Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #462176 > unrolled thread

OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-29 09:05 -0700
    Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-05-29 09:24 -0700
      Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-29 12:56 -0700
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-05-29 14:22 -0700
          Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-29 17:32 -0700
            Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 18:25 -0700
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-29 14:24 -0700
          Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-29 17:35 -0700
            Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 19:05 -0700
              Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-30 12:43 -0700
                Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-30 13:16 -0700
                  Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-05-30 14:35 -0700
                  Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 19:19 -0700
              Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-05-31 13:35 +0100
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 18:13 -0700
    Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-29 18:09 -0700
    Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-05-30 11:35 -0700
      Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-30 12:11 -0700
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-30 19:19 -0700
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 07:14 -0700
          Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-31 21:31 -0700
            Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com - 2017-06-02 09:32 -0700
              Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-06-02 10:49 -0700
                Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-06-02 22:08 +0100
                  Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-06-05 13:45 -0700
                    Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-05 19:24 -0700
                Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-02 18:46 -0700
    Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-05-31 12:47 +1000
      Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-05-31 21:50 -0700
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-01 15:01 +1000
          Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Jamie M <jmorken@shaw.ca> - 2017-06-02 10:59 -0700
            Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-02 18:40 -0700
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2017-06-01 13:10 +0800
        Re: OT vaccines cause heart disease and are mandatory in some places bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-06-01 01:07 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#462532

On 5/31/2017 7:14 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 3:11:55 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 5/30/2017 11:35 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 12:05:22 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
>>>> causing heart disease.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> The study is most likely flawed for several reasons, the main one being it was not blind, the researchers actually knew the subjects. Secondly, the risk of CHD is a very strong function of the risk factors in the lifestyle of the individual and the history of those risk factors. Almost any kind of risk factor can make for a 5-10 increase of risk in developing CHD, and subjecting yourself to those risk factors has pretty much sealed your fate by age 40 regardless of abstinence from that point onward. In light of that kind of extreme sensitivity, those crummy little hazard ratios on the order of 0.9 are nearly insignificant. You show me a study where the risk factors were strictly and scientifically controlled. I suspect the researchers were not out to discover anything, they were out to prove childhood vaccination may not be such a good thing for CHD outcomes later in life.
>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Both studies show a link between vaccination and coronory heart disease.
>>
>> The aim of the study from Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital of
>> Lund, Lund, Sweden:
>>
>> "The aim of the study was to explore whether exposure to microbial
>> agents determines the prevalence of acute coronary events."
>>
>>
>> The aim of the study from Public Health, Department of Social Medicine,
>> Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan:
>>
>> "Although it has been suggested that exposure to infections during
>> childhood could decrease risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
>> (CVD), the evidence is scarce. We investigated the association of
>> measles and mumps with CVD."
>>
>> cheers,
>> Jamie
> 
> Assuming the scientific validity of the results, the takeaway should be that people with a history free of childhood infections should avoid lifestyle choices that increase their chances of developing CHD, and not that vaccination programs be discontinued. Actually avoiding lifestyles choices that increase the risk of CHD is a good plan whether vaccinated or not.
> 

Better takeaway rather than the isolation strategy you suggest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party

cheers,
Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462687

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:31:40 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/31/2017 7:14 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 3:11:55 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/30/2017 11:35 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 12:05:22 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
> >>>> causing heart disease.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers,
> >>>> Jamie
> >>>
> >>> The study is most likely flawed for several reasons, the main one being it was not blind, the researchers actually knew the subjects. Secondly, the risk of CHD is a very strong function of the risk factors in the lifestyle of the individual and the history of those risk factors. Almost any kind of risk factor can make for a 5-10 increase of risk in developing CHD, and subjecting yourself to those risk factors has pretty much sealed your fate by age 40 regardless of abstinence from that point onward. In light of that kind of extreme sensitivity, those crummy little hazard ratios on the order of 0.9 are nearly insignificant. You show me a study where the risk factors were strictly and scientifically controlled. I suspect the researchers were not out to discover anything, they were out to prove childhood vaccination may not be such a good thing for CHD outcomes later in life.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Both studies show a link between vaccination and coronory heart disease.
> >>
> >> The aim of the study from Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital of
> >> Lund, Lund, Sweden:
> >>
> >> "The aim of the study was to explore whether exposure to microbial
> >> agents determines the prevalence of acute coronary events."
> >>
> >>
> >> The aim of the study from Public Health, Department of Social Medicine,
> >> Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan:
> >>
> >> "Although it has been suggested that exposure to infections during
> >> childhood could decrease risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
> >> (CVD), the evidence is scarce. We investigated the association of
> >> measles and mumps with CVD."
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Jamie
> > 
> > Assuming the scientific validity of the results, the takeaway should be that people with a history free of childhood infections should avoid lifestyle choices that increase their chances of developing CHD, and not that vaccination programs be discontinued. Actually avoiding lifestyles choices that increase the risk of CHD is a good plan whether vaccinated or not.
> > 
> 
> Better takeaway rather than the isolation strategy you suggest:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party

