ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Vaccines is safe because SCIENCE!

In addition to demonstrating that vaccines are not intrinsically safe, this posterior-covering action by the CDC should suffice to conclusively prove that the organization cannot be trusted with regards to its statements concerning vaccine safety:
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has once again been caught removing pertinent but indicting information about vaccines from its website. This time it involves the infamous polio vaccine, up to 98 million doses of which have been exposed as containing a cancer-causing virus that is now believed to be responsible for causing millions of cancers in America, according to the CDC.

The information was posted on an official CDC fact sheet entitled Cancer, Simian Virus 40 (SV40), and Polio Vaccine, which has since been removed from the CDC's website. Fortunately, RealFarmacy.com was able to archive the damning page before the CDC ultimately removed it, presumably because SV40 has been receiving considerable attention lately due to its connection to causing cancer.
This also explodes Orac's attempt to utilize "clinical equipoise" in order to justify not performing scientific studies.  Due to that "equipose", putting 98up to 30 million Americans at an increased risk of cancer may turn out to be little more that the tip of the iceberg.  I know that biologists and epidemiologists are not trained in logic or basic risk/reward calculations, but I would think that even those whose academic backgrounds are in the softer sciences could handle the math involved in balancing the potential risk to a few hundred, or a few thousand, children provided placebos versus the risks involved in administering a completely untested schedule combining dozens of vaccines to hundreds of millions of very young children.

Labels: ,

61 Comments:

Blogger JCclimber August 06, 2013 1:05 PM  

It's not that the math is hard, it is the fact that even doing the math would be challenging the religion and worldview, so they refuse to contemplate it.

Kind of like the Jewish being dissuaded from trying to understand Isaiah 53, or some of the other Old Testament prophecies which clearly point to Jesus as the Christ.

Anonymous Josh August 06, 2013 1:08 PM  

WHY DO YOU HATE THE CHILDREN SO MUCH!?!?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation Ben August 06, 2013 1:13 PM  

Josh, that's getting old.

Anonymous Geoff August 06, 2013 1:13 PM  

if they tested the vaccines and they turn out to be dangerous, couldn't that hurt the profitability of Glaxo or Merck?

and therefore congressional lobbying accounts?

won't someone think of the Congressmen!?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 06, 2013 1:25 PM  

if they tested the vaccines and they turn out to be dangerous, couldn't that hurt the profitability of Glaxo or Merck?

That would be true if we lived in a free-market society. But the government practically mandates that everyone get a vaccine. Hell, in many professions you are required to do so. These companies enjoy what is basically a monopoly on the market.

On top of that, they are immune to civil litigation. So when they hurt people with their bad drugs, they are off the hook.

So when you have a company that has no worries about the consequences of its actions, how do you think they are going to act?

Blogger Bernard Brandt August 06, 2013 1:27 PM  

Golly gosh darn, Vox, why are you bringing up stuff we've known about for the last fifty or so years? After all, SV (or Simian Virus) 40 was introduced, along with fifty or so other Simian Viruses, when Salk and Sabin used unsterilized vaccines from African monkey kidneys.

And a number of actual journalists (instead of the present set of U.S. cheerleaders with presidential knee-pads) have made a case that HIV was originally SIV (or Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) that got introduced into the African population around the Belgian Congo when a Polish scientist decided to play fast and loose with using chimpanzee kidneys to culture polio vaccine, which he then used to innoculate hundreds of thousands of Africans there.

It's all just a result of the law of unintended consequences. These aren't the droids you're looking for. Just move along.

Anonymous Josh August 06, 2013 1:29 PM  

So when you have a company that has no worries about the consequences of its actions, how do you think they are going to act?

They need to adopt Google's slogan.

Anonymous Sigyn August 06, 2013 1:31 PM  

Josh, that's getting old.

YOUR FACE IS GETTING OLD!!!

...Oops, that's getting old, too.

YOUR MOM IS--

...Umph.

Chuck Norris doesn't get old. His presence makes everything newer.

...Holy crap, that was bad. Is there anything that ISN'T getting old?

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 06, 2013 1:35 PM  

They need to adopt Google's slogan.

Does that have something to do with Cesar Chavez dying for our sins and rising on the third day?

Anonymous Steveo August 06, 2013 1:37 PM  

Look, better one chirre safe from the horror of polio and tetanus and whatnot than 98 million be cancer free. Who's your huckleberry?

It's about the chirrun, when chirrun grow up... it's not about them anymore cause, it's about the chirrun.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 06, 2013 1:42 PM  

We are often told to imitate rich people in order to be prosperous in our lives. I wonder, do the ultra-rich give their children the regular vaccine schedule as outlined by the CDC?

Blogger GK Chesterton August 06, 2013 1:48 PM  

I'm not sure your conclusion follows. Specifically "98 million" when the sheet in question is clear in when this problem was spotted (30 million). Look, I'm all for more research too, but we should be careful in our critique.

Anonymous Maximo Macaroni SV40 August 06, 2013 1:52 PM  

I don't know what's worse, the vaccine scare or the polio scare. Wait a minute, yes, I do.

Anonymous George of the Hole August 06, 2013 1:52 PM  

Science is "self-correcting". Apparently this refers to legal liability as well.

Anonymous Harsh August 06, 2013 1:57 PM  

And Phoenician drops in to lay a turd in 3, 2, 1...

Anonymous Stilicho August 06, 2013 2:02 PM  

Josh, that's getting old.

Meh. It still gets used as an excuse, so he's free to continue to mock it.

Blogger tz August 06, 2013 2:03 PM  

What happens when you call the 1-800 immunization hotlie and ask?

Anonymous Harsh August 06, 2013 2:04 PM  

I got a tetanus shot yesterday because I cut my finger open and I was thinking about this site when they made me fill out the release form.

Anonymous Daniel August 06, 2013 2:09 PM  

The hilarious thing is that they pulled it. Totally scientific. Reminds me of that stupid gag in History of the World Part I where Moses drops one of the tablets.

"I give you the 15...Bang!...the 10 commandments!"

Anonymous Josh August 06, 2013 2:10 PM  

Is there anything that ISN'T getting old?

WARNING: TRIGGER ALERT

Rape jokes?

Anonymous Sigyn August 06, 2013 2:12 PM  

Rape never gets old.

...I can't believe I said that.

Anonymous tungsten August 06, 2013 2:22 PM  

"I don't know what's worse, the vaccine scare or the polio scare." - Maximo


Except that the tradeoff in question here is polio versus cancer.

Anonymous szook August 06, 2013 2:28 PM  

Josh,

Vox doesn't hate children....he likes them perfectly well...done in the correct sauce.

Anonymous Harsh August 06, 2013 2:29 PM  

Rape never gets old.

...I can't believe I said that.


Angelina Jolie Voight will get you for saying that. Rape is no longer a legitimate part of rational discourse.

Anonymous DonReynolds August 06, 2013 3:23 PM  

Speaking of science....today is the anniversary of the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima....August 6th, 1945.

Blogger tz August 06, 2013 3:25 PM  

@Harsh

Rape has never been part of rational discourse. The problem is that the discourse has been slowly but progressively, like collective Alzheimer's, becoming less rational.

Rationality is human. Rationalization is hamster.

Anonymous Sigyn August 06, 2013 3:32 PM  

Angelina Jolie Voight

Isn't it "Angelina Jolie Voight Thornton Pitt" by now? Sounds like a train conductor. "All aboard for Angelina, Jolie, Voight, Thornton, Pitt and CUCAMONGA!"

Rape is no longer a legitimate part of rational discourse.

Well, she has a point. It's hard to carry on a rational discourse while you're being raped.

...What is WRONG with me today???

Blogger Phoenician August 06, 2013 3:37 PM  

Uh-huh.

http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v23/n38/full/1207877a.html

----
In 1960, it was discovered that Simian Virus 40 (SV40) contaminated up to 30% of the poliovirus vaccines in the US. This contamination arose because the vaccines were produced in monkey kidney cell cultures harboring SV40 between 1955 and 1963. During this period, approximately 90% of children and 60% of adults in the USA were inoculated for polio and possibly exposed to SV40. Many epidemiologic and molecular pathogenesis studies have been conducted in order to identify potential cancer risks since this 'natural' experiment began. Productive SV40 infection has the potential to initiate malignancy in a variety of target tissues. Epidemiological studies that investigated the relationship between SV40 infection and cancer risks have yielded mixed results. Studies can be grouped into three categories based on their exposure definition of SV40 infection: (1) use of vaccination or birth cohorts as proxy variables for infection, (2) follow-up of children of pregnant women who received polio vaccines, and (3) direct molecular detection of the virus or serologic detection of anti-SV40 antibody responses. A meta-analysis of five published studies did not support the hypothesis that SV40 exposure increases the overall risk of cancer incidence or cancer mortality. The analysis of specific cancer sites is largely inconclusive because of substantial problems that most studies have had in reliably defining exposure, defining latency effects, or dealing with confounding and other biases. A new generation of molecular epidemiologic studies is necessary to properly address these issues.
-----

So let's review a few major points Dipshit fails to grasp.

i, Dipshit is quoting a nutbar site that gets its money flogging off food supplements to the easily worried.

ii, Dipshit fails to twig that the site is wrong about essentials such as, oh, numbers - the contamination was "up to 30%" of the vaccines in 1960 - when the US population was slightly less that 180 million people. 98 million is not 30% of 180 million.

iii, Dipshit fails to grasp that this vaccine was produced between 1955 and 1961 - more than 50 years ago. That's a little like ranting about the dangers of taking insulin because it comes from pigs or cows.

iv, And finally Dipshit failed to even look at what the actual scientific literature was saying. I quote again for effect : "A meta-analysis of five published studies did not support the hypothesis that SV40 exposure increases the overall risk of cancer incidence or cancer mortality."

Is it any wonder why this moron is a laughing stock on the Internet?

Anonymous Sigyn August 06, 2013 3:49 PM  

All righty, people. Here's the exciting adventure for the day.

1. Go to www.archive.org. You'll see an option called the "Wayback Machine".

2. In the text box beside the Wayback Machine, plug in the following URL: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm

3. Click on May 22, 2013.

4. Ask yourself why this information is no longer readily available on cdc.gov.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 06, 2013 3:52 PM  

Dipshit fails to twig that the site is wrong about essentials such as, oh, numbers - the contamination was "up to 30%" of the vaccines in 1960 - when the US population was slightly less that 180 million people. 98 million is not 30% of 180 million.

I see a failure of reading comprehension: it was 30% of vaccines, not 30% of the population.

There is a difference.

Anonymous VD August 06, 2013 3:53 PM  

i. Irrelevant. Genetic fallacy.
ii. Your math is irrelevant. The CDC reported 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine. However, since not all polio vaccines contained the SV40, it estimates between 10-30 million. My point still stands.
iii. Irrelevant. You missed the point. I'm shocked.
iv. Again, you don't understand what science is and is not. A review of five statistical studies is not science.

Is it any wonder why this moron is a laughing stock on the Internet?

You say laughing stock, I say antifragile. Either way, you're just making me stronger and more popular, Phony.

Anonymous Daniel August 06, 2013 3:53 PM  

Great review Phony! Let me return the favor with...

TOP FOUR LIES PHOENICIAN JUST TOLD
1) Leads off with an example of a rhetorical fallacy that is so easy to grasp that I will be using it on college freshmen in remedial English.
2) Lies about the source of the 98 million, and the meaning.
3) Creates out of thin air an assertion that has no basis in fact. There's no evidence whatsoever that the timeframe of the admitted breach was not clearly understood by all who read the report, including Vox.
4) Vox quite obviously read the bit about meta-analysis. Saying otherwise can be described as nothing less than a lie.

Wow. You are so married to lies that you couldn't attack the thesis on its most substantial weakness. Remind me to play a few hands of poker with you sometime. I could use the cash.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 August 06, 2013 3:58 PM  

Is it any wonder why this moron is a laughing stock on the Internet?

So why are you here posting serious comments? Why do you enjoy seriously debating clowns?

If VD is a dipshit, what does that make you for taking his posts seriously?

Anonymous Daniel August 06, 2013 4:02 PM  

98 million were put at risk. There's no way to determine which of the "estimated" 30 million received the cancer-stimulant. Yes only 30 million within the 98 million are assumed to be exposed, but each of the 98 million has a percentage risk of exposure, while anyone outside of that 98 million has zero risk of exposure to that tainted line.

When six guys play Russian roulette, you don't say only the guy who bought the farm was at risk. They were all at risk.

Blogger Dwight House August 06, 2013 4:08 PM  

I haven't studied the science in this area specifically, but I have heard two things:
1. Every vaccines I've ever heard of has virtually eliminated the diseases it was designed to destroy in the populations where it was administered.
2. Cancer rates are going down and have been for some time.

Not saying someone couldn't make a bad vaccine, but I would hesitate to condemn all vaccines even if vaccines could be made badly or misused. Same thing for guns and their misuse.

Anonymous kh123 August 06, 2013 4:14 PM  

"Clinical equipoise": The stance one takes on a soapbox before ejecting copious amounts of horse sh*t.

Anonymous DrTorch August 06, 2013 4:35 PM  

Ok, since I ventured into this on another thread, I'll post my thought. I disagree with point iv, in VD's 3:53 remark.

Taking this as the definition of science:

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

I believe that epidemiology can be considered science. I know it can be done wrong, or the results stated incorrectly or interpreted incorrectly, but this is the point where I think VD is wrong.

There can be value from epidemiological studies done correctly. You're making analyzing observations that are simply not producible in a lab environment. That has drawbacks (lack of rigorous controls) but it has advantages too, and can lead to genuine scientific understanding.

There are lots of legit questions to ask about the business and politics behind vaccines...arguing that point about epidemiology isn't a beneficial strategy.

Anonymous Harsh August 06, 2013 4:37 PM  

"A meta-analysis of five published studies did not support the hypothesis that SV40 exposure increases the overall risk of cancer incidence or cancer mortality."

Doesn't that constitute epidemiology? Didn't VD school you on that topic already?

Is it any wonder why this moron is a laughing stock on the Internet?

If VD is a moron, then you are an incredibly cruel person who likes picking on morons, which kind of makes you a big fat douche.

Anonymous Harsh August 06, 2013 4:41 PM  

Isn't it "Angelina Jolie Voight Thornton Pitt" by now?

That seems about right. I'm sure she'll add a couple more before she's done.

Blogger tz August 06, 2013 4:46 PM  

@ Dwight House
1. Every vaccines I've ever heard of has virtually eliminated the diseases it was designed to destroy in the populations where it was administered.

You've not heard of many then. In earlier threads Vox has pointed out that sanitation and other things has done more to eliminate diseases. Something like Smallpox that could be inoculated with cowpox (or earlier variolation) might make sense. But other ordinary means (e.g. quarantine during outbreaks) were more important.

There is a magical (I use that word intentionally) belief in vaccines. Just inject THE ACTUAL DISEASE along with toxic waste and other biological contaminants and poof! Permanently immune!

Instead, the immunity often is limited or just doesn't work, and the side-effects are far more common and worse. The cure might not be worse than the disease, but the prevention in many if not most cases is.

Smallpox is horrible. If you aren't planning to give your infant up to have sex, vaccines against STDs are madness. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella aren't life threatening in 2013 (except to the babies of pregnant women). And they keep finding mild things to vaccinate against. What next, hundreds of strains of the common cold given to newborns? Something to stop dandruff, jock-itch, and athlete's foot?

The question is what would happen if we did NOT vaccinate for all these things widely? If we vaccinate 100 million with a 1% bad outcome rate, that is 1 million. If only 1 million get the disease with a 1% bad outcome (again, remember 2013 medicine), that is only 10,000.

Blogger tz August 06, 2013 4:55 PM  

@Dr Torch

Epidemiology can only provide data. What happened, not what WOULD have happened if things were different. The conclusions cannot be "science" in the sense most use the word.

If you take several sets of epidemiological data, you might be able to draw a few conclusions, but usually even those are tainted because the course of the disease isn't the same. Noroviri on cruise ships aren't the same as in a city.

Epidemiologists are not unlike economists trying to measure the GDP, unemployment, or something else. They have enough trouble getting just the raw data right, but the actual evil is with this data, there are people who will twist it and draw conclusions.

But to take a simple example, is there an abortion - breast cancer link? There is evidence for a cause (breast tissue multiplying but not transforming to provide milk given the sudden interruption). And the epidemiology shows it. But it is a hot political topic (Worse, I'm concerned that women will NOT get extra tests which ARE called for if they are in a higher risk group).

Anonymous DrTorch August 06, 2013 5:01 PM  

Epidemiology can only provide data. What happened, not what WOULD have happened if things were different. The conclusions cannot be "science" in the sense most use the word.

I disagree. The whole point of doing epidemiological studies is to identify those circumstances where A happened instead of B, and leading to a conclusion that B WOULD have happened if those circumstances were right.

It's not an ideal approach. It can be done wrong. Even when done right, it may not give any answers. But at times it can and does give legit answers.

I'm making no claim as to whether any or all of the vaccination studies were done correctly.

Blogger GK Chesterton August 06, 2013 5:11 PM  

@tz,

While it is true that the review is not science the studies themselves could be as long as an outcome was predicted and either supported or falsified. I think VD reaches too far with (4).

This doesn't mean Phoenician succeeds, he's more interested in triumphalism than advancing a conversation. As to the 98 I see he has corrected himself, which is of course more than we'll see from Phoenician.

Anonymous Carlotta August 06, 2013 5:39 PM  

Fubar it will never get old. The Psalms and Daniel too. Genesis. I find it oh so interesting what the Talmud (the word of men) forbids in reading the word of the actual God.

Back on topic. How interesting it was removed. No retraction? Was it replaced with new reseach? Oh the good old days when journalists were pitbulls.

Anonymous VD August 06, 2013 6:14 PM  

I believe that epidemiology can be considered science.

How? Do you also believe that technical analysis of stock markets can be considered science? How about the statistical analysis of NFL games?

Anonymous VD August 06, 2013 6:16 PM  

While it is true that the review is not science the studies themselves could be as long as an outcome was predicted and either supported or falsified. I think VD reaches too far with (4).

No. They can be used to formulate hypotheses. But what you're missing is that they are being used as substitutes for testing, which is precisely what renders them non-scientific.

I mean, you would understand this if we were talking about interpreting chicken entrails instead of interpreting demographic patterns. But for some reason, the logic eludes you because it sounds sufficiently sciency.

Anonymous Susan August 06, 2013 6:56 PM  

Re Angelina Jolie

I believe you all are forgetting about her very first hubby, so I believe the current correct order is Angelina Jolie Voight Miller Thornton and soon to be Pitt. Of course, she has lived with him long enough that it might as well be Pitt.

Blogger GK Chesterton August 06, 2013 7:34 PM  

Are you positing that observational tests don't count? That is, Aristotle did no science?

Blogger GK Chesterton August 06, 2013 7:38 PM  

I should be more clear, observations of nature against inductive hypothesis?

Anonymous The other skeptic August 06, 2013 9:05 PM  

Another Obama supporter who likes killing people.

Blogger tz August 06, 2013 10:01 PM  

VD writes:

No. They can be used to formulate hypotheses. But what you're missing is that they are being used as substitutes for testing, which is precisely what renders them non-scientific.

I mean, you would understand this if we were talking about interpreting chicken entrails instead of interpreting demographic patterns. But for some reason, the logic eludes you because it sounds sufficiently sciency.


Exactly and well put. Testing here would have to be under controlled conditions. To my knowledge, it hasn't been done double-blind with animals (take some vaccine, a control and test group, vaccinate/placebo-with-toxic-waste and see how many die in each group from the "vaccine", then introduce the infection as it might be and see how many die from the infection.

A hypothesis from one epidemiological study cannot be validated by a second because you cannot control anything. It might be able to falsify something if you can isolate the myriad of other variables, but usually you can't draw anything conclusive. It might be a slightly different strain in a population with a different exposure. You won't have the same population (without prior exposure) exposed twice.

Blogger tz August 06, 2013 10:06 PM  

@GK - it depends on how narrow the observation of "nature" is. In this case (epidemiology) it is a chaotic spread of a disease that has so many variables you can only observe the collective whole, not any specific variable. You can observe what happens to individuals as they are infected (assuming you can watch them from the point of infection through incubation, through the progression). You can watch an "event to a population", but those are sui generous, it is like trying to draw conclusions about an ostrich from observing one hummingbird.

Perhaps if you consider epidemiology a continuum, there will be a point in the curve that is observation and "science", but it will be narrow and not produce very much useful "science".

Correlation is not causation - and epidemiology is about correlation.

Anonymous Desiderius August 06, 2013 10:07 PM  

"You say laughing stock, I say antifragile."

I'll go with oppositional/defiant.

When there is this much dark sarcasm in the classroom (of our current political discourse), the oppositional/defiant kid makes a lot of friends, regardless of the merits of his arguments.

If you don't like it, Phoenician, get to work on the dark sarcasm, not the kid leading the rebellion.

Blogger GK Chesterton August 06, 2013 10:16 PM  

I'll have to disagree then. You can compare groups in the field under rather uncontrolled conditions. Oddly by taking this definition I think you are ceding too much to your usual opponents.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 06, 2013 11:15 PM  

This is exactly what I was worried about in that previous blog post.

For those people worried about all the vaccines like tetanus, keep in mind:
a) All the vaccines are different.
b) There are different classes of vaccines.
c) It is one thing to give one vaccine at a time, quite another to give multiple doses concurrently.
d) Giving a fully grown consenting adult a vaccine is different than in babies in children.
e) The new vaccines are much less toxic than the old ones.

Josh, that's getting old.

WHY DO YOU HATE THE JOSH SO MUCH?!?


And a number of actual journalists (instead of the present set of U.S. cheerleaders with presidential knee-pads) have made a case that HIV was originally SIV (or Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) that got introduced into the African population around the Belgian Congo when a Polish scientist decided to play fast and loose with using chimpanzee kidneys to culture polio vaccine, which he then used to innoculate hundreds of thousands of Africans there.

Completely stupid. HIV and AIDS cases have been found now pre-dating vaccines. They just did not recognize them at the time, confusing them with pneumonia, respiratory failure, or something else.


Vox: No. They can be used to formulate hypotheses. But what you're missing is that they are being used as substitutes for testing, which is precisely what renders them non-scientific.

tz: hypothesis from one epidemiological study cannot be validated by a second because you cannot control anything. It might be able to falsify something if you can isolate the myriad of other variables, but usually you can't draw anything conclusive. It might be a slightly different strain in a population with a different exposure. You won't have the same population (without prior exposure) exposed twice.

Correlation is not causation - and epidemiology is about correlation.


In the old days you might have been correct, but there's a new field now called Molecular Epidemiology. There's your causation.

Blogger Bernard Brandt August 07, 2013 11:29 AM  

Completely stupid. HIV and AIDS cases have been found now pre-dating vaccines. They just did not recognize them at the time, confusing them with pneumonia, respiratory failure, or something else.

No, not stupid at all. The most similar SIV to HIV I is found in chimpanzees. While isolated cases of HIV/AIDS have been found as far back as 1956, most cases in Africa have been found post 1959.

The scientists in question who have been implicated in the transmission of AIDS in Africa were Hilary Koprowski and Stanley Plotkin. While I note that the Royal Academy of Science has allegedly exonerated them, I would suspect the fact that they were both present at the meeting, and had been known to be litigious, might have prompted the scientists at that meeting to see things Drs. Koprowski's and Plotkin's way.

I will note, however that in spite of the fact that Koprowski and Plotkin had later denied that chimpanzees were used in their experiments, the WHO Bulletin that documented their vaccination efforts indicated that the live vaccine that they administered to thousands of children in the Belgian Congo was derived from 45 monkeys and 5 chimpanzees. For more information on that score, try looking at this:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1960/Vol22/Vol22-No3-4/bulletin_1960_22%283-4%29_203-213.pdf

No, I do not think that the conjecture of a SIV to HIV transmission process by vaccine inoculation is stupid at all.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 07, 2013 6:04 PM  

No, not stupid at all. The most similar SIV to HIV I is found in chimpanzees.

BZZZT! Arsenic is similar to Germanium being next to each other on the Periodic Table, separated by one proton in the nucleus, yet they are completely different in properties.


While isolated cases of HIV/AIDS have been found as far back as 1956, most cases in Africa have been found post 1959.

That is out of date. Now it's the 1940s for Kinshasa, and speculation around 1908 +/- 10 years.


I will note, however that in spite of the fact that Koprowski and Plotkin had later denied that chimpanzees were used in their experiments, the WHO Bulletin that documented their vaccination efforts indicated that the live vaccine that they administered to thousands of children in the Belgian Congo was derived from 45 monkeys and 5 chimpanzees. For more information on that score, try looking at this:

Let me quote in a Swedish accent from The Girl With Dragon Tattoo:
"So what? People lie all the time."
"You're a useless fucking detective."


No, I do not think that the conjecture of a SIV to HIV transmission process by vaccine inoculation is stupid at all.

There's that "thinking thing" again. Maybe not stupid in 1990; stupid now in 2013.

Blogger Bernard Brandt August 07, 2013 6:26 PM  

You are amusing, Idle Spectator.

Pity that you are indulging in rhetoric at the expense of dialectic, or little things like being concerned with inquiry, or little matters such as the belief that there might be such a thing as the truth, or wishing to find out what it is.

You fail.

Anonymous Idle Spectator August 07, 2013 6:36 PM  

That was fast.

I really had hoped you had died of AIDS or gay-cancer or something.


Pity that you are indulging in rhetoric at the expense of dialectic,

I'm equally skilled at both, like an ambidextrous Esss-words-man, but I write for the lulz.


or little things like being concerned with inquiry, or little matters such as the belief that there might be such a thing as the truth, or wishing to find out what it is.

I read your PDF link. That's why I said you were a useless fucking detective. "Oh! HE used salt in his cooking! Surely that's where the hypertension came from..."


You fail.

Projection. Do you want to talk about it?

Blogger OmegaPaladin August 09, 2013 12:46 PM  

In my experience, there is most certainly training in the assessment of screening mechanisms and statistical math for the public health profession. There is also training on ethics, and I can tell you that no CDC administrator wants to have to explain the use of placebos in place of normal vaccines outside of documented clinical trials with informed consent. Medical ethics requires that medical treatments be tested against the best available treatment, even in clinical trials. After all, deliberately withholding treatment can have severe consequences.

Blogger Harold August 11, 2013 1:31 AM  

"Measles, Mumps, and Rubella aren't life threatening in 2013" Not to the vast majority of the U.S. population. But there are other bad side effects of getting measles. I live in an area with a lot of Amish- who don't vaccinate. Had a talk with a nurse the other day who was bitching about the Amish because of the high deafness rate in kids- caused by their getting measles instead of vaccinated. The google article I just read said only about 50 cases of measles are reported a year in the U.S. by the CDC. Apparently they don't get statistics from the Amish elders. My one county probably has more cases then that- but they are not recorded anywhere because the people with measles don't see doctors when they get them.

My kids have the full gamut of vaccinations. Statistics say it's safer. I had measles and mumps and chicken pox as a kid. I distinctly remember none of them were any fun. Luckily, I didn't get any of the nasty complications.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts