Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   12/08/21

      Thanks for visiting Cascadeclimbers.com.   Yep, we are still going!    Just put a new coat of paint on the site. Still the same old community of climbers, skiers, and people who love to get outdoors. Hope you had a great 2021, and wish you the best for 2022 and beyond.  Thanks again for stopping by.
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

Had Your Flu Shots Yet?

Recommended Posts

the Kevbone/Kimmo model of research:

 

Step 1: make some ridiculous claim

 

what was the ridiculous claim again?

 

still waiting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Kevbone/Kimmo model of research:

 

Step 1: make some ridiculous claim

 

what was the ridiculous claim again?

 

still waiting....

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You did it again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Kevbone/Kimmo model of research:

 

Step 1: make some ridiculous claim

 

what was the ridiculous claim again?

 

still waiting....

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You did it again!

 

and still waiting....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You did it again!

 

it's an anti-vaccine conspiracy, bob.

 

they are out to fool ya, but you're too smart for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it would take me a year to dissect all the misinformation that Kimmo has posted here. Needless to say this thread is as funny as it is scary when read by a scientist. Go get your flu vaccines folks.

 

are you a "scientist"? for reals?

 

if it would take you a year to dissect "all the misinformation", i'm sure you could dissect just a little in, say, 5 minutes? as long as it took you to post your assertions above?

 

Yeah I could, I didn't read the whole thread but I think I remember you proposing a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. This is a common trope of anti-vaccinationists and easy to refute so- a lesson in human subjects research...

First off, there are studies of vax vs. unvax that have not bolstered the claim that vaccines cause autism, overwhelm a child's immune system, or make them more susceptible to disease in any way. One problem with these studies is that youre looking at a small sample because the thousands of unvax children needed to determine a difference simply don't exist. Also, it's not the best comparison as your control(unvax) is very likely to be different (and possibly homogenous) in many ways to the experimental. This leads to problems with confounders and statistical inference of the results. The best study (and usually what antivaxers are clamoring for) would randomize subjects into a vax and unvax group. Why not? Two main reasons: One, the epidemiological studies up to this point show no reason to suspect vaccines cause autism. Even though there is no randomized study, there is a mountain of good evidence showing the theory to be implausible. Good luck finding the massive funding needed to do the study you want. Secondly, and more important, it would be highly unethical. For the control group, there is a very real personal risk(possible severe illness, permanent injury, or death from vaccine preventable diseases) as well as risk to the population (possible lowered herd immunity). Meanwhile, the experimental group is conferred a known benefit (an undeniable advantage of protection from vaccine-preventable illnesses). This would never pass a human subjects IRB. Regardless, these studies aren't warranted since research generally tries to build upon the evidence we already have and the evidence is overwhelmingly against a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

 

So, that took me more like 20 min cause I'm a slow at typing, but now any of the antivaxers here won't have to embarrass themselves in public forums anymore by dragging out the 'ol vax vs unvax study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I could, I didn't read the whole thread but I think I remember you proposing a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study. This is a common trope of anti-vaccinationists and easy to refute so- a lesson in human subjects research...

First off, there are studies of vax vs. unvax that have not bolstered the claim that vaccines cause autism, overwhelm a child's immune system, or make them more susceptible to disease in any way. One problem with these studies is that youre looking at a small sample because the thousands of unvax children needed to determine a difference simply don't exist. Also, it's not the best comparison as your control(unvax) is very likely to be different (and possibly homogenous) in many ways to the experimental. This leads to problems with confounders and statistical inference of the results. The best study (and usually what antivaxers are clamoring for) would randomize subjects into a vax and unvax group. Why not? Two main reasons: One, the epidemiological studies up to this point show no reason to suspect vaccines cause autism. Even though there is no randomized study, there is a mountain of good evidence showing the theory to be implausible. Good luck finding the massive funding needed to do the study you want. Secondly, and more important, it would be highly unethical. For the control group, there is a very real personal risk(possible severe illness, permanent injury, or death from vaccine preventable diseases) as well as risk to the population (possible lowered herd immunity). Meanwhile, the experimental group is conferred a known benefit (an undeniable advantage of protection from vaccine-preventable illnesses). This would never pass a human subjects IRB. Regardless, these studies aren't warranted since research generally tries to build upon the evidence we already have and the evidence is overwhelmingly against a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

 

So, that took me more like 20 min cause I'm a slow at typing, but now any of the antivaxers here won't have to embarrass themselves in public forums anymore by dragging out the 'ol vax vs unvax study.

