Flu Shot vs. Vitamin D

maybenot said:
"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.
Click to expand...

None of what you have linked to or referenced contains the data for a double blind test on treated and untreated group(s). The first link is just an abstract with very little detail of the trial, and the second is a trial on one vaccine vs another, it might as well be placebo vs placebo.

My major reason asking the question 'what is the proof'. This is the question that those who believe in vaccine claims (or anything else) should be asking themselves. Have they actually gone to look for proof before feeling so strongly about others not vaccinating for example (e.g. enough to feel they are 'assholes')? Have they been marketing by a marketer themselves? Are they just believing claims from 'authority' and making conclusions purely from correlations?

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.
Click to expand...
Or they just believing there is proof out there via trust?

The is my suspicion, and you have demonstrated to me that my suspicions of you is true. Regardless of whether there is proof out there, you have shown you did not look for the proper scientific verification before arguing your strong views.

You should read up on the scientific method, here is good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
 


WoF0FCa.png
 
maybenot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right so in replying to my quote this is supposed to mean the Salk vaccine trial can be used as proof that the vaccine have almost wiped out polio when the Salk vaccine was halted not long after it went into widespread use because it cause polio in children?

maybenot said:
--
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.
Click to expand...

There are two view points of looking at correlation!=causation.

1. Looking at it literally from the mathematical symbol != , correlation does not equal causation. That is true. And indeed correlation does not equal causation ever. This is not false. Correlation and causation are separate. This is not to say they are mutually exclusive to each other. At the same time, I see some people abusing correlation!=causation to mean correlation and causation are mutually exclusive.

2. I suspect how others interpret this is that correlation does not imply causation. This is true yet the symbol used is incorrect.


maybenot said:
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%.
Click to expand...

When did I ever say I wanted 100% proof? With the double blind test, it is also important that it is reproducible. The more tests done that shows the repeated results, the more confidence you have that a particular variable is causing a correlation. Yet you cannot reach 100% proof. Its a model of reality. The tests may even be set up incorrectly also.

maybenot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes there are hidden factors, and that is why the double blind test exists. If you just look at correlation, there maybe hidden factors that has caused the correlation and not the variable you think is causing the correlation. If you use a double blind test, you get a treatment group and control group from the same population. Within the same population both will likely have the same hidden factors. And if the variable is a causation, you will still see the difference in the treatment and control group. Again this test needs to be repeated for more confidence.

maybenot said:
Maybe a better way would be to say "correlation does not necessarily equal causation",
Click to expand...

Wrong, correlation never equals causation.

maybenot said:
or, "correlation does not imply causation."
Click to expand...

The relationship between correlation and causation is this:

Causation can give rise to observable correlation. Correlation does not imply causation. Its a one way relationship.

maybenot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not become causation.

Causation produces correlation yet correlation does not produce causation. When you do a double blind test, you are testing a variable in the treatment group vs the control group to see if the variable causes a correlation.

Even after that you still need to see how to it applies to the real world. e.g the Salk vaccine trial.

maybenot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Like I said, correlation and causation are not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately you have not even looked at any data on a double blind test that can be used to back up the claim that polio has almost been wiped out by vaccine. I am sure there are many studies, yet you seem to be looking/referencing the wrong ones.

maybenot said:
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
Click to expand...

If correlation doesn’t imply causation, then what does?

These are some of the flu shot cases surrounding me:

1. My sister took the flu shot every year for 7 years and got the flu every year. She decided to stop taking the shot 6 years ago, and said she did not get the flu since. Look correlation, so did taking the flu shot cause her getting the flu?

2. My ex colleague takes the flu shot every year and gets the flu every single year. At the same time, he believes in the flu vaccine and continues to take it. Look correlation, so did taking the flu shot cause him to get the flu?

3. My hairdresser after taking the flu shot. within a day got a headache and it stayed with her. She suspected she may have high blood pressure, and when she went to the doctor, her suspicions are true. She tells me she has never had high blood pressure before this. Look correlation, so did taking the flu shot cause high blood pressure?

4. My mother in laws friend does not take flu shot for the last 10 years. She has not had caught the flu during that time. She decided to take the flu shot this year as she thought she is getting older and may need some help. After taking the flu shot, she caught the flu. Look correlation, so did taking the flu shot cause her getting the flu?

5. My mum took the flu shot, 2 days later she gets a severe seizure. Seizures usually last seconds, but hers lasts 15-20 mins. Having never had a seizure in her life before, in the next 2 weeks, she gets intermittent seizures causing further brain damage. Her right brain is 1/3 permanently damaged. She can't communicate, can't eat, is fed through a tube right into her stomach, she can't move her limps except for jerking her right arm. She is constantly going in and out of consciousness, and sometimes we wonder if she even recognises us. Her life is now confined to a bed, with 0% chance of rehabilitation. Her life is meaningless, only suffering, we all wish her to pass away peacefully. Look correlation, so did taking the flu shot cause the seizures?
 
Fiver said:
Flu Folly : Personal Liberty
Click to expand...
Let's see... A site that looks like it was made 10 years ago, with a Clickbank program, and an LLC registered to a PO box, with a man called 'Layne Lowery' (who's been pushing acai since 1995: Layne Lowery | LinkedIn and really likes posting dead animals on Facebook) pretending to be a newsletter writer called Bob Livingston (named after a Republican representative who's now dead)... Yeah, seems like a trustworthy source.

The above took less than 5 minutes.
 
The flu shot is a hoax and contains some nasty stuff, I read about an olympic medalist who took the flu shot and died. The way I see it what doesnt kill you will make you stronger and unless your old and decrepit there is no real chance of harm.
 
-joe- said:
Let's see... A site that looks like it was made 10 years ago, with a Clickbank program, and an LLC registered to a PO box, with a man called 'Layne Lowery' (who's been pushing acai since 1995: Layne Lowery | LinkedIn and really likes posting dead animals on Facebook) pretending to be a newsletter writer called Bob Livingston (named after a Republican representative who's now dead)... Yeah, seems like a trustworthy source.

The above took less than 5 minutes.
Click to expand...
Sorry if this was making fun of that site, looking back the above reply comes off a bit dickish.
 
Why would you get a shot for something you get like once every 6 years if at all?

Probably the same people who don't know "Organic" is a government brand used for marketing purposes and means nothing
 
erect said:
moar

Dr. Kurt: Why I Will Never Choose to Vaccinate my Own Son and Any Future Kids my Wife and I Have | Health Impact News
Click to expand...

"1. The average age of cervical cancer is 50. 2. The shot is administered to 12 year old girls.
So we have a system pushing multiple shots (boosters) with a supposed 5 year efficacy timeline onto pre-teen girls, that was never tested on them, for a disease that has an average age of 50."


Dr. Kurt is leaving out the part about 20 percent of females being infected with HPV by age 17. Whether or not any of them have to worry about getting cervical cancer anytime soon, HPV has no cure and isn't something that they would want to be acquiring at any age.




I didn't read all of either, but here is one response to Dr. Kurt's article :

Shocking news-antivaccine chiropractor ignores science
 
SirKonstantine said:
I've taken 5,000 UI of Vitamin D3/day for the past year so thats safe IMO. I'm also a vampire so I don't get much sun, hence why I take it.
Click to expand...

I also want to become Strong and Dominating as Vampires, please tell me how to achieve this or I need to watch Twilight?
 
<anecdote title="real">never had flu, never had a vaccine</anecdote>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom