“Research on “gun violence” has not been barred. Using taxpayer dollars to turn out propaganda intended to disarm those same taxpayers has been barred [the Dickey Amendment].
“DRGO demonstrated incontrovertibly to the House Appropriations Committee in 1996 that the CDC was engaging in anti-gun propaganda. That is all they have been barred from doing. As a matter of fact, the total volume of gun violence research is at its greatest levels currently.
“The issue is not that anyone is barred from doing research, the issue is that nobody is interested in doing honest objective research because there’s no political gains to be made from the results of that kind of research.” – Arthur Z. Przebinda, MD, Project Director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership in a comment yesterday
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-claim-that-theres-a-ban-on-gun-violence-research-is-a-lie/&media=https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/528.jpg&description=Research on "gun violence" has not been barred. Using taxpayer dollars to turn out propaganda intended to disarm those same taxpayers has been barred.){kind=link}
I am trying to understand what the chart has to do with the article? A little context for that graphic would be helpful… is the intended takeaway that the CDC is manipulating data (in which case, more substantial evidence should really be articulated), or are they maybe measuring gun-related injuries by a different metric than the others (in which case, more info is needed)? No snark here; I am genuinely curious about this graph and it’s relationship to the story.
One source listed on the graphic is The Trace; that may account for the increasing CDC number, which may or may not resemble anything the CDC actually published.
Heh. Fair.
A good primary source is this one…
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-cdc-is-publishing-unreliable-data-on-gun-injuries-people-are-using-it-anyway/
In a nutshell, the CPSC (yes, the same CPSC that the anti-gun doctors want to have regulate guns) changed their sampling methodology for non-fatal gun injuries, and low and behold they cooked up a scary bigger numbers. Which the CDC (yes, the same CDC the anti-gun doctors want to have ‘study’ guns) dutifully plugged the new fanciful numbers into their models and got scary new upward trending lines.
Thanks so much for including that link. Very interesting article there.
At the bottom of the graph is this: “Sources: Center for disease control and prevention”
If the data came from the CDC, it becomes obvious the CDC is doing the research, which means the CDC isn’t banned from doing said research.
THAT is what the graph has to do with the article.
‘…the issue is that nobody is interested in doing honest objective research because there’s no political gains to be made from the results of that kind of research.’
The same could be said about virtually every other topic of research. Do you think that there’s any political gain to be had from publishing research showing that ‘climate change’ is no big deal and actually mostly beneficial? You’d be lucky if you’re not tarred and feathered before they boot you off campus.
There’s lots of research for pure science, such as Higgs boson, gravity wave detection, neutrino detection, etc. Many masters and doctoral thesis is hard sciences is also pure science. Unfortunately, so fake data to get results. Industry does lots of research for profit, like drugs, semiconductor physics, etc which is for profit and has to perform in production, but it’s usually kept secret. Social science studies do seem to have bias, and they often are based on statistics that can be massaged for what data is included, and there usually isn’t a control.
Are you really comparing drug research to hard science(physics, etc) research?
You lost me there. What’s the difference?
Drug trials which are easily faked to push product…You’re asking me what the difference is between biological (how many Vioxx deaths Governor?) research and objective reproducible math/physics research?
It costs over a billion dollars (yeah, with a B) to bring a new drug to market because of all the government oversight and bureaucratic red tape. Faking those trials would be quite a feat. And sure, when they get it wrong people die, but they’ve cured AIDS, small pox, tuberculosis, etc. and are well on their way to curing cancer, heart disease, alzheimers, etc. This is what can be accomplished when profit is the motive.
Contrast that with ‘hard science’ like physics where it’s mostly government employees musing about black holes and the big bang and I’d say the profit motive is generally a good thing when it comes to advancing knowledge and quality of life.
How many drugs get pulled off the market for safety issues after the billions(yeah that’s a b) spent and years spent testing them? How many people are killed yearly by FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs which have been properly prescribed and taken? You should also recheck the cancer and Alzheimer numbers. The numbers are stark and worsening. BTW, have any citations for curing AIDS, smallpox, TB? Not CDC statements or opinion pieces, but legitimately referenced research? You”ll never find it for smallpox because the historical data does not support the vaccine mythology we have been force-fed for generations. Your post reeks of intentional bias, you profit from this industry?
‘vaccine mythology’
Ah, you’re a lunatic, that’s the problem. Do you personally know anyone who has contracted small pox in the last 40 years? How about died of AIDS in the last 25? If you’re diagnosed with cancer before it’s in it’s later stages and you’re not 96 years old there’s nearly 100% chance that you’ll be cured. And a vaccine for Alzheimers has already been invented however there were severe side effects and there’s a new one in the works (trials) that eliminates the side effects. Basically Alzheimers is caused by two different proteins that build up in the brain. By exposing your skin to those proteins your body builds up anti-bodies and eliminates those proteins. Or do you not believe in proteins and anti-bodies?
So why do drugs get pulled for unforeseen and potentially lethal side effects after all that testing? Pretty simple – the human body is by far the most complex thing we as humans have yet to discover. We know a tiny fraction of a percent of what there is to know about our own bodies. It’s like taking a single page from a Haynes manual for a 1976 Camaro and thinking you’re a mechanic after reading it. 350 years ago we didn’t even know that bacteria existed. These things take time.
And have I profited from medical research? Absolutely. Without antibiotics I’d have died 25 years ago.
You’re full of shit. Exactly what i thought. A vaccine for Alzheimers is dark comedy. Wheres that smallpox data? No one has smallpox anymore? That’s it? Cite the historical data that supports your opinion on this. You won’t because you can’t, because it doesn’t exist. The vaccine killed more people in England than the infection did, but hey, what are facts, right governor?
So you don’t believe in proteins and antibodies either. I’m afraid no amount of citations and data will cure you of being an idiot.
Old school troll tactic…when asked for data that doesn’t exist, pretend it exists and then say the person requesting the data wouldn’t believe it if it was posted. Classic. Well done.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
See bottom for citations.
Literally laughing out loud. Not even going to click Wikipedia. If you have real citations, citations that you can understand and explain, cite them. Or hide behind snopes and Wikipedia like a normal bottom shelf troll. I guarantee there is not one citation in Wikipedia that has the data you claim exists. I almost took you seriously governor.
I’ll bet he still believes in miasma theory and has fired constantly burning to keep the bad smells away.
More comedy from the peanut gallery…always fun when someone pretends to come from a position of science and then they puke in their mouth when their bluff is called.
Governor, anymouse, So Cross, et al., not sure how many usernames you’re using on this forum but here’s a quote you can feel free to debunk. If you can. Cheap pharma trolls make this forum interesting anyway.
“It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.” – Glen Dettman A.M.M., BA, Ph.D., F.A.P.M.
‘In the early 1950s an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year.[10] To eradicate smallpox, each outbreak had to be stopped from spreading, by isolation of cases and vaccination of everyone who lived close by. This process is known as “ring vaccination”. The key to this strategy was the monitoring of cases in a community (known as surveillance) and containment. The initial problem the WHO team faced was inadequate reporting of smallpox cases, as many cases did not come to the attention of the authorities. The fact that humans are the only reservoir for smallpox infection, and that carriers did not exist, played a significant role in the eradication of smallpox. The WHO established a network of consultants who assisted countries in setting up surveillance and containment activities.’
If there’s one thing worse than a stupid person it’s someone who is either too lazy or too set in their opinions to read.
Smallpox has been eradicated completely for years. It only exists in certain labs. If a case of smallpox was detected anywhere in the world, news of it would immediately go global as all major medical and government authorities in the world would be put on notice, as smallpox is a highly contagious and very dangerous disease.
@gov, you’re quoting Wikipedia. Cite the DATA that shows the vaccine Eradicated smallpox. You have not been able to do so after multiple requests because this data does not exist, because the vaccine did not eradicate smallpox. It’s a myth that you’re either repeating because you’re too lazy to actually research the topic and have to resort to repeating the myths you’ve been told since chidlhood(Santa, tooth fairy), or you have some ulterior motive to push false information here. Your bluff is called gov, you’re full of shit, at least on this topic.
Gov, fast forward to the smallpox chapter. It’s well cited and referenced. It’s a big jump from Wikipedia but I’m sure if you can handle it if you try hard enough.
https://www.scribd.com/document/371380709/Dissolving-Illusions-Suzanne-Humphries-pdf
Q) “It is pathetic and ludicrous to say we ever vanquished smallpox with vaccines, when only 10% of the population was ever vaccinated.”
