To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

too right

And so in the style of the anti vax threads, it becomes a conversation between two anti vax posters as all else are too scared to join in least they be accused of trolling or abuse.

Will return with a breakdown of critique to your 'evidence'

Please stop with this Pims: it's so unnecessary. Don't be afraid to join in: you won't be accused of trolling or abuse so long as you don't engage in it.

"YY. Journalists will cover whatever's "on" and vaccination isn't "on" at the moment."

The anti-scientific press sold plenty of papers by peddling scare stories based on made-up propaganda by that madman who slandered MMR.

no, PigletJohn, the media sold many stories based on facts they (the media) had made up. there are precious few articles that have ever reported accurately what Wakefield actually said (mustn't let the truth get int he way of a good story, must we?) and plenty of nonsense by Brian Deer full of inaccuracies and lies and smokescreens.

MMR uptake was in freefall before 1998. fact. and all because of the dodgy background of the vaccine (another fact).

Blueberties, I read the link you posted from VAERS, and found it very interesting and informative, it is from a reliable source.

I was especially pleased to see the amazing reduction in diseases following comprehensive vaccination.

quote
Table 1. Decline in vaccine-preventable disease morbidity in the United States during the 20th century[2,3]
Disease Baseline 20th century total cases 2009 total cases % Decrease
Smallpox 48,164 0 100%
Diphtheria 175,885 0 100%
Pertussis 147,271 16,858 >88%
Tetanus 1,314 18 >98%
Poliomyelitis 16,316 1 >99%
Measles 503,282 71 >99%
Mumps 152,209 1991 >98%
Rubella 47,745 3 >99%
Congenital rubella 823 (estimated 2 >99%
Haemophilus influenzae disease (98%

unquote

However I am not clear in what way you consider this document bolsters your argument. Perhaps you are reading something into it that I have missed. Could you explain please?

The "anti-scientific press" - which papers are these?

"scare stories" - they were reports of what happened in well-established newspapers. They may well have scared people - it doesn't mean they were untrue. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been printed.

"made up" - again with the dismissal. Give detail. What, exactly, was "made up"?

"propaganda" - by independent newspapers? by the Lancet? I don't think you can justify this.

"madman" - untrue, libellous, without justification.

Yes - I'm unafraid of anything contained in the links. For example, another one contains an FDA safety study in full, followed by a critique by Charlotte Haug. People should have all the information available.

I copied and pasted the part I found relevant. It's down at the bottom of the link, Adverse Events reporting, in a table. I copied and pasted the table but the tabular form didn't paste.

Can you answer my questions by the way, otherwise I might think you can't.

Can you anser mine

"However I am not clear in what way you consider this document bolsters your argument. Perhaps you are reading something into it that I have missed. Could you explain please?"

I thought you were going back to read as you asked for directions as to where to find it.

No problems: I was talking about under-reporting of vaccine adverse events in the face of ridicule, dismissal, claims of over-reporting and the phrase "made up". The table shows under-reporting of adverse events in the States at least to be between 32 and 99 per cent.

I hope that answers your question. Could you do the same please. Thanks.

Here's one answer for you

The "anti-scientific press" - which papers are these?

examples:
www.badscience.net/2008/05/finger-bullshit/
www.badscience.net/category/mmr/

Now you answer one of mine.

But I just answered your questions. My argument was that there is under-reporting - this was denied, dismissed and ridiculed - so I linked to a table to show the levels of under-reporting between 32 and 99 per cent. I think that's the part that bolsters my argument.

My computer won't let me open your links - can you copy and paste or just tell me the titles.

Do you count the Lancet in there among the anti-scientific press?
Can you tell me what was made up?

and here's another answer for you:

""scare stories" - they were reports of what happened in well-established newspapers. They may well have scared people - it doesn't mean they were untrue. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't have been printed."

There were scare stories that untruthfully claimed ill-effects were caused by a vaccine, and untruthfully suggested the effects of having the vaccine were worse than the results of not having it. The stories scared people. They were untrue and unresearched. Therefore they should not have been published as fact.

"Do you count the Lancet in there among the anti-scientific press?"

You are aware that the Lancet has apologised and said it should not have published the untrue and misleading article?

But this is twelve years or more later. For years it maintained the paper was a good piece of science. Is no one to take a lead from the Lancet?

Of course I disagree with you that the claims of ill-effects were "untrue" - and it's difficult to know now the extent of ill-effects and vulnerability as research in this country has all but been halted by the extreme way Dr Wakefield's career was dealt with. It's absolutely right that vaccine ill-effects should be examined, and not brushed under the carpet: otherwise drugs like Vioxx would still be on the market.

They were "unresearched" at the behest of the health authorities, don't forget.

Is there a reason why you have ignored the point I made about under-reporting?

Can you tell me why we're talking about MMR? Is it because I mentioned Dr Wakefield in my post to lemon, talking about news coverage?

blue - you know why we are back to MMR/Wakefield - cheap shots, guaranteed to deflect away from the point you are trying to make re: vaers and under-reporting.

same old, same old, tbh. not the first time on this thread that wakefield has been dragged up by pro-vaxxers.

I'd like to point out that the reason my posts were deleted is because they repeated untrue accusations from others in order to deny them. I've been neither abusive nor insulting on this thread.

One of them repeated vile material from upthread to point out that it was offensive. The offensive material itself is still there

"research in this country has all but been halted by the extreme way Dr Wakefield's career was dealt with"

Rubbish.

No, I have not. Repeat one thousand times. Of course no one can tell now because of HQ's ridiculous policy of deleting any posts that repeat abuse, instead of just the ones that originate it.

I emailed HQ to ask for advice on how to keep the thread on topic. Result: they decided to delete all the posts that attempted to dereail the thread in a rather unpleasant way (certainly not by me) and all the posts that said "you have tried to derail the thread in this unpleasant way" (which is what I did).

"silverfrog Fri 07-Oct-11 14:39:09
blue - you know why we are back to MMR/Wakefield"

It's because Blueberties raised it Fri 07-Oct-11 12:46:06

dummy.