You're saying that idiotic practice is better than health education?

> 
> cheers,
> Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462714

On 6/2/2017 9:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:31:40 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 5/31/2017 7:14 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 3:11:55 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
>>>> On 5/30/2017 11:35 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 12:05:22 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
>>>>>> causing heart disease.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers,
>>>>>> Jamie
>>>>>
>>>>> The study is most likely flawed for several reasons, the main one being it was not blind, the researchers actually knew the subjects. Secondly, the risk of CHD is a very strong function of the risk factors in the lifestyle of the individual and the history of those risk factors. Almost any kind of risk factor can make for a 5-10 increase of risk in developing CHD, and subjecting yourself to those risk factors has pretty much sealed your fate by age 40 regardless of abstinence from that point onward. In light of that kind of extreme sensitivity, those crummy little hazard ratios on the order of 0.9 are nearly insignificant. You show me a study where the risk factors were strictly and scientifically controlled. I suspect the researchers were not out to discover anything, they were out to prove childhood vaccination may not be such a good thing for CHD outcomes later in life.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Both studies show a link between vaccination and coronory heart disease.
>>>>
>>>> The aim of the study from Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital of
>>>> Lund, Lund, Sweden:
>>>>
>>>> "The aim of the study was to explore whether exposure to microbial
>>>> agents determines the prevalence of acute coronary events."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The aim of the study from Public Health, Department of Social Medicine,
>>>> Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan:
>>>>
>>>> "Although it has been suggested that exposure to infections during
>>>> childhood could decrease risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
>>>> (CVD), the evidence is scarce. We investigated the association of
>>>> measles and mumps with CVD."
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> Assuming the scientific validity of the results, the takeaway should be that people with a history free of childhood infections should avoid lifestyle choices that increase their chances of developing CHD, and not that vaccination programs be discontinued. Actually avoiding lifestyles choices that increase the risk of CHD is a good plan whether vaccinated or not.
>>>
>>
>> Better takeaway rather than the isolation strategy you suggest:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party
> 
> You're saying that idiotic practice is better than health education?

You are close just gotta fix your word order a bit:

"That practice is better than idiotic health education."



> 
>>
>> cheers,
>> Jamie
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462747

On 02/06/2017 18:49, Jamie M wrote:
> On 6/2/2017 9:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:31:40 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:

>>> Better takeaway rather than the isolation strategy you suggest:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party
>>
>> You're saying that idiotic practice is better than health education?
>
> You are close just gotta fix your word order a bit:
>
> "That practice is better than idiotic health education."

Try it with anthrax then!

-- 
Regards,
Martin Brown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#463132

On 6/2/2017 2:08 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 02/06/2017 18:49, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 6/2/2017 9:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:31:40 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> 
>>>> Better takeaway rather than the isolation strategy you suggest:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party
>>>
>>> You're saying that idiotic practice is better than health education?
>>
>> You are close just gotta fix your word order a bit:
>>
>> "That practice is better than idiotic health education."
> 
> Try it with anthrax then!
> 

"Inhalation (lung) anthrax is not spread from person to person. Even if
you develop symptoms of inhalation anthrax, you are not contagious to
other persons. If you develop cutaneous (skin) anthrax, the drainage
from an open sore presents a low risk of infection to others."

cheers,
Jamie

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#463193

On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 6:45:37 AM UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 6/2/2017 2:08 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> > On 02/06/2017 18:49, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 6/2/2017 9:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:31:40 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> > 
> >>>> Better takeaway rather than the isolation strategy you suggest:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party
> >>>
> >>> You're saying that idiotic practice is better than health education?
> >>
> >> You are close just gotta fix your word order a bit:
> >>
> >> "That practice is better than idiotic health education."
> > 
> > Try it with anthrax then! 
> 
> "Inhalation (lung) anthrax is not spread from person to person. Even if
> you develop symptoms of inhalation anthrax, you are not contagious to
> other persons. If you develop cutaneous (skin) anthrax, the drainage
> from an open sore presents a low risk of infection to others."

Try it anyway. There's not much chance that you will get anthrax and die, but we can hope.

Meanwhile the chances of getting a fatal case of measles from a "pox party" are a bit over 0.1%, and the kid you kill might be your own.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462816

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 3:49:41 AM UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 6/2/2017 9:32 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 12:31:40 AM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/31/2017 7:14 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 at 3:11:55 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>> On 5/30/2017 11:35 AM, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 12:05:22 PM UTC-4, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
> >>>>>> causing heart disease.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> cheers,
> >>>>>> Jamie
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The study is most likely flawed for several reasons, the main one being it was not blind, the researchers actually knew the subjects. Secondly, the risk of CHD is a very strong function of the risk factors in the lifestyle of the individual and the history of those risk factors. Almost any kind of risk factor can make for a 5-10 increase of risk in developing CHD, and subjecting yourself to those risk factors has pretty much sealed your fate by age 40 regardless of abstinence from that point onward. In light of that kind of extreme sensitivity, those crummy little hazard ratios on the order of 0.9 are nearly insignificant. You show me a study where the risk factors were strictly and scientifically controlled. I suspect the researchers were not out to discover anything, they were out to prove childhood vaccination may not be such a good thing for CHD outcomes later in life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Both studies show a link between vaccination and coronory heart disease.
> >>>>
> >>>> The aim of the study from Pediatric Cardiology, University Hospital of
> >>>> Lund, Lund, Sweden:
> >>>>
> >>>> "The aim of the study was to explore whether exposure to microbial
> >>>> agents determines the prevalence of acute coronary events."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The aim of the study from Public Health, Department of Social Medicine,
> >>>> Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Although it has been suggested that exposure to infections during
> >>>> childhood could decrease risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
> >>>> (CVD), the evidence is scarce. We investigated the association of
> >>>> measles and mumps with CVD."
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers,
> >>>> Jamie
> >>>
> >>> Assuming the scientific validity of the results, the takeaway should be that people with a history free of childhood infections should avoid lifestyle choices that increase their chances of developing CHD, and not that vaccination programs be discontinued. Actually avoiding lifestyles choices that increase the risk of CHD is a good plan whether vaccinated or not.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Better takeaway rather than the isolation strategy you suggest:
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pox_party
> > 
> > You're saying that idiotic practice is better than health education?
> 
> You are close just gotta fix your word order a bit:
> 
> "That practice is better than idiotic health education."

Possibly true, to the extent that "pox parties" are only one of the dangerous consequences of the  kind of idiotic health education  that you try to deliver here. Real health education, delivered by people who know what they are talking about, isn't idiotic. You don't accept that, but that's because you have some remarkably foolish - and dangerous - misconceptions.

In a perfect world you'd have been locked up years ago for reckless child endangerment, but it's not the kind of crime the police enjoy prosecuting.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462389

On 30/05/2017 2:05 AM, Jamie M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
> causing heart disease.
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
>
> cheers,
> Jamie

These kinds of studies are always difficult to interpret. The sample 
populations necessarily exclude those who died from the complications of 
childhood illnesses. Vaccinations return to the population people who 
would otherwise have died, so when you see higher rates of heart disease 
in those populations, one possibility is that a predisposition to dying 
from childhood illnesses is causally related in some way to a 
predisposition to heart disease. That is, that the vaccines are not in 
fact causing the heart disease at all, but rather are allowing more 
people with a disposition towards heart disease to live long enough to 
suffer the effects.

Now, that may not be what's happening, but it's a reasonable 
possibility. Correlation does not always imply causation.

In any case, using such results to suggest avoidance of vaccines is like 
suggesting one not visit the doctor because one might be killed on the 
journey. One needs to look at the relative risks and benefits.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462533

On 5/30/2017 7:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/05/2017 2:05 AM, Jamie M wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
>> causing heart disease.
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
>>
>> cheers,
>> Jamie
> 
> These kinds of studies are always difficult to interpret. The sample 
> populations necessarily exclude those who died from the complications of 
> childhood illnesses. Vaccinations return to the population people who 
> would otherwise have died, so when you see higher rates of heart disease 
> in those populations, one possibility is that a predisposition to dying 
> from childhood illnesses is causally related in some way to a 
> predisposition to heart disease. That is, that the vaccines are not in 
> fact causing the heart disease at all, but rather are allowing more 
> people with a disposition towards heart disease to live long enough to 
> suffer the effects.
> 
> Now, that may not be what's happening, but it's a reasonable 
> possibility. Correlation does not always imply causation.
> 
> In any case, using such results to suggest avoidance of vaccines is like 
> suggesting one not visit the doctor because one might be killed on the 
> journey. One needs to look at the relative risks and benefits.
> 

The study's results add to the existing body of evidence that vaccines
cause harm in different ways.  These aren't new findings, just a
verification of pre existing evidence.

cheers,
Jamie



> Sylvia.
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462534

On 1/06/2017 2:50 PM, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/30/2017 7:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 30/05/2017 2:05 AM, Jamie M wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
>>> causing heart disease.
>>>
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
>>>
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Jamie
>>
>> These kinds of studies are always difficult to interpret. The sample
>> populations necessarily exclude those who died from the complications
>> of childhood illnesses. Vaccinations return to the population people
>> who would otherwise have died, so when you see higher rates of heart
>> disease in those populations, one possibility is that a predisposition
>> to dying from childhood illnesses is causally related in some way to a
>> predisposition to heart disease. That is, that the vaccines are not in
>> fact causing the heart disease at all, but rather are allowing more
>> people with a disposition towards heart disease to live long enough to
>> suffer the effects.
>>
>> Now, that may not be what's happening, but it's a reasonable
>> possibility. Correlation does not always imply causation.
>>
>> In any case, using such results to suggest avoidance of vaccines is
>> like suggesting one not visit the doctor because one might be killed
>> on the journey. One needs to look at the relative risks and benefits.
>>
>
> The study's results add to the existing body of evidence that vaccines
> cause harm in different ways.  These aren't new findings, just a
> verification of pre existing evidence.

All analyses that look at historical data suffer from the same limitation.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462717

On 5/31/2017 10:01 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 1/06/2017 2:50 PM, Jamie M wrote:
>> On 5/30/2017 7:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2017 2:05 AM, Jamie M wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
>>>> causing heart disease.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
>>>>
>>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Jamie
>>>
>>> These kinds of studies are always difficult to interpret. The sample
>>> populations necessarily exclude those who died from the complications
>>> of childhood illnesses. Vaccinations return to the population people
>>> who would otherwise have died, so when you see higher rates of heart
>>> disease in those populations, one possibility is that a predisposition
>>> to dying from childhood illnesses is causally related in some way to a
>>> predisposition to heart disease. That is, that the vaccines are not in
>>> fact causing the heart disease at all, but rather are allowing more
>>> people with a disposition towards heart disease to live long enough to
>>> suffer the effects.
>>>
>>> Now, that may not be what's happening, but it's a reasonable
>>> possibility. Correlation does not always imply causation.
>>>
>>> In any case, using such results to suggest avoidance of vaccines is
>>> like suggesting one not visit the doctor because one might be killed
>>> on the journey. One needs to look at the relative risks and benefits.
>>>
>>
>> The study's results add to the existing body of evidence that vaccines
>> cause harm in different ways.  These aren't new findings, just a
>> verification of pre existing evidence.
> 
> All analyses that look at historical data suffer from the same limitation.

You prefer to doubt causality rather than admit vaccines are dangerous?

cheers,
Jamie




> 
> Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462814

On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 3:59:21 AM UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/31/2017 10:01 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 1/06/2017 2:50 PM, Jamie M wrote:
> >> On 5/30/2017 7:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>> On 30/05/2017 2:05 AM, Jamie M wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
> >>>> causing heart disease.
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
> >>>>
> >>>> cheers,
> >>>> Jamie
> >>>
> >>> These kinds of studies are always difficult to interpret. The sample
> >>> populations necessarily exclude those who died from the complications
> >>> of childhood illnesses. Vaccinations return to the population people
> >>> who would otherwise have died, so when you see higher rates of heart
> >>> disease in those populations, one possibility is that a predisposition
> >>> to dying from childhood illnesses is causally related in some way to a
> >>> predisposition to heart disease. That is, that the vaccines are not in
> >>> fact causing the heart disease at all, but rather are allowing more
> >>> people with a disposition towards heart disease to live long enough to
> >>> suffer the effects.
> >>>
> >>> Now, that may not be what's happening, but it's a reasonable
> >>> possibility. Correlation does not always imply causation.
> >>>
> >>> In any case, using such results to suggest avoidance of vaccines is
> >>> like suggesting one not visit the doctor because one might be killed
> >>> on the journey. One needs to look at the relative risks and benefits.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The study's results add to the existing body of evidence that vaccines
> >> cause harm in different ways.  These aren't new findings, just a
> >> verification of pre existing evidence.
> > 
> > All analyses that look at historical data suffer from the same limitation.
> 
> You prefer to doubt causality rather than admit vaccines are dangerous?

The problem is that your evidence didn't establish that vaccines caused damage.

People who had been vaccinated were more likely to live long enough to get heart disease, but that's vaccines preventing fatal damage, rather than doing anything active to promote heart disease.

Not getting vaccinated is clearly a dangerous choice - if you don't do it you are more likely to die of the disease you have been vaccinated against. There are minor risks from vaccination, but they are a couple of orders of magnitude less than the risks from getting the disease you are being vaccinated against.

https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

For every 1,000 children who get measles, one or two will die from it.

This isn't a big risk, but it's a lot more likely than any kind of serious vaccine side-effect.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462536

AT Thursday 01 June 2017 12:50, Jamie M wrote:

[...]
> 
> The study's results add to the existing body of evidence that vaccines
> cause harm in different ways.  These aren't new findings, just a
> verification of pre existing evidence.
> 
> cheers,
> Jamie

s/pre/non/

-- 
Reinhardt

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#462540

On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 2:50:12 PM UTC+10, Jamie M wrote:
> On 5/30/2017 7:47 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 30/05/2017 2:05 AM, Jamie M wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Here are a couple studies showing the danger of vaccines related to
> >> causing heart disease.
> >>
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16780845
> >>
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122188
> >>
> >> cheers,
> >> Jamie
> > 
> > These kinds of studies are always difficult to interpret. The sample 
> > populations necessarily exclude those who died from the complications of 
> > childhood illnesses. Vaccinations return to the population people who 
> > would otherwise have died, so when you see higher rates of heart disease 
> > in those populations, one possibility is that a predisposition to dying 
> > from childhood illnesses is causally related in some way to a 
> > predisposition to heart disease. That is, that the vaccines are not in 
> > fact causing the heart disease at all, but rather are allowing more 
> > people with a disposition towards heart disease to live long enough to 
> > suffer the effects.
> > 
> > Now, that may not be what's happening, but it's a reasonable 
> > possibility. Correlation does not always imply causation.
> > 
> > In any case, using such results to suggest avoidance of vaccines is like 
> > suggesting one not visit the doctor because one might be killed on the 
> > journey. One needs to look at the relative risks and benefits. 
> 
> The study's results add to the existing body of evidence that vaccines
> cause harm in different ways. 

The study didn't show that vaccines "caused harm". People who had been vaccinated seemed to be more likely to get coronary heart disease, but there are lots of explanations for that which don't involve any vaccination damage, which you'd realise if you had mastered elementary logic.

> These aren't new findings, just a verification of pre-existing evidence.

In your case it is isn't so much a "verification" as evidence that you can misinterpret to support your pre-existing (irrational) prejudice.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web