 

 

i guess my 5 minute suggestion was a rather optimistic number, since 20 didn't produce much beyond a rather generic soliloquy on the subject....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Generic.

Because it's basic info that anyone in the medical field could jot down in a few minutes to answer your vax study question. I could tell you didn't have knowledge of how that worked- sorry I tried to take a few extra min to explain something so "generic". I cut it up into bite sized pieces for you but I guess you just don't like the way logic tastes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. Generic.

Because it's basic info that anyone in the medical field could jot down in a few minutes to answer your vax study question. I could tell you didn't have knowledge of how that worked- sorry I tried to take a few extra min to explain something so "generic". I cut it up into bite sized pieces for you but I guess you just don't like the way logic tastes...

 

you're right, i was a bit hasty with my dismissal of your post. i guess i was feeling a little emotive.

 

Yeah I could, I didn't read the whole thread but I think I remember you proposing a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study.

 

i don't recall proposing such a study. perhaps i did?

 

This is a common trope of anti-vaccinationists and easy to refute

 

i'm not sure a call for vax vs non-vax is easy to "refute", but one can certainly propose reasons why it hasn't been done yet. but let's not split hairs:

 

a lesson in human subjects research...

First off, there are studies of vax vs. unvax that have not bolstered the claim that vaccines cause autism, overwhelm a child's immune system, or make them more susceptible to disease in any way.

 

which studies?

 

One problem with these studies is that youre looking at a small sample because the thousands of unvax children needed to determine a difference simply don't exist.

 

really? you don't think "thousands" of non-vaccinated kids exist? i have a hard time believing that, and would love to see the source of your assertion. the way the "pro-vaccine in any and all situations" crowd yammers about the subject, you'd think there are un-vaccinated kids around every corner.

 

Also, it's not the best comparison as your control(unvax) is very likely to be different (and possibly homogenous) in many ways to the experimental. This leads to problems with confounders and statistical inference of the results.

 

yup, truly so. but when nothing else is available, might a sub-optimal approach be considered better than no approach at all?

 

The best study (and usually what antivaxers are clamoring for) would randomize subjects into a vax and unvax group. Why not? Two main reasons: One, the epidemiological studies up to this point show no reason to suspect vaccines cause autism. Even though there is no randomized study, there is a mountain of good evidence showing the theory to be implausible.

 

can you point to this mountain of evidence?

 

Good luck finding the massive funding needed to do the study you want.

 

definitely a big obstacle.

 

Secondly, and more important, it would be highly unethical. For the control group, there is a very real personal risk(possible severe illness, permanent injury, or death from vaccine preventable diseases) as well as risk to the population (possible lowered herd immunity).

 

i have a hard time imagining how such a study could be considered ethical. what parent would allow their child to either be vaccinated or not, based on chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, nordicpunk, you might be interested in the following. not sure where the study is now, since the recommendations were from 3 years ago, but a rather broad panel who worked up the outline:

 

On Tuesday, the Federal Government's leading immunization advisory panel unanimously approved a sweeping list of vaccine safety research recommendations for the US Department of Health and Human Services, including several that are directly or indirectly linked to the vaccine-autism debate.

 

further:

 

An "external expert committee," such as the Institute of Medicine, the NVAC said, should consider "strengths and weaknesses, ethical issues and feasibility, including timelines and cost" of various ways to study vaccinated, unvaccinated and possibly, partially vaccinated children or "children vaccinated by alternative immunization schedules."

 

Such studies should look at outcomes like biomarkers for immune and metabolic dysfunction (for example, autoimmunity and mitochondrial problems) plus "neurodevelopmental outcomes, allergies, asthma, immune-mediated diseases, and other developmental disabilities such as epilepsy, intellectual disability and learning disabilities," the panelists said.

 

link

 

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed you failed to post this salient point in the article:

 

The committee chose to comment specifically -- and only -- on the clinical outcome of ASD. "The relationship between vaccine exposure and autism/ASD is an area of intense public interest," the panelists said. But they were, "assured by the many epidemiological studies that have demonstrated no association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders in the general population."

 

And later in the article it points out that the only reason they are going to look at data is because of "some public interest". What a waste of money.

 

They should spend time looking into this more:

 

Autism

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent time working indirectly in the vaccine field. I have my own concerns and have certainly gone through some inner conflict on this topic. But I think that armchair scientists have made vaccines an unnecessary target for their ires.

 

Yesterday a study came out looking at Autism rates in relation to pollutant levels where the mother was located during embryonic development. They found those living closer to a freeway were more likely to be diagnosed with autism. Duh.

 

People by nature need to place blame, and it's a whole lot easier to blame a company then themselves. Every minute we as inhabiters of this planet dump millions of tons of harmful chemical and gases into the ecosystem and go along our merrily way, kicking the can down the road, ignoring what harm we are doing to not only ourselves but to every other innocent creature on this planet.

 

I left science for many reasons, but a large one was I didn't see the point in a cabinet full of chemicals that once released into the wild would kill more people then I was trying to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also a study showing obesity and autism. It clearly showed mothers carrying extra pounds were more likely to have children with autism. And you can propagate these studies ad nauseum. Studies like that are also a hefty business as well. Again- shitty diet, sedentary lifestyles, pollution are all contributing factors. Hence one more reason not to inject worthless shit into general public, since flu vaccines don't decrease the number of cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed you failed to post this salient point in the article:

 

The committee chose to comment specifically -- and only -- on the clinical outcome of ASD. "The relationship between vaccine exposure and autism/ASD is an area of intense public interest," the panelists said. But they were, "assured by the many epidemiological studies that have demonstrated no association between vaccination and autism spectrum disorders in the general population."

 

 

i didn't see it. which link and where?

 

interesting what else the same panel had to say:

 

The NVAC repeated the oft-quoted statement that, "the temporal occurrence of this regression and the vaccination schedule is not evidence of a causal relationship," but it added: "Regressive autism does fit the recommendations of the IOM (immunization) committee for further research in rigorously defined subsets of ASD."

 

Such studies might entail, "comparison of immune cytokine profiles between regressive and non-regressive ASD to screen for differential immune system profiles, or prospective vaccination response profiling in siblings of children with regressive ASD, a subpopulation who are at higher risk (somewhere between 3%-35% increased risk, depending on the study and number of siblings affected)," the NVAC wrote.

 

 

and further:

 

 

 

a second study, based on the same CDC data, "with improved methods," showed statistically significant associations not only with tics, but also speech and language delays. "Protective associations" with thimerosal were detected for other neuropsychological disorders, however. And a third study in the UK also suggested a relationship between thimerosal and tics, the NVAC said.

 

The CDC had proposed looking at thimerosal and tics and/or Tourette syndrome (the presence of both phonic and motor tics) and the NVAC agreed that this was appropriate.

 

But the vaccine experts at NVAC added: "Because two of the studies above also found associations between thimerosal and speech and language delay," these were also valid outcomes to study, and should be included.

 

And later in the article it points out that the only reason they are going to look at data is because of "some public interest". What a waste of money.

 

hah, funny. i don't think you really read or understood the report, if all you can glean from it is that the recommendations were entirely based on some superfluous public interest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hah, funny. i don't think you really read or understood the report, if all you can glean from it is that the recommendations were entirely based on some superfluous public interest.

 

Yea. Funny in a ha-ha sort of way:

 

From your link:

 

And though vaccination, "almost certainly does not account for the recent rise in ASD diagnoses," public concerns over vaccines, and the fact that ASD is such a common and severe disorder warrant, "additional study in well defined subpopulations."

 

Call it the "democratization of science." The very idea must drive some people to fits of apoplexy, but I see it as a healthy sign of a responsive -- and responsible -- government.

 

Translation: There is no evidence here by to pacify the wackos we'll look at clinical data - that has no significance because of extremely small datasets of organic-granola eating-don't vaccine my kid wackos so we can try and get them to STFU.

 

Love that term "democratization of science" like it's up for a vote. Shit - now all we need to do is put evolution up for a vote and be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

From your link:

 

And though vaccination, "almost certainly does not account for the recent rise in ASD diagnoses," public concerns over vaccines, and the fact that ASD is such a common and severe disorder warrant, "additional study in well defined subpopulations."

 

 

you cut the quote off just in time, since it goes on to say:

 

One reason for the "important" caveat about high-risk subgroups, the NVAC wrote, was "recent case studies and research reports around the incidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in children with ASD," which have been estimated at somewhere between 7%-to-30% of all ASD children, and possibly higher among children who regressed following normal development.

 

In December, researchers from Cleveland Clinic, Harvard and Johns Hopkins Univeristy wrote in PLoS Online that mitochondrial dysfunction "may be present in a substantial percentage of children with ASD." And they said there "might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases, which are known precipitants of mitochondrial regression."

 

 

yup, nothing to see here. right, jim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you cut the quote off just in time, since it goes on to say:

 

One reason for the "important" caveat about high-risk subgroups, the NVAC wrote, was "recent case studies and research reports around the incidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in children with ASD," which have been estimated at somewhere between 7%-to-30% of all ASD children, and possibly higher among children who regressed following normal development.

 

In December, researchers from Cleveland Clinic, Harvard and Johns Hopkins Univeristy wrote in PLoS Online that mitochondrial dysfunction "may be present in a substantial percentage of children with ASD." And they said there "might be no difference between the inflammatory or catabolic stress of vaccinations and that of common childhood diseases, which are known precipitants of mitochondrial regression."

 

 

yup, nothing to see here. right, jim?

 

Do you know what you are reading?? It says that ASD may be associated with ICS - so what?? then goes on to comment on the "no difference in ICS and childhood diseases - all prefaced by the comment that there is NO EVIDENCE relating all this to vaccines. WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know what you are reading?? It says that ASD may be associated with ICS - so what?? then goes on to comment on the "no difference in ICS and childhood diseases - all prefaced by the comment that there is NO EVIDENCE relating all this to vaccines. WTF?

 

oh boy. this is difficult for you, isn't it.

 

it then goes on to state:

 

"Large population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies," the authors wrote, and it looks like members of the NVAC concur.

 

Mitochondrial dysfunction, "carries an established risk of brain damage subsequent to infectious disease," the NVAC wrote. "Thus, a small and specific subset of the general population (such as those with mitochondrial dysfunction) may be at elevated risk of reduced neurological functioning, possibly including developing ASD, subsequent to live virus vaccination."

 

is this really that hard, jim?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd strongly suggest you read the online article rather than an obvious proponent's opinion piece of vaccine wacko theory. The study include a whopping 25 patients - one (1!!) of which had some ASD issues who had a recent vaccine and:

 

Although there may have been a temporal relationship of the events in this case, such timing does not prove causation.
No shit!

 

Friggin' A. This is what the vaccine wackos are banging on the door about? 1) There is no evidence of a relationship between vaccines and autisim (period. 0. nada). 2) for some small, yet undefined group with ASD, there is a relationship with mitochondria disease, and 3) one person with in the study group of 25 had mitochondria disease and also had a recent vaccine!

 

Wow. That settles it for me. Now on to the chem trail discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Although there may have been a temporal relationship of the events in this case, such timing does not prove causation.
No shit!

 

oh, now i see the problem. even though no one was claiming vaccines to be causative, you somehow read they were!

 

ok, just a minor reading comprehension problem, folks. nothing to get worked up about.

 

did you continue reading to the part where the researchers from Cleveland Clinic, harvard, and johns hopkins university stated "Large population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies"

 

i'd strongly suggest you read the online article. and actually pay attention this time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh wait, these "scientists" were saying additional studies were needed because it had already been proven that there was NO ASSOCIATION between any asd cases and vaccinations! yeah that's right, cuz they are the opposite scientists, the type that say the opposite of everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×