A) To eradicate smallpox, each outbreak had to be stopped from spreading, by isolation of cases and vaccination of everyone who lived close by. This process is known as “ring vaccination”… The fact that humans are the only reservoir for smallpox infection, and that carriers did not exist, played a significant role in the eradication of smallpox.
You don’t believe in antibodies. (Do you even believe in viruses?) So what’s the point of doing your googling for you when you’ll reject whatever data that contradicts your predetermined opinion?
Gov, you’ve already demonstrated you can quote Wikipedia. Try quoting some historical data or research that supports your mythology. After 1/2 dozen requests, you’ve also made it clear you are unable to do so. Funny you quote Wikipedia, even the school systems don’t allow kids to cite Wikipedia for obvious reason…well obvious to anyone who can fog a mirror, but maybe not you? You’re a bottom shelf troll, surprised you haven’t referenced snopes yet.
Gov, at least there is some truth in your BS, isolation was very effective in preventing the spread of smallpox. Isolation and improved sanitation, plumbing, etc had huge effects smallpox, but you can keep believing your Santa Claus-vaccines saved the world mythology. The towns in England with the highest smallpox vaccination rates had the highest rates of smallpox and the highest rates of smallpox death. That’s a fact. The vaccine killed more people than the actual infection. Only people with some ulterior motive, financial incentive, spend the time you have spent here pushing the false vaccine narrative. Good luck trolling gov.
This was the only place I could find to reply to you directly. See my comments at the bottom of the thread.
Take away all the guns and people will use other means to inflict violence. Stabbings in the UK are rampant and climbing annually, up 23 percent in London alone last year, despite decreases in most other crime. Japan’s intentional death rate is 30% high than the US’s. Violent HUMANS need more study, not firearms.
If you really want to decrease violence, put valium into the drinking water of violence prone neighborhoods.
Doesn’t matter. Until zombie news outlets like CNN, GMA, People Magazine and the other MSM sources the moron mass look to report the truth or at the very least stop reporting the lie nobody will hear the truth and fewer will believe it. Increasingly people choose to believe things that confirm their bias regardless of evidence. Show a (D) some (R) said 2+2=4 and they’ll convince themselves 2+2=5. Also true in the other direction. It will happen, if it hasn’t already, that an (R) patient of a (D) doctor will refuse a diagnosis to his own death just to keep up partisan walls.
The other lie is that “You can’t sue a gun company.”
You most certainly can, if it has a defect in design or manufacturing.
You cannot sue a gun company because they made and sold a gun that fires ammunition as designed…
But it remains 100% true the US Supreme Court has removed your rights to sue vaccine manufacturers when their products cause injury or death. The only product sold in the US to enjoy blanket federal protection from any and all liability. They must have a lot of incentive to manufacture safe vaccines…..
If you can find some “Source” that is not deliberately lying to us all-the-time, please list it here. We are drowning in an ocean of lies and deception.
With politicians, you can pretty much believe ALMOST everything they say. This is politics, an unprotected “truth” out there would die from loneliness.-30-
The CDC never ever lies, well it does sometimes, but never about vaccines. Except when it does.
Knives are more climate friendly, cheaper to train with, easier to conceal, no “bang” flinch factor. And easier to ban “automatic” knives. Assisted opening is the new semi auto./s
Nearly all research today is agenda driven and the results of research are nearly always predetermined by those paying for it. There is no financial or political gain in objective, credibly designed research.
namwarts is not a palindrome.
i’m off for my abortion vaccine.
i’ll let myself out.
Is that the same CDC that buried tbeir DGU findings for a decade or two? Yeah, they’re honest brokers. Let’s have them do more.
Yeah, the same CDC that Dr. William Thompson(CDC researcher) has stated has been burying and destroying MMR vaccine and autism data.
Lol look it’s the “vaccines cause autism” scare again.
And to think you were espousing actual science. Get that bullshit out of here.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz……….funny how you don’t dare attempt to address what a Sr CDC researcher has admitted. Troll 101.
Hi PG2,
I joined this blog to chat with you. I’m not sure why, but I took the time to follow your source data and skim through Dissolving Illusions. It’s honestly got me thinking. I find the hypothesis that it is better living conditions as opposed to vaccines that have cured mortality related to many illnesses intriguing, plausible and worth further research. Do you have other primary sources to support this hypothesis?
