changes often. It doesn't help that it's crossing back and forth to livestock, and then us humans keep reinfecting ourselves with new versions thanks to the livestock farming/processing industry. Expect to see slight variations in the strain every year. Don't be surprised if in another 10-20 years another really horrible strain appears. Is a study accurate? Are the results of a study "fact"? A study is just a collection of data attempting to see how closely one variable follows another. Just because one variable follows (correlates) with another doesn't necessarily mean A causes B. B could cause A. Or there could be a lurking variable, C, which cause A and B. Or it could be coincidence, too small sample size, or data collection error which gives an honest researcher misleading results. It's just a starting point, to justify doing a larger study or to investigate causative factors. Ask who is funding it and/or conducting the study. A study is just one of many tools used to learn about our world. How do I know I am immune? Why do I believe what the CDC tells me? Vaccinations are the same thing which allowed me to survive childhood alive and uncrippled; before vaccinations and antibiotics were common, about 50% of American babies didn't make it to adulthood. I know from firsthand experience that I've never been sick with mumps, measles, rubella, tetanus, pertussis, or polio. If they said I was immune to those diseases and I am, why would they lie only about influenza? And in a world where anyone can test if a vaccine works (including competitors who suspect a vaccine might be a fraud), why would any negative findings be kept secret? Immune response CAN be tested. In fact, before getting all the shots I did this summer, they did bloodwork first to see how much resistance I had left from previous shots (eg. MMR and Polio) so I wouldn't have to repeat vaccinations unnecessarily. [Ask for a "blood titer" at your doctor's office] An independent lab did my blood, and I got a copy of the detailed results. Unless diseases such as measles don't exist, there's no reason for me to think it's a worldwide conspiracy. The whole mercury-thimerosal thing: It is true this vaccine may be preserved with thimerosal. thimerosal breaks down in the body into ethyl mercury. (Ethyl mercury is NOT the same thing as elemental mercury, eg the kind in thermometers) People need to also understand we're exposed to both kinds of mercury in our environment, even if we're never vaccinated. One scientist stated the amount of mercury in a vaccination is the same as that found in a can of tunafish. Why aren't those fearing thimerosal also wanting to see fish banned as a food? There is some form of mercury in everything from fluorescent light bulbs to disposable batteries to electronics items, yet where are the mercury-is-deadly people when it comes to these things? I am not saying I believe mercury is good; I am saying is that exposure to it is inevitable. If those who believe thimerosal is toxic want me to take them more seriously, I need to also see them working just as hard to get people to stop eating fish... and yet on many of the "natural" health web sites, eating fish is being promoted. Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know I'm not dead yet from vaccines. If I do experience something negative or if I come across solid proof there is a problem, I will post it.