Medication time.

[Sounder]

Joe wrote...

The simple way to test the idea that flu vaccines are more than correlated with SARS2 is to find out if there is a relationship between death rates in vaccinated people v non vaccinated people. If there is no real difference then it has no effect, if there is a difference one way or another it will stand out.

the pentagon study suggests that people are more susceptible to getting covid if they had a flu shot, here is more along that same line. (Getting shots can mess with ones physiology)

These folks are standard pro-vax people.
https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparativ ... ildren.php

Conclusions

Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity. Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.

[stickdog99]

^^Most vaccines never make it to market. It takes years of testing and reviews to jump through all the hoops required to get one approved.

And what are "all the hoops" in terms of testing new vaccines for safety? It is now standard procedure to compare the vaccine manufacturer categorized adverse effects of 1,000 people injected with an already approved vaccine to the the vaccine manufacturer categorized adverse events of 1,000 people injected with the new vaccine. If there isn't too much a difference, the new vaccine is "proven safe."

[stickdog99]

Joe wrote...

The simple way to test the idea that flu vaccines are more than correlated with SARS2 is to find out if there is a relationship between death rates in vaccinated people v non vaccinated people. If there is no real difference then it has no effect, if there is a difference one way or another it will stand out.

the pentagon study suggests that people are more susceptible to getting covid if they had a flu shot, here is more along that same line. (Getting shots can mess with ones physiology)

These folks are standard pro-vax people.
https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparativ ... ildren.php

Conclusions

Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity. Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.

But, but, but, we already know that vaccines' benefits far exceed their risks and costs in any and all cases! Thus, scientific experiments like the one you linked that are designed in such a way that they can potentially provide any evidence that questions our sacrosanct scientific dogma of the safety and efficacy of every vaccine ever invented or yet to be invented must be stopped at all costs!

Let's just ask Orac or Skeptical Raptor about this how to best debunk this obviously ludicrous evidence! They are always on the job!

[DrEvil]

Joe wrote...

The simple way to test the idea that flu vaccines are more than correlated with SARS2 is to find out if there is a relationship between death rates in vaccinated people v non vaccinated people. If there is no real difference then it has no effect, if there is a difference one way or another it will stand out.

the pentagon study suggests that people are more susceptible to getting covid if they had a flu shot, here is more along that same line. (Getting shots can mess with ones physiology)

These folks are standard pro-vax people.
https://www.oatext.com/Pilot-comparativ ... ildren.php

Conclusions

Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity. Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.

These folks are standard pro-vax people.

No they're not. Mawson is a Wakefield supporter and the study was funded by anti-vaccine groups. It's been retracted twice. More info and a breakdown of everything wrong with the study here:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/05/17/ ... dy-autism/

[Sounder]

I don't go to snopes, get something better.

[DrEvil]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-two ... -the-sort/

[stickdog99]

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-two-studies-purporting-to-show-that-vaccinated-children-are-sicker-than-unvaccinated-children-show-nothing-of-the-sort/

Just think if even half of the effort Orac put into debunking the results of this study had instead gone into debunking Gardasil's "safety" trials.

Of course, you would think that all of this debunking would be totally unnecessary. Why not just point to all the scores of comprehensive trials that must have been done that clearly demonstrate that vaccinated populations are far more healthy overall than comparable unvaccinated populations for every single routinely recommended vaccine? Right?

By the way, could you point us to these scores of studies, Dr. Evil?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Stickdog, why would those studies exist?

How would you even do them?

[stickdog99]

Stickdog, why would those studies exist?

How would you even do them?

Before you effectively force dozens of injections of pharmacologically active substances on every single healthy child in your nation, wouldn't you do everything possible to demonstrate scientifically that you were definitely doing more good than harm?

There are plenty of people who get religious or other exemptions from vaccination. Many thousands of them would be happy to participate in larger scale, better designed experiments comparing their overall health to that of similar vaccinated populations. So where are these experiments? Why haven't any ever been done? Why aren't any such experiments run unless and until people with questions about vaccine safety solicit donations to run them? I mean, we haven't even run basic animal toxicity tests on many vaccine ingredients, much less any decent monkey infant trials to rule out potential detrimental neurological side effects of 1, 5, 10, and 20 milligrams of injected alum adjuvants. Why not? Can anyone here explain this to me?

We don't even track vaccine injuries in any scientifically rigorous way. Why not? Since our vaccine approval and recommendation system clearly operates under the assumption that all vaccines are safe unless and until proven otherwise, don't we at least need to set up a system that can show otherwise in the offhand case of a putative vaccine whose risks and costs clearly exceed its benefits? To do this, don't we at least need a system that can accurately track which adverse events are associated with which specific vaccinations? Why is there no such system?

[stickdog99]

And the exact some questions apply to putting fluoride in our water supplies. Where is any scientific evidence that the benefits of water fluoridation outweigh its costs and long-term risks?

It seems to me that the battle for "scientific consensus" on the issues of vaccination and fluoridation has been mounted on the same "public relations" battleground. I mean, since "everybody" already knows vaccination and fluoridation are awesomely awesome in every way, why waste precious scientific resources to demonstrate the validity of these sacrosanct tenets of modern faith when ridiculing any individual not sufficiently indoctrinated to worship at their altar is so much more effective?

Along with almost all medical professionals I know, I sincerely hope that the benefits of the vast majority of vaccines exceed their costs and risks because that's all we currently have. But I find the analogy to fluoridation (and mercury amalgam fillings) instructive in many ways. Even with the EPA's clear warnings about the disastrous environmental effects of mercury toxicity from lost fillings, the ADA still doesn't admit that filling kids' mouths with mercury amalgam was ever a bad idea. And any US dentist or doctor who questions the obvious about fluoridation is still treated as a pariah. But when it comes to vaccination, well, we can definitely trust current scientific consensus on that one issue! Right?

I know I have used this analogy before, but the infinite credulity on the issue of vaccine safety of otherwise intelligent people who should know better reminds me of nothing more than when I found my baby teeth in my mother's possession and she sadly informed me the tooth fairy was make believe.

"But, but, but, surely Santa must be real. Right?"

[JackRiddler]

Sorry, you really lose me by bringing fluoridation into this, because the difference couldn't be more stark. First, I agree that all vaccinations old and especially new should be subjected to massive study of the kind you describe. But the age of mass vaccinations has corresponded with the near-disappearance of the diseases against which people are vaccinated, which used to kill and cripple and maim millions of people every year. The age of fluoridation? Not so much! Since WWII the child caries statistics have plunged dramatically in all developed countries -- regardless of whether they fluoridate the water. I'm a Eurosnob on most public health questions, I'll go with what the Germans do. They don't fluoridate, and they have no dental health problems. They do vaccinate (less so than here), and they don't get those diseases. See?

[stickdog99]

The analogy to fluoridation is perhaps not apt in terms of the blind faith that people in the USA have in its mystical powers against tooth decay. But it is totally apt in terms of the blanket social vilification and scientific community ostracization of any and all vaccine and fluoridation critics regardless of the scientific merits of their specific criticisms.

The issue of thimerosal in vaccines is instructive. I am certainly more than willing to believe that the hypothesis that thimerosal causes autism has never been scientifically demonstrated. I mean, Snopes, Orac, Skeptical Raptor, and army of like-funded ridiculers have spent tens of thousands of hours of concerted high profile public relations labor debunking that specific hypothesis. And who in his or her right mind could possibly question such authoritative sources?

The "are you afraid of a can of tuna" argument for the completely unnecessary inclusion of thimerosal in vaccines is also particularly illustrative of this process. Putting aside that fact that injected ethylmercury is in no way pharmacologically equivalent to ingested methylmercury, and putting aside the fact that every experiment to date that purports to buttress the claim that injected ethylmercury is perfectly harmless is laughable in its design, methodology, and conclusions, even if the harm of injecting ethylmercury into little kids were equivalent to the harm of that child's eating a can of tuna, why would we want to expose any child to even that level harm on an annual basis unless doing so conferred some demonstrable offsetting benefit?

Note that well over 95% of the influenza vaccinations that are administered annually in the USA still contain thimerosal. The only conceivable justification for this continuing practice is that thimerosal-free single dose vaccines cost roughly 11 cents more wholesale than the thimerosal-spiked multi-dose vials delivered to every convenient location that continually advertises the necessity of flu vaccination with huge signs wherever we shop.

Given the choice, would you pay 11 cents more to obtain a thimerosal-free injection vs. a thimerosal-spiked for your toddler or grandmother? So why doesn't our "free market" give us this choice? Who made the decision that it is more "cost effective" to save 11 cents wholesale per dose while commissioning debunkers to ridicule anyone protesting this unjustifiable practice than to simply provide only thimerosal-free flu vaccinations? I mean, whoever made this decision must have done so for a good reason. Right? They wouldn't risk harming millions by recommending a typically useless jab to the entire population every year spiked with thimerosal just to save a few cents per dose, now would they? Of course not! I mean, our vaunted scientific consensus couldn't possibly be that amenable to delivering a completely unnecessary neurotoxin to millions every year just to bank an additional 11 cents wholesale per dose? Could it? No, this is obviously impossible. The fact that our medical authorities assented to this decision obviously proves that there must have been an unassailable scientific justification for making this decision. Just ask Orac!

As for your argument that widespread declines in the morbidity of certain diseases have been coincident with the widespread uptake of vaccinations designed to prevent these diseases, all I can say is correlation does not necessarily prove causation. I mean, haven't increases sanitary practices and decreases in malnutrition also accompanied these declines in communicable diseases? And don't these increases and decreases better subscribe to the proverbial Hippocratic Oath? Hasn't a rise in autoimmune and allergic disorders also accompanied the practice of ever increasing vaccination? On what scientific basis do vaccines get all the correlative credit but none of the correlative blame?

As I said before (and I assume I will have to reiterate again and again and again), I personally believe that the vast majority of vaccines confer more benefit than harm on the populations they are administered to. But much like our shared belief that current social distancing measures in most locations confer more overall benefit than harm, this belief is entirely faith-based.

[JackRiddler]

.

There is a huge difference, and you force me to repeat myself: Faith in fluoridation is a peculiarly American problem. [EDIT: Well, mostly, as the next post will show.]

In most of the rest of the world, neither people in general nor scientists and doctors suffer from much belief in fluoridation as a public health measure.

That includes all the other countries where dental health is highest.

But the same countries do practice general childhood vaccination (if different mixes than in the US).

They also do not suffer from outbreaks of the diseases against which they vaccinate, and the extinguishment of these diseases correlates in time with the advent of vaccination. Amazing.

These other countries also, generally, have much smaller anti-vaccination movements, as well as far lower diagnosed levels of autism, and far fewer diagnoses of the grab-bag of other disorders attributed to vaccination. Yet they vaccinate.

There is no comparison between these two phenomena, other than the constructed, social link. In the US, scientistic forces fly both flags uncritically, so criticism of either is lumped together with crticism of the other, both condemned together with the magic words "conspiracy theory." As a result, following the logic of "whatever THEY are for, good people are against," the self-proclaimed skeptics of scientism also lump them together as related problems. But they are not.

Outside the US, fluoridation and vaccination are not considered related. Vaccination is as self-evidently a public health good to them as fluoridation is considered a weird American thing that makes no sense.

On the merits, the Germans happen to be right about both.

.

[Iamwhomiam]

Fluoride is a very dangerous, harmful substance to infants developing brains, This is a fact with sound, peer reviewed science behind it. Fluoride is indeed beneficial in preventing cavities when it is applied topically, directly on the tooth surface, and only then. It has no effect upon reducing cavities when ingested in water treated with it.

I do not see the issue of vaccination and fluoridation of public water as analogous, though they do share some of the same concern.

Jack, you wrote, "Faith in fluoridation is a peculiarly American problem." But that's not true. It is true that not many of the western nations of Europe fluoridate their drinking water, only 3% of Western Europeans drink fluoridated water.

Quick Facts:

- Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, for example, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water.

- While 25 countries have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%).

- Only 11 countries in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%).

- In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.

- There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

- There is no difference in tooth decay between western nations that fluoridate their water and those that do not.

Note: there's a chart of all countries that add fluoride to their public water supply with the number of people who consume it at the link below.

https://fluoridealert.org/content/bfs-2012/

If you visit Fluoride Action Network's home page, please note the article, "Neurotoxicity Experts Cleared to Testify at Fluoridation Chemicals Trial June 8, in Federal Court"

https://fluoridealert.org/

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^

useful information. Thanks for sharing this. My youngest child's (she's 5 yrs old) dentist prescribed fluoride pills because my wife told him we don't use toothpaste with fluoride. Doctors with good intentions conditioned to prescribe.