I will say that while intrigued, I’m not convinced by any means that vaccines aren’t a useful tool in medicine. In my review of the graphs, there did seem to be a correlation for a further reduction in disease mortality after the introduction of vaccines. This doesn’t invalidate the hypothesis that better sanitation is the primary factor in reducing infectious disease death (that makes plenty of sense). But even if sanitation is the primary cause of disease reduction, that doesn’t mean vaccines aren’t a part of the picture, too.
I’d like to now ask you this: why do you think that Dissolving Illusions is a reputable primary source? It seems to be a self-published book written by people who are firmly in the anti-vaccination camp. Bias seems probable. The graphs at the end all seem interesting. I’ll take 17.8 for example, which does show a significant reduction in measles-related deaths prior to introduction of the vaccine. But the graph relies on Vital statistics of the United States for a variety of years. If you are going to argue that others need to provide primary sources, have you checked the accuracy of this graph data and looked at the statistics that back it? One thing I find odd is that the graph shows a specific data point for every year from 1930 – 1990, but the footnotes that reference the Vital Statistics data only reference the following years:
“from 1930. (Vital Statistics of theUnited States 1937, 1938, 1943, 1944,1949, 1960, 1967, 1976, 1987, 1992;Historical Statistics of the United States —Colonial Times to 1970 Part 1;Health, United States, 2004, USDepartment of Health and HumaServices; Vital Records & Health DataDevelopment Section, MichigaDepartment of Community Health; USCensus Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2003; Reported Casesand Deaths from Vaccine PreventableDiseases, United States, 1950–2008)”
There are a lot of years missing there. I guess my point is: it sure looks like these graphs were made by the authors, which doesn’t make them good scientific studies, because they never went through peer review and were never published to a journal. It sure looks like the book was self-published. So I’m not sure you can cite this book as a reputable primary source.
If, of course, you’ve double checked the graphs to the actual primary source data and can share that with me, I’d love to read it. As I said, I’m open and curious about the idea that sanitation is the primary cause of reduction in infectious disease mortality. If you have more to offer, I’d love to see it.
FWIW, here is a blog (https://vaccinesworkblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/20/dissolving-illusions-book-review/) I found that does it’s best to refute the case made by the book. I don’t take either the book or the blog at face value, but figure it’s worth throwing out opposing viewpoints.
Not sure what you mean by primary resources? The historical data is clear from multiple sources that nearly all infectious disease had declined precipitously in infection rate and death rate prior to mass vaccination campaigns. This includes infections where vaccines were not even used. You state “In my review of the graphs, there did seem to be a correlation for a further reduction in disease mortality after the introduction of vaccines”-yes, the decline in mortality from clean water, better sanitation-plumbing, less crowed living conditions, better nutrition, etc that had started well before vaccines introduced continued after vaccines were introduced, yet we give the vaccines credit for something that had very minor impact on, certainly much less impact than we are told to believe.
“I’d like to now ask you this: why do you think that Dissolving Illusions is a reputable primary source? It seems to be a self-published book written by people who are firmly in the anti-vaccination camp. Bias seems probable”-again, not sure what you mean by primary source? The data in the book in well referenced and if you have access to other well cited data that conflicts with this , feel free to share it. This is written by board certified nephrologist(MD) who spent most of her career administering vaccines. Not sure where you’re finding bias?
Throughout your post you continue using the phrase “primary source”…If you have conflicting data, present it.
It’s somewhat amusing you present a blog, which uses heavy doses of ad hominem and pharmaceutical marketing lines, and avoids using any actual science, to provide “balance” for a text written by a formerly very pro-vaccine medical doctor who changed her mind after seeing the results first hand in her practice and spent years researching vaccines and vaccine history, and uses real data(cited and referenced) throughout her book. CG12, if you’re not the the backup troll for the 3rd rate trolls here that puke in their mouths on this subject, then the data is there for you inspect. You can form whatever opinion you want, but you cannot change the facts.
In my post, I say “cured” mortality, but what I mean is “significantly reduced mortality, in some cases to near zero.”
Again, If you have other sources, primary(?) or otherwise, that contains referenced data which contradicts this data, please share it. I’d be the first to congratulate you on finding data that doesn’t exist. I have no dog in the race with the vaccine issue, except for wanting to preserve the rights to informed consent and be able to refuse medical/pharmaceutical interventions that I want to refuse. The right to make our own informed consent decisions is under direct attack, as much as our 2nd Amendment rights are under attack. And in my opinion, the 2nd Amendment will become a meaningless artifact when we lose our rights to make our own pharmaceutical/medical decisions. Good day.
I’m definitely with you about informed consent and ability to refuse medical/pharmaceutical interventions. For that matter, the fact that euthanasia is largely illegal in our country is bonkers.
If you were really curious and open to finding primary source data, I’m not sure you would suggest off the bat it “doesn’t exist.” With about 20 minutes of searching, I found some primary source graph data from the CDC that is arguably just as compelling as the graph data you found.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/appdx-full-e.pdf
These charts don’t contradict the primary source data that better sanitation played a massive role in reducing death by infectious disease. But these charts do tell a compelling story:
Look at the death rates from measles pre and post 1963, when the measles vaccine was introduced. In the decade re 1963, measles death rates hover between roughly 350 and 600 per year. After 1963, within 2 years, the numbers drop, both in terms of cases and deaths. Within 5 years, the annual death rate from measles is roughly 15% of the low end of the curve a decade prior. # of cases per year mimics this drop.
A Polio vaccine was introduced in 1955 and made more broadly available in 1961. Polio deaths move between ~1,000 – 2,000 for the 5 years of data before 1955. From 1956 – 1960, deaths per year drop to 345, or about 33% of deaths prior. In the years after 1960, cases and deaths per year both drop precipitously.
I congratulate you on encouraging me to take the time to study the primary data directly. I’d never done it before. When I look at it, I find a pretty compelling case that vaccines, at least in the cases I can see in this primary data, resulted in strongly correlated and very statistically significant (e.g. 70-80%) drops in mortality within 5 years of introduction. Given death rates had been fairly static in the 5-10 years prior to the introduction of these vaccines, while it’s certainly possible other factors influenced the correlated drops in case and mortality rate, given the available information, vaccines seem the most likely candidate.
In sum, there is clear data to support the efficacy of vaccines. There is also plenty of other research I could find in reputable journals (JAMA, Pediatrics) that suggest the safety of vaccines (https://www.healthychildren.org/English/safety-prevention/immunizations/Pages/Vaccine-Studies-Examine-the-Evidence.aspx). This data doesn’t invalidate your stance that improved sanitation and better standards of living played a massive role in reduced deaths by infectious death, but I do believe is compelling evidence to support the medical validity of vaccines.
Still with you on informed consent and the ability to choose your own medical treatments.
CG, You continue using language like “primary source” without defining it, or even attempt to define it despite my asking several times. The pink book citation you linked only covers disease and morality rates after vaccines were introduced……we were discussing the precipitous decline in infection rates and mortality rates that occurred before vaccines were introduced. Not sure what data you find there that relevant to this discussion, but try this for data including before AND after vaccines were introduced…..http://www.dissolvingillusions.com/graphs/
As far as polio goes, you must’ve learned that they changed the diagnostic criteria for polio after the vaccine was introduced. This alone accounted for most of the decrease of what was called polio. The measles vaccine is/was effective in reducing measles cases, but at what cost? The MMR has never, not once, been tested against an inert placebo so we can’t say with any intellectual honesty that we know the risks, short term or long term, this shot carries. We do have 100,000’s of parents worldwide reporting immediate and permanent mental decline of their children immediately after the MMR shot, and we do we have Dr. William Thompson, a senior CDC researcher, who stated the CDC(your primary source?) is buried and destroyed data that linked the MMR to autism. We also have emerging biological science which is linking the ingredients of these products to brain damage and autism in animal studies.
Curiously you link another site which doesn’t contain the safety studies that you and the site itself implies it does. The safety studies in this link don’t even ask the correct questions, and again none provide an inert placebo control group.
CG, your usage of “primary source”, and “reputable” verbiage indicates you are the damage control troll, using buzz words trying to give credibility to questionable industry generated studies which try to claim vaccine safety and efficacy by comparing vaccinated groups against other vaccinated groups…aka tobacco science. If you’re not paid trolling, study the safety, or lack of safety science behind these products and give me your opinion. If you come back with “reputable” and “primary source” phrases and dodge the safety studies question, you’ve answered mine about the paid trolling.
Very glad you brought up vaccine safety even though we were discussing whether or not vaccines deserve the credit they’ve been given for the decline infection and mortality rates of infectious disease. Vaccines as administered today have never been tested against an inert placebo. This is the only pharmaceutical product that gets this free pass before being licensed to the public. Vaccine manufacturers also cannot be sued for damages their products cause. Not much incentive to manufacture a safe product…and maybe this accounts for the exponential increase in autism since the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed which removed your rights to sue for damages when these products injure and/or kill. You posted a link that linked multiple industry vaccine safety tests. Maybe you didn’t take the time to read them, because they all compare vaccinated groups to other vacccinated groups. Very reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s safety studies comparing 1pack/day smokers against 2pack/day smokers and making the claims that smoking didn’t cause cause cancer because both groups had similar rates of lung cancer. The vaccine companies are using the exact same junk science. No inert placebo safety studies. They actually claim it’s unethical to perform them……look forward to the industry answer.
I continued our conversation. Can only seem to reply to you in weird spots.
I said “graphs” a few times when I mean charts. I wish they were graphs, but they were all charts.
Hey PG2,
I must be hitting a nerve, because now you are calling me an industry troll. Earlier, you said “I have no dog in the race with the vaccine issue, except for wanting to preserve the rights to informed consent.” I have agreed with you multiple times about the importance of preserving rights and informed consent, so based on that, we are on the same side. But it’s hard to believe you don’t have a dog in the fight, given you seem much more interested in name calling rather than having an intellectual conversation. I’ve noted multiple times that I’m willing to read your material and am genuinely interested in your perspective. If I were a troll, do you think I would have taken the time to actually read Dissolving Illusions and show real openess to the core thesis?
So far, I’ve never attacked your perspective, or you. I’ve kept an open mind and simply presented evidence I’ve found as I continue to do my research. If you wish to continue to have a real conversation where we hopefully both learn something, I’d be happy to do so. But if you’re going to continue to take an aggressive tone after saying you “have no dog in the fight,” I’ll be just as happy to end the conversation and move on.
i will now do my best to respond to your points thoughtfully, as I’ve always done so far:
1) You wrote “You continue using language like “primary source” without defining it, or even attempt to define it despite my asking several times.”
Could you point me to where you asked? In your most recent post in our conversation on December 5th at 11:32, you wrote “Again, If you have other sources, primary(?) or otherwise, that contains referenced data which contradicts this data, please share it. I’d be the first to congratulate you on finding data that doesn’t exist.” You note that if I have sources, primary or otherwise with data that contradicts this data, please share it.
I shared data that I think provides a strong case that vaccines are the most plausible source of significant reductions in morbidity associated with their target diseases. This would at least meet your request for data categorized as “otherwise.” So I don’t think I’m avoiding your request. Moreover, the data I provided is at least as reliable as the chart data provided in Dissolving Illusions. That data came from morbidity data from census records e.g. the government. The CDC data is morbidity data gathered by the same government. It’s the same data. To answer your question, I consider the CDC morbidity data to qualify as a reliable primary source in regards to the number of people dying each year due to specific diseases. It’s their job to track that data.
I’ll ask you the question in return. What do you define as primary source data in this case? Why is the Dissolving Illusions chart data better primary source data than the CDC? If you look at the website: http://www.dissolvingillusions.com/graphs/ , the graphs don’t actually say where the underlying data comes from. Granted, because I actually read (well, skimmed at least) the book at your request, I know they say the underlying data comes from government records. But when you post that link and try and suggest it’s “primary souce data,” it feels unfair to turn around and call what I posted worse, when at least the links I posted explain where they got their underlying data
2) You say that “The pink book citation you linked only covers disease and mortality rates after vaccines were introduced.” I contest this claim. It doesn’t acknowledge the three primary points I made in my previous point, where I explain my thinking clearly. I’ll summarize them again here:
a) I acknowledged and applauded your point (in contrast to your aggressive tone) that massive gains were made before the pink book data in terms of reducing deaths by infectious disease. You are correct we were discussing this precipitous decline, and I supported your point. But my point was that the reductions in deaths by infectious deaths made prior to the pink book dates doesn’t invalidate the gains made after 1950. Just because sanitation dramatically improved the health of American’s doesn’t mean that better food security wouldn’t also improve American’s health, or the introduction of penicillin or vaccines.
b) You say “The pink book citation you linked only covers disease and mortality rates after vaccines were introduced.” This isn’t true, as I pointed out in my previous post. The pink book data begins in 1950, and the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963 while the polio vaccine was introduced in 1955. In both the cases I quoted, the data does begin before the introduction of the vaccines. In both cases, the data shows relatively level incidents and deaths by both diseases and then a precipitous drop in incidents and deaths after the vaccines were introduced. Again, this doesn’t invalidate the thesis that massive gains were made by improved sanitation, but giving then clear drops that began in both cases very shortly after the vaccines were introduced it IS compelling evidence that vaccines played a part in reducing incidents and deaths after their introduction.
3) You write “As far as polio goes, you must’ve learned that they changed the diagnostic criteria for polio after the vaccine was introduced.” Turns out I haven’t heard this before. If you want to point me to where I can learn more about, I’d be happy to explore what you have to share.
4) Your points about no placebo trial is a valid one. I’d love to see a placebo trial. Neither you or I will be able to make that happen, though. While we’re at it, you know what else I’d like to see double blind control trials for?
– Non-stick cookware
– Every pesticide we put on our croplands
– Every one of the thousands of chemicals grandfathered in by the FDA in the 1960s because they were already in use by companies all over the United States
– People who eat meat from CAFO farms (fed hormones and antibiotics) vs grassfed meat vs. vegans
Ultimately the placebo point doesn’t help your argument either. There isn’t any placebo-backed data to suggest vaccines are dangerous either.
5) Could I see link for 100,000+ parents worldwide?
6) I looked into the Dr. William Thompson thing. I read a bunch of blogs. He seems a lot less like a “whistleblower” and a lot more like someone who got pushed out and was mad about it. Think about the Me Too movement. If there is a major cover-up, once one person comes out, lots of people come out. So far, I haven’t seen anyone else from the CDC blowing this up. Especially since most scientists with the CDC aren’t actually CDC employees – they just receive grants from the CDC. If there had been a decade + of cover-up in a government agency that was resulting in a public health crisis, don’t you think more than one scientist from that org would have come forward? One more thing here: In Thompson’s original statement on the subject, he actually directly says vaccines are lifesaving technology. From the horse’s mouth.
“I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.”
7) You say “curiously you link another site which doesn’t contain the safety studies that you and the site itself implies it does.” Could you point out where? I linked to as ite that had a list of articles that linked to journals like Pediatrics and PubMed. These are the places where scientific research is published and stored. If you aren’t able to access to the studies, you might need to go to a library at a University or research institution, which almost always have licenses to access these sites.
8) I appreciate your note comparing the vaccine safety trials to tobacco trials. As I said before, I wish we had placebo trials too. I agree that the entire pharmaceutical industry has an incentive to fund studies that support their profits. Same thing with major food industries (corn, wheat, dairy, beef, etc.). And there is a lot of junk science out there.
The difference between vaccines and smoking seems pretty obvious though, right? Sure the pharma industry and the tobacco industry both had a clear incentive to sell more of their stuff and classify it as safe, but I haven’t heard of any cases of doctors prescribing tobacco to infants… even back in the era of smoking. There are over 1 million doctors in the United States. Those are the people actually seeing patients (not you or I). If there were this massive and obvious problem with vaccines that outweighed the benefits, don’t you think that after over 2 decades, we would be hearing an outcry from the Doctors?
I want to be clear, I’m not arguing that no one has ever been hurt by a vaccine. But there just seems to be a clear consensus among doctors that a) vaccines aren’t causing autism, and b) vaccines save way more lives than they ever might endanger.
9) I am learning, and happy to be in the conversation, but I can’t learn without some guidance. Do you want to point me in the direction of good info about your perceived lack of safety? I would love some source links for not being able to sue vaccine makers, for example. I’d also love source links for vaccines getting a “free pass.” I hear your point and not having a placebo test. But it’s a tough argument because the vast majority of the chemicals found in our everyday household products have also never had such a test. Why the specific concern with vacciness and not similar concern with your soup, your skincare lines, or your food (maybe you do have similar concerns. If so, I recind this question).
10) I read up a bit on the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act and found it interesting. I can understand your concern. I’ll need to ruminate more on that one. I agree it sets up a potentially dangerous risk/reward profile for the manufacturers. That said, while the act does seem to make it impossible for people to sue the companies, it does not limit their ability to be compensated for adverse reactions. It also did the following:
– The NCVIA also mandates that all health care providers must report certain adverse events following vaccination to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
– The NCVIA also established a committee from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review the existing literature on vaccine adverse events occurring after immunization, regardless of whether there was a direct link between events.
In both those cases, the act would have increased our ability to track adverse outcomes and address them if the thread became clear. So if there is a threat, why haven’t we heard about it from the VAERS, the committee, or more than handful of over a million doctors in our country?
11) There are lots of possible causes for Autism besides vaccines. One of main theories is better awareness and reporting. The data you can find here: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html points out that genetics is likely a major role. You can see this in the fact that an identical twins of a child with Autism is much more likely to have Autism than a fraternal twin. Vaccines can’t explain that link.
Aside from better reporting, the most plausible cause in the increase in autism cases, in my mind, is that the age of first birth for women has gone way up since the 70s and 80s. See this graphic: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/04/upshot/up-birth-age-gap.html . Given that a clear correlative link has been shown between increased age of parents and probability of autism in a child, this social trend, in my mind, seems like one likely factor for the increas in autism over the last 30 years.
12) I’ll end with this. You say “f you come back with “reputable” and “primary source” phrases and dodge the safety studies question.” I think I’ve both acknowledged my own concerns with some of your points about safety (it would be great to have placebo trials. I also addressed your link to tobacco tactics), and also asked for more information so I can learn.
You have been attacking me for bringing up reputable and primary sources is comical. You are the one who have been demanding primary sources from everyone on this thread. I have simply responded with credible data sources that are based on the same source data as those you have presented say they derive from. The reputable bit makes less sense though, because you berated time and again the governor (above in the thread) for providing wikipedia links. You were demanding reputable sources then, and now you’re attacking me for actually trying to provide reputable sources (PubMed, JAMA, Pediatrics, etc.).
Through it is less relevant now, it’s worth noting that the only reason wikipedia isn’t recommended as a reliable source is that it can change on the fly and the moment you are reading an article may have false information. A worthwhile concern. The general consensus though is that wikipedia is, for the most part, a reliable place to do research, in part because it is peer-reviewed. There is an established process by which articles are reviewed by peers and contested if they present obviously false information. The same is true for all the articles published in JAMA, PubMed, and Pediatrics. The same would be true for CDC data. It’s one of the most basic principles for good scientific research and reporting.
You know which document presented in this thread has not had extensive peer review? Dissolving Illusions. It was written by two people and self-published, meaning, among all the sources presented, is the most likely to present false, biased or skewed data. Arguably, wikipedia is a better source.
I’m not saying Dissolving Illusions is actually false, biased, or anything of the like, and please don’t pretend I am. I’m merely saying that it has had the least rigorous review process to ensure it is well-researched and free of bias. Even so, I’m honoring our conversating and welcoming its arguments where I find them logically sound.
CG, household chemicals are not mandatory and they are not administered/injected to day 1 old infants. That might be the most ridiculous comparison ever used in this discussion. Asking me to cite the lack of science is almost as bad. How do you cite something that doesn’t exist? No childhood vaccines as administered have ever, not once, undergone safety testing against inert placebo. If you have knowledge of these safety studies that no one else has, let’s see it. Otherwise you’re wasting time. If I get the time later to read through your lengthy post , I’ll try, but I stopped after seeing the ridiculous statements I’ve just addressed above.
CG, exposing you as a troll is not name calling. You outed yourself with your very first sentence about ‘joining this blog’ to have this conversation. Anyone can post here, there is no ‘joining’. You’ve also exposed yourself as an industry troll by claiming interest and feigning objectivity while posting mountains of pharmaceutical talking points and industry junk/science. The average person does not have the time or motivation to push these talking points or have access to the industry junk science which pretends, yes that’s pretends, to address vaccine safety. Reread my posts if you didn’t see me asking you multiple times what you mean by “primary source”. It’s there, maybe you missed it….and now you’re finally admitting you’ll only accept CDC data, despite the CDC linking data only after vaccines were introduced, and despite the egregious conflict of interest the CDC has with the pharmaceutical industry….and the CDC being accused by one it’s own for burying and destroying data showing strong correlation between the MMR shot and autism. You attempt to downplay this, but no matter how hard the industry tries, he still exists and his words remain. CG,that’s the text book definition of appeal to authority fallacