The Gaming Den

Actually, you can have the allergic reaction from disease vectors you've encountered 'naturally'.

However, it's hard to count these or know what they're from. Your body doesn't exactly say when it's screwing up and eating itself.

But a large number of allergies are just 'unknown'. Which is why if you survive one of the unknowns, they tend to want to test you for their knowns.

...And without modern treatment, those allergic people would just be sickly and die. Funny that.

-Crissa

Maj wrote:\Regardless, the lack of reaction was due to avoidance, not my allergy going away. I'm allergic enough to penicillin that a piece of cheese with the mold cut off will give me a horrible rash and the hives for three or four days.

Weird and unusual! And sucky. Eating blue cheese dressing is a sign of real class and higher empathy (there was a study done of customers and what they ordered vs how waitstaff rated them. Blue cheese eaters tipped higher than average, thousand island eater tipped below average.) That would put you in a millionth of the already smaller pool 'those allergic to penicillin'

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

mean_liar wrote:3. There is an entirely absent quantification of the risks associated with vaccination insofar as its relationship to longterm autoimmune diseases and/or other unexplained medical conditions whose incidence rates have been otherwise inexplicably rising.

You keep saying this. What's your proof? Where's your evidence?

Actually, I'd task you to find it. I couldn't and can't. If there's any substantial body of longitudinal studies comparing autoimmune disorder (+others) frequency between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, I haven't seen it. Go on, try and find some.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

mean_liar wrote:In combination with #2 there's a strong case for rare, individual dissension from conventional vaccination regimes. That's not railing against Big Science or pseudoscience, it's asking for Big Science to get off its ass to provide basic answers on a ubiquitous medical regime.

No offense, but I'm going to put my faith in Big Science instead of what a bunch of fucking conspiracy theory kooks from the internet have to say.

Way to say absolutely nothing. The herd immunity link earlier spelled it out for you already, as well as the discussion on US diphtheria rates. If 3% of the population in the US lacks immunity to diphtheria and there's so few cases of it, making it 3%+1 does not present a substantial change to the chance of an outbreak or even an individual's chance of exposure and infection.

I'll reiterate that I'm not entirely anti-vaccine - my main problem is with the rapidity and frequency of injections in light of their known causation of autoimmune disorders, and the growing incidence rates of autoimmune disorders in the population at large.

Rubella is a low-risk vaccination that females should consider in their early adolescence, for example.

However, vaccinating for something as trivial as chicken pox seems unnecessary in light of the unknown risk factors.

mean_liar wrote:Actually, I'd task you to find it. I couldn't and can't. If there's any substantial body of longitudinal studies comparing autoimmune disorder (+others) frequency between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, I haven't seen it. Go on, try and find some.

You're going to task *me* to do your research? Fuck you. If you want to convince rational people that we should stop vaccinating Americans for diphtheria (or any other disease, for that matter), you're going to have to 1) prove that vaccinations are in fact related to autoimmune disorders and 2) come up with a better solution for the issue then "stop the vaccinations and raise the roof, because Papa Nurgle is in the motherfucking house".

mean_liar wrote:Way to say absolutely nothing. The herd immunity link earlier spelled it out for you already, as well as the discussion on US diphtheria rates. If 3% of the population in the US lacks immunity to diphtheria and there's so few cases of it, making it 3%+1 does not present a substantial change to the chance of an outbreak or even an individual's chance of exposure and infection.

Except for the fact that you are totally and completely wrong. Did you even bother to read what Frank and I posted earlier regarding what happened when the former Soviet Union stopped providing diphtheria vaccinations? If you stop vaccinating people for diphtheria, people die from diphtheria. It's a proven fact. It's already happened. I don't know how much clearer anyone else in this thread can put it.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

mean_liar wrote:Actually, I'd task you to find it. I couldn't and can't. If there's any substantial body of longitudinal studies comparing autoimmune disorder (+others) frequency between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, I haven't seen it. Go on, try and find some.

