Claim/hypothesis: X vaccine significantly reduces the incidence of Y illness/disease.
Test: Double blind. Treatment group vs control group.
Results: Does the treatment group show significantly less incidence of Y? If so, is the results reproducible?
Flu Shot vs. Vitamin D
- Thread starter Fiver
- Start date
Claim/hypothesis: X vaccine significantly reduces the incidence of Y illness/disease.
Test: Double blind. Treatment group vs control group.
Results: Does the treatment group show significantly less incidence of Y? If so, is the results reproducible?
That's still not 100% proof positive. You linked to a study earlier, and one of the better results in that had 98% confidence, i.e. there was a 2% chance the results could be an anomaly, as well as the further possibility that there was a flaw in method.
Is there any particular vaccine you're thinking of?
Go back and check when was I asking for 100% confidence? I have been show correlation by maybenot and it is being used as proof of causation. In addition, I also said the test needs to be reproducible. Neither did I say the study of vitamin D I linked to is 100% proof either. There is a lot of assumptions being thrown around in this forum.
Scientific method involves testing a hypothesis. A double blind test is used to see if the hypothesis is correct, and it does involves confidence levels as well (though, I am unable to find in Moxie's links, the confidence levels of the polio test). It sure beats jumping at to the conclusion of causation via correlation.
I first asked for proof that the flu vaccine works. And I then asked BlueYonder for proof the MMR vaccine works for measles, mumps and rubella, when he brought MMR into it.
I think I phrased that reply a bit incorrectly. During inoculation, dead virus are injected into the body (with a cocktail of other shit) ... The body, in turn, recognizes the foreign body and immediately begins to defend against it creating antibodies. This way when a live virus enters our system, the body can defeat it quickly.
No doubt this logic is easily explained by doctors (or your local walgreens) and the masses eat it up and start to create social pressure on friends, families and even entire communities. Because, after all, herd immunity is what makes the whole system work.
In reality, the vaccine affects both us AND the virus due to adaptive evolution. So, if you stick some rats in a cave with no access to light or their normal food supply, in few generations will you get pigment loss in the skin/hair, blindness, a new diet as well as increased sense of hearing, smell and other useful features for living in that condition. Here's a little write up about it.
The same thing is happening to raccoons as we speak. These animals are evolving rapidly due their fast reproduction cycle and to the food accessible to raccoons in the city vs. country raccoons. Good documentary on that.
I'm no scientist, but I would assume that adaptive evolution applies to all living creatures. When they're stressed, they change. Perhaps only 0.01% of a particular strain of virus is not affected by the antibodies developed due to inoculations ... after all, we know that vaccines aren't 100% effective.
Thanks to widespread inoculations, that 0.01% flourishes instead of becoming more extinct due to a seriously lack of competition .. and the species evolves into something different. Perhaps all that new virus does is cause you to have a runny nose. Perhaps it's aids 2.0. Either way we end up with 2 virus' instead of one. The original that thrives in parts of the world where herd immunity was not reached and the new altered virus that only exists because we wiped out it's natural competition.
completely agree, in your example it's three life forms that are effected. The bovine virus (of whatever flavor), the cow itself and the species that eats the cow (me).
Interesting convo, It's something to give serious thought to even if you don't agree with my stance on it.
@Moe
You realize sometimes people read shit and believe it verbatim. Which probably makes you a better marketer than me.
You realize sometimes people read shit and believe it verbatim. Which probably makes you a better marketer than me.
The only part where this argument falls apart is when you imply that viruses don't evolve or evolve much more slowly if we don't use vaccines.
I didn't intend to imply that, but I honestly don't know enough about the rate of natural evolution to not sound stupid making an argument on how well that runs parallel with what I outlined above.
I'm really only intended to give my opinon about how the outside influence of vaccinations rearranges the natural order where the weakest members of a species dies off first. If the inoculation kills off the strong and healthy (normal) members of the virus, only the "freakishly abnormal" offspring have a chance of continuing the lifecycle.
Without inoculation evolution still applies to viruses. With inoculation evolution still applies to viruses.
Does inoculation accelerate the evolution of viruses? It could be. Would this hurt the evolution of the human species? Very, very hard to tell.
We don't understand the biological short term of our actions; our written history and science do not go back that far. We don't understand that much about how viruses work. Our understanding of the world of viruses is extremely limited. Which is why they tend to be un-curable (herpes, HPV, HIV, etc)... the ones that are considered curable for the most part just enter into a 'dormant' state (i.e. Varicella). Viruses aren't even exactly alive. The main reason being that they do not fulfill all the criteria of what we define living beings, especially the whole reproduction part (they can't reproduce independently, only by invading living cells) - Even the concept of 'new species' is just humans drawing lines in the sand. It isn't like there is a gene code that says 'this living creature is another species from that'. We just choose that line. In the end, some dogs have more in common with a wolf than with a chihuahua.
You seem to fall for the mental trap of 'weak/strong' when a more accurate usage of language will probably be 'better adapted to the specific survival strategy and environment/less adapted to the specific survival strategy and environment'. Once you replace what you say with the specific and more accurate language, your statements present a different context. Especially since environment changes, what is a 'weak virus' now might turn out to be strong later and vice-versa. Dinosaurs were 'strong' in their environment, but when a meteorite hit (environment changes), their 'strength' became a 'weakness'.
Also, your position of 'natural evolution' seems to exclude human activity. It is highly convenient and self flattering to believe humans above nature, but we are not. Unless you are a creationist, all human activity is natural, and any 'interference' with the 'natural order' is part of the 'natural order itself'. In other words, human activity is the natural evolution of the human species. Furthermore, any 'disruption' we cause is a tiny drop in the bucket of disruption that the evolution of life has dealt with. Artifical anything implies we are above nature when in reality we are just clothed apes with a tiny extra bit of mental capacity and opposable thumbs.
The early earth is supposed to have had virtually no oxygen in the atmosphere (mostly CO2 and gases that for modern day life are noxious). It is believed that it was early bacterial life that released oxigen into the atmosphere which created the environment in which life thrives today. I'm sure you wouldn't consider those bacteria to be 'artificially modifying the environment'.
TLDR: We don't know shit, but it seems vaccines produce an overall benefit based on our perspective of what humanity should be doing. I don't take the flu shot since it isn't highly proven and doesn't attack more serious illnesses like MMRV.
My interaction in this thread gives my perspective on change as reflected from a baseline. Your explanation is more accurate because it evolution has to be based on a floating point due to parallel evolution happening with all creatures .... which basically means we can never draw true conclusions, making this discussion pure mental masturbation.
Pure brilliance above. Our vaccination process is simply part of the human species' effects on it's environment ... an extension of the human condition itself.
Personally, I'm an ID guy, but don't take that to mean that what we are is what we started out being. Survival of the fittest is simply environmental exploits for the most part. As humans, we might have just been the smart apes that evolved because the dumb, athletic ones tasted better to the predator de jour.
That last sentence is eerily similar to my perspective on how inoculations force the adaptive evolution of a virus just from a different perspective.
Stay away from them fucking vaccines
My dad got an NHS letter in the post saying get ya free flu jab - low and be hold i chat to him about the New World Order & conspiracys & told him to stay away from taking the jab. long story short this clown takes the flu vaccine & several weeks later gets the very bad case of the flu - his face was white as snow, couldn't talk properly.
those who create the PROBLEM - OFFER THE SOLUTION
My dad got an NHS letter in the post saying get ya free flu jab - low and be hold i chat to him about the New World Order & conspiracys & told him to stay away from taking the jab. long story short this clown takes the flu vaccine & several weeks later gets the very bad case of the flu - his face was white as snow, couldn't talk properly.
those who create the PROBLEM - OFFER THE SOLUTION
The randomized control test data is the one worth looking at since the observed control is not double blinded. From the data, it shows that the vaccine reduces the incidence of polio. With the amount of children that participated, it would also be good to check to see the safety of the vaccine. I am surprised to see there is no mention of reporting procedures for any side effects of the vaccine during the trial.
While the data from the Salk vaccine trial shows that it reduces the incidence of polio, it still could not be used to prove the causation of the world's diminishing number of reported polio incidence. When it went into widespread use after the trial, it caused children to get polio instead of prevent it. The reason being, they claimed is that the Salk vaccine is supposed to contain the dead virus, but that some of the vaccines contained the live virus. So they stopped the use of Salk vaccine. 5 years later, the Sabin vaccine is used instead, and the Sabin vaccine contains the live virus.
Supplements should be taken in moderation. This thread is talking about taking vitamin d vs the flu, so during that time, we are usually vitamin d deficient anyway.
More about vitamin D toxicity:
I don't see anyone would require more than 10,000IU per day unless they are really deficient.
@pleb, you probably should do a blood test, if you want to continue at those levels.
Source: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/am-i-getting-too-much-vitamin-d/
Open your brains people...
And this is the best...
1000 for an adult should be nothing right? They claim children can take up to 100000 safely! So, why those fuckers don't want to step up and show that their shit is safe?
Well, because it isn't.
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...illion-dollars-to-survive-1000-vaccine-shots/
Actually, I don't blame pharma for pushing their shit, it's business. And there are some great marketers working for them. Same goes for food industry, anyone fancy "healthy" cereals? :throwup:
Is Your Doctor Being Bribed to Increase Vaccination Rates?
And this is the best...
1000 for an adult should be nothing right? They claim children can take up to 100000 safely! So, why those fuckers don't want to step up and show that their shit is safe?
Well, because it isn't.
http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/20...illion-dollars-to-survive-1000-vaccine-shots/
Actually, I don't blame pharma for pushing their shit, it's business. And there are some great marketers working for them. Same goes for food industry, anyone fancy "healthy" cereals? :throwup:
"Efficacy of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines was established in a series of double-blind controlled field trials which demonstrated a high degree of protective efficacy afforded by the individual vaccine components. 7-12
These studies also established that seroconversion in response to vaccination against measles, mumps, and rubella paralleled protection from these diseases. 13-15"
7. Hilleman, M.R.; Buynak, E.B.; Weibel, R.E.; et al: Development and Evaluation of the Moraten Measles Virus Vaccine, JAMA 206(3): 587-590, 1968.
8. Weibel, R.E.; Stokes, J.; Buynak, E.B.; et al: Live, Attenuated Mumps Virus Vaccine 3. Clinical and Serologic Aspects in a Field Evaluation, N. Engl. J. Med. 276: 245-251, 1967.
9. Hilleman, M.R.; Weibel, R.E.; Buynak, E.B.; et al: Live, Attenuated Mumps Virus Vaccine 4. Protective Efficacy as Measured in a Field Evaluation, N. Engl. J. Med. 276: 252-258, 1967.
10. Cutts, F.T.; Henderson, R.H.; Clements, C.J.; et al: Principles of measles control, Bull WHO 69(1): 1-7, 1991.
11. Weibel, R.E.; Buynak, E.B.; Stokes, J.; et al: Evaluation Of Live Attenuated Mumps Virus Vaccine, Strain Jeryl Lynn, First International Conference on Vaccines Against Viral and Rickettsial Diseases of Man, World Health Organization, No. 147, May 1967.
12. Leibhaber, H.; Ingalls, T.H.; LeBouvier, G.L.; et al: Vaccination With RA 27/3 Rubella Vaccine, Am. J. Dis. Child. 123: 133-136, February 1972.
13. Rosen, L.: Hemagglutination and Hemagglutination-Inhibition with Measles Virus, Virology 13: 139-141, January 1961.
14. Brown, G.C.; et al: Fluorescent-Antibody Marker for Vaccine-Induced Rubella Antibodies, Infection and Immunity 2(4): 360-363, 1970.
15. Buynak, E.B.; et al: Live Attenuated Mumps Virus Vaccine 1. Vaccine Development, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 123: 768-775, 1966.
A couple of extra studies I just found:
Double blind, placebo-controlled:
A Field Trial with a Live Measles-Mumps- Rubella Vaccine
Simultaneous Administration of Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine With Booster Doses of Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis and Poliovirus Vaccines
But the important ones are in the numbered list above. You'll probably have to go to a medical library or make a subscription online if you want to read them all fully.
And once you get to that point, it would be worth repeating this research exercise with the further studies that indicate one MMR booster dose is required to achieve near 100% immunity.
A couple of quick points to start:
1. The polio vaccine in use, at least in the US and most of Europe, is not "live". It is the dead variant.
For example, in the UK; Diphtheria Toxoid/Tetanus Toxoid/Pertussis Antigens/Human Poliovirus Type 1 Inactivated/Human Poliovirus Type 2 Inactivated/Human Poliovirus Type 3 Inactivated/Haemophilus Influenzae Type B Polysaccharide Protein Conjugate - Vaccinations (all) medici
Notice inactivated.
2. The Sabin vaccine is not simply "live virus". It is attenuated live virus.
Did you know that attenuated live virus vaccinations in people with normal immune systems usually provide deeper and longer lasting immunity, and immunity is achieved quicker.
Look up attenuated virus vaccines for more information.
--
Returning to the in fashion correlation!=causation - what does equal causation then?
The implication of the above statement is that correlation does not equal causation ever, and that something apart is required for causation. This is false.
Correlation is an objective observable event. In situations which are complex, causation is a subjective judgement. Even the perfect, ideal, double blind, randomized, control trial where all variables are isolated except the one in question is not 100% proof. Nothing, is 100% proof. You know p values? They are *subjectively* and arbitrarily defined as 5%. Even in that perfect test - in any perfect test - there might be hidden factors you are not aware of that cause both outcomes. E.g. smoking and lung cancer. Maybe there is a factor which causes people to smoke and which also causes them to get lung cancer. So if you stop them smoking, maybe they'd get lung cancer anyway.
Maybe a better way would be to say "correlation does not necessarily equal causation", or, "correlation does not imply causation."
So when you do your ideal test and you find that 5 people get polio who took the vaccine versus 50 who didn't take the vaccine, there is a correlation between taking the vaccine and a person's resistance to the disease. Even if it's your ideal test, it's still just a correlation. At this point, someone decides (maybe you) that that is sufficient to say 'causation'. So right then, in that case, correlation becomes causation.
Returning in this context to my point that once the vaccine for polio was introduced some decades ago, cases of polio went from hundreds of thousands to a few thousand - that is a correlation. And from that point it is a matter of judgement whether you want to see all the double blind studies yourself, or if that is enough to deem causation. Seeing this correlation, combining it with my understanding of how the vaccine was developed, and seeing there were studies which concluded the vaccine was effective, was enough for me to say causation. Of course, perhaps some other variable was responsible. But then, you have to choose at what point you say causation. As a final extreme example: Do you need a double blind, randomized control trial to say causation when someone gets a serious bacterial infection and a doctor uses penicillin to treat it, and the infection goes away? Or what about a general anesthetic? If you give someone one of those and they pass out, do you need the ideal test to be 'sure' of causation?
If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does? | DDI
same here
after the epic egg food poisoning.. my immune system was down... body was werid but thought i was okay
1 day walking on the LV strip... i came back home, regular night.. slept.. woke up and chest was burning when i coughed
fevers... chills..... couldn't figure out how to dress to feel comfortable but went with overdressing b/c getting cold can lead to pneumonia
I drank a juice blend boiled with a few cherries and a thinly sliced garlic clove, while still warm.. semi-hot...... felt great
u'll live.. if u haven't treated your body like trash
How was your treatment?
What they gave you? (exactly)
And... how do you know your condition after catching some "shit" (maybe it wasn't flu?) was caused by "flu", and not by the medical treatment itself?