You're going to task *me* to do your research? Fuck you. If you want to convince rational people that we should stop vaccinating Americans for diphtheria (or any other disease, for that matter), you're going to have to 1) prove that vaccinations are in fact related to autoimmune disorders and 2) come up with a better solution for the issue then "stop the vaccinations and raise the roof, because Papa Nurgle is in the motherfucking house".

Unfortunately, THE RESEARCH DOESN'T EXIST. (EDIT: Not conclusively, anyway). What the fuck do you want, a link to a Google page with no results?


EDIT: Enjoy!

You know what you do get? Shit like this:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/318/7192/1173

"Although unadjusted analyses showed significant
associations (asthma at 69-81 months, P = 0.05; doctor
diagnosed asthma, 91months, P = 0.005), it should be noted that,
because of small numbers in some groups, the confidence intervals
were wide and the results did not support the hypothesis.
When we adjusted for potential confounding factors we detected
no significant associations (P = 0.1-0.8)."

So, no correlation after adjustment. By the way, the data shows an adjusted P < 0.005 for asthma at 91 months with 30-200% increased incidence of asthma, so... yeah. Not sure why they wrote the conclusion that way.


Or this:

http://tinyurl.com/yfq2zg6

"Conclusions: DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect."


Or this:

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... t/72/1/113

"These results suggest that simultaneous exposure to Th2-inducing vaccine components and allergenic proteins may be a risk factor for allergic sensitization and the development of asthma in susceptible individuals."


Or this:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/co ... t/94/6/985

"Results. We found an association between vaccination and the development of allergic disease; however, this association was present only among children with the fewest physician visits and can be explained by this factor.

Conclusions. Our data suggest that currently recommended routine vaccinations are not a risk factor for asthma or eczema."

Their data had an association until they decided it didn't. Whew - that was close!


Or this:

http://tinyurl.com/yg8d5ct

"Results
Among 11, 531 children who received at least 4 doses of DPT, the risk of asthma was reduced to ½ in children whose first dose of DPT was delayed by more than 2 months. The likelihood of asthma in children with delays in all 3 doses was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18-0.86).

Conclusion
We found a negative association between delay in administration of the first dose of whole-cell DPT immunization in childhood and the development of asthma; the association was greater with delays in all of the first 3 doses. The mechanism for this phenomenon requires further research."


And then another equal amount contradicting the above.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Except for the fact that you are totally and completely wrong. Did you even bother to read what Frank and I posted earlier regarding what happened when the former Soviet Union stopped providing diphtheria vaccinations? If you stop vaccinating people for diphtheria, people die from diphtheria. It's a proven fact. It's already happened. I don't know how much clearer anyone else in this thread can put it.

Read #3 with me, will you? It's fun!

"a strong case for rare, individual dissension"

Let's do it again!

"a strong case for rare, individual dissension"

One more time?

"a strong case for rare, individual dissension"

Rare. Individual. Does that sound like systemic rejection? I don't know. Let's look at it again.

"a strong case for rare, individual dissension"

Hm. Nope. Still rare and individual. Maybe if we look at it again?

"a strong case for rare, individual dissension"

Damn. Still there.

So besides dodging the part in #1 and #4 about the demographic similarity of the infected populations in the NIS as well as the very specific instructions given once and then elucidated, what the fuck else are you doing here? Get the fuck out.

Let's check this out:

mean_liar wrote:The herd immunity link earlier spelled it out for you already, as well as the discussion on US diphtheria rates. If 3% of the population in the US lacks immunity to diphtheria and there's so few cases of it, making it 3%+1 does not present a substantial change to the chance of an outbreak or even an individual's chance of exposure and infection.

OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT +1 DOING THERE HOLY SHIT IT MUST MEAN 100% OR SOMETHING.

Eat a bag of dick.

mean_liar wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:

mean_liar wrote:Actually, I'd task you to find it. I couldn't and can't. If there's any substantial body of longitudinal studies comparing autoimmune disorder (+others) frequency between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, I haven't seen it. Go on, try and find some.

You're going to task *me* to do your research? Fuck you. If you want to convince rational people that we should stop vaccinating Americans for diphtheria (or any other disease, for that matter), you're going to have to 1) prove that vaccinations are in fact related to autoimmune disorders and 2) come up with a better solution for the issue then "stop the vaccinations and raise the roof, because Papa Nurgle is in the motherfucking house".

Unfortunately, THE RESEARCH DOESN'T EXIST. What the fuck do you want, a link to a Google page with no results?

Tell you what, show me the fuck up. Post a PubMed link and laugh in my face. Point and chuckle. If it's there and there's say, a few hits, fuck, don't I look stupid. Otherwise you're asking me to prove a fucking negative and it doesn't work like that.

Man up and actually do something other than vomit tautologies and not read anything I'm writing.

You know what else there is no research on?

The possible correlation between seeing the color purple and turning into a badger.

Do you know why?

Because nobody with any medical knowledge thinks that has any bearing either.

The fact that no studies of vaccinations on auto immune disorders shows that people with:

1) Knowledge of the figures on auto-immune disorders.
2) Knowledge of what auto-immune disorders are.
3) Knowledge of Vaccines.

Has thought that it was even worth studying.

Now, you have two options here:

1) It's part of a vast Big Pharma secret conspiracy to never investigate the evil vaccines.

2) People with actual statistics and medical degrees and knowledge of reality, when presented with some crazy fucking kook talking about the evil auto-immune disorder increase, can look at the information and see that auto-immune disorders started their current rise in year X, whereas the evil vaccination schedule started in Year Y, which is after year X.

Or one of the hundred and twelve other ways they can determine that these have nothing to do with each other.

Or they could just look at the figures and realize that the evil drastic auto-immune increase is seriously like an extra 30-50 cases over the expected number via basic population growth.

Or maybe, just maybe, auto immune disorders occur because we don't use our immune system, so people who never come into contact with the virus at all, and don't get vaccinated have a drastically higher auto-immune rate than vaccinated people.

The fact of the matter is that people with actual knowledge, IE, not you, have decided it is not worth doing such studies. You have presented exactly zero evidence that it is.

You seriously have presented not a single shred of evidence that auto-immune infections are actually on the rise.

I genuinely would not be surprised if when I did your research for you, and looked for trends in auto-immune disorders, that I would find them falling relative to population, because you have proven to be so wrong about everything that it appears the universe itself is purposefully altering itself to make you more wrong.

Edited my previous post to give you links. Enjoy!

Since they disagree with your tautology we can disregard them though. Whew! That was close!

Seriously, I've been actually responding to these arguments, sometimes well and sometimes poorly but always with links and always with supporting documentation. If I'm wrong I correct myself and admit mistakes, but your "NO U" crap is just bullshit.


...



http://tinyurl.com/yg8d5ct

"Results
Among 11, 531 children who received at least 4 doses of DPT, the risk of asthma was reduced to ½ in children whose first dose of DPT was delayed by more than 2 months. The likelihood of asthma in children with delays in all 3 doses was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18-0.86).

Conclusion
We found a negative association between delay in administration of the first dose of whole-cell DPT immunization in childhood and the development of asthma; the association was greater with delays in all of the first 3 doses. The mechanism for this phenomenon requires further research."


That one's my favorite.

Mean Liar,

What the fuck would the option for rare individuals to opt out of vaccination have to do with the rise of autoimmune disorders.

Let's grant, even though there's no reason to, that a miniscule percentage of kids would get athsma or autism or AIDS from their vaccines. That would still be worth it, but more importantly, there'd be no reason to think it was particularly likely to happen TO YOU.

Individuals would be irrational to opt out of vaccinations because of a small chance of side effects, and if enough people opted out to have any effect on those effects, countless more would die.

Orion et all,

I think mean_liar is actually Bill O'rielly or Glenn Beck trying to sneak into the gaming populace to turn them into Fox News zombies

Kaelik wrote:You seriously have presented not a single shred of evidence that auto-immune infections are actually on the rise.

I genuinely would not be surprised if when I did your research for you, and looked for trends in auto-immune disorders, that I would find them falling relative to population, because you have proven to be so wrong about everything that it appears the universe itself is purposefully altering itself to make you more wrong.

Oh shit I guess the NIH is against Big Science too.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/925496/Prog ... e-Research

"Though each of the autoimmune diseases is relatively rare, as a group they are among the most prevalent in the United States, affecting between 14.7 and 23.5 million people – up to eight percent of the population. They also are a leading cause of death among young and middle-aged women. For reasons that are poorly understood, the incidence and prevalence of autoimmune diseases is rising."

I posted this earlier (read it yourself for fun and profit on p8) but hey, I guess since it conflicts with your assumptions its full of shit. What's notable is that the US uses more vaccinations than any other country and has the highest prevalence, but hey that's probably just some NIH bullshit to fight Big Science on behalf of Nurgle. Or something. Those crazy kooks at the NIH!

Have some more!

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/346/22/1749
http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/ea/0 ... 16s3.1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/yesxtsg
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/5
http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/citation/73/8/578
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/jour ... 6/abstract

Those are all a bunch of bullshit websites though, because I linked to them.

Orion wrote:Mean Liar,

What the fuck would the option for rare individuals to opt out of vaccination have to do with the rise of autoimmune disorders.

I have no idea. I think you're conflating points I presented. If I wasn't clear, I apologize.

Rise of autoimmune disorders is a strange thing that hasn't found its sourcing yet. Environmental toxicity is the general guess but that's a bullshit answer with no specificity.

Opting out to possibly avoid those effects in cases where there's no real individual downside (say, with chicken pox) avoids unknowns as well as known risks.

Let's grant, even though there's no reason to, that a miniscule percentage of kids would get athsma or autism or AIDS from their vaccines.

http://tinyurl.com/yfq2zg6

"Conclusions: DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect."


Or this:

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... t/72/1/113

"These results suggest that simultaneous exposure to Th2-inducing vaccine components and allergenic proteins may be a risk factor for allergic sensitization and the development of asthma in susceptible individuals."


Thanks for posting!

That would still be worth it, but more importantly, there'd be no reason to think it was particularly likely to happen TO YOU.

Individuals would be irrational to opt out of vaccinations because of a small chance of side effects, and if enough people opted out to have any effect on those effects, countless more would die.

Actually, given that some (maybe all! Holy shit, I could be wrong - no one else knows what this feels like of course) of the risks of vaccination are ID'd, and say, diphtheria isn't really an American problem, one person can forego the vaccine and sidestep the tiny chance of, say, death from the vaccine. It's not irrational from an individual's perspective, given the incidence rates. If they're traveling to the NIS it's still a good idea.

Yes, there is a critical mass of opt-outs that would cause the system to collapse. Judging by the reactions on this thread I doubt that would actually happen.

Gosh, ml, have you thought that maybe the mortality rate (which is higher in the unvaccinated population) might cover up minor differences like allergies?

If the ozone layer depleted, more people with blue eyes would become seeing impaired. But more of them might die first, too. If we didn't hide them from the glaring rays of the sun, I don't think we'd ever get to see the seeing-impaired statistics at all 'cause they've be totally dying from burn-related disease and skin cancer long before it. But in your case, you'd argue people should risk death because they might see better in the long run.

WTF, man, priorities. Not dying now is a high one. Higher than, 'oops, I have an allergy that might kill me in this really specific and easy to avoid situation.'

-Crissa

Yes, mortality rate will cover up the differences. But what about non-lethal diseases? I mean, I know this topic hasn't been dragging on for pages so you may have missed it, especially where the only reason diphtheria as the only consistently lethal disease is coming up is because of an argument over the probability of an outbreak in the US, but what about them?

It's also more than asthma and allergies that we could be talking about. It's crohn's disease, thyroid disfunction, rheumatoid arthritis and a host of other problems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1988 ... dinalpos=2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1988 ... dinalpos=3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1986 ... dinalpos=5

A lot of research says there's no link between individual autoimmune disorders and vaccines. There are also conflicting results, shown above. When experimentation results are some A and some not-A then it's reasonable to ask, "which one"?

Mean Liar wrote: Yes, mortality rate will cover up the differences. But what about non-lethal diseases?

There is no such thing as non-lethal disease. There are more lethal diseases and less lethal diseases. Diphtheria is an incredibly bad example for you, because the mortality rates are incredibly high (lower than the 22% for being shot, but higher than the 4% for being stabbed with a knife).

But even the mildest diseases have a mortality rate that is substantially higher than the mortality rate for being immunized against them. So the case is fairly open and shut. If a disease hasn't had its available reservoir destroyed, you should vaccinate against it.

-Username17

Well, people don't die from warts very often, but I'm sure there's some horrible edge case out there... There always is.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote:Well, people don't die from warts very often, but I'm sure there's some horrible edge case out there... There always is.

-Crissa

Are you kidding? Warts lead to significantly higher cancer risks. Those things will kill you. We have a wart vaccine now that is pretty effective and reduces uterine and anal cancers substantially. It's called Guardasil.

-Username17

Well, a vaccine to one type of wart. But I was being facetious.

And they ought to license that one for other than women, as well, because that would lower the infection pool and save even more people's lives (even if it isn't quote the demographic being vaccinated.)

But yeah, vaccine risk is so low that people totally would (and probably should) get them to target things which aren't fatal for themselves specifically.

-Crissa

FrankTrollman wrote:But even the mildest diseases have a mortality rate that is substantially higher than the mortality rate for being immunized against them. So the case is fairly open and shut. If a disease hasn't had its available reservoir destroyed, you should vaccinate against it.

Yes, diphtheria is a bad example for me. Assuming you don't travel to infected areas, in the US people are still safer not getting the vaccine.

However, you're assuming no risk associated with autoimmune reactions when you say that mild diseases pose no mortality threat relative to vaccination, and that's not an assumption that can currently be made.

With enough data or identifying confounders in the studies finding links then those concerns go away, but the research isn't there yet.

For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1974 ... dinalpos=3

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1711 ... rom=pubmed

FrankTrollman wrote:There is no such thing as non-lethal disease.

"A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs."

"Lethal is something that is capable of causing death to a living being."

tzor wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:There is no such thing as non-lethal disease.

"A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs."

"Lethal is something that is capable of causing death to a living being."

That being said, can you think of any diseases that are incapable of causing death to a living being?

Or even a piece of fruit, for that matter?

RobbyPants wrote:That being said, can you think of any diseases that are incapable of causing death to a living being?

That's a good question. It looks like most non-fatal stuff is generally called a "disorder" or "condition" as opposed to a "disease."

Seborrhoeic dermatitis (disorder)
Acne vulgaris (condition)
Arthritis (condition)
Erectile dysfunction (disfunction)

Wait ... I know I'm going somewhere with this.

GOT IT!

Peyronie's disease (aka "bent nail syndrone") is a properly named disease. It is definitely non fatal.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument, already in progress.

RobbyPants wrote:

tzor wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:There is no such thing as non-lethal disease.

"A disease or medical condition is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions, associated with specific symptoms and signs."

"Lethal is something that is capable of causing death to a living being."

That being said, can you think of any diseases that are incapable of causing death to a living being?

Ugly. That is a disease that doesn't directly kill you.

Mean Liar wrote:Yes, diphtheria is a bad example for me. Assuming you don't travel to infected areas, in the US people are still safer not getting the vaccine.

No. They are not. We have been over this. Not getting the vaccine involves thousands dead. This is an experiment that has been tried. Empirical data says go fuck yourself.

-Username17

Individuals can safely skip the immunization without threatening herd immunity, so go fuck yourself right back. Adverse reactions from DT(A)P are more common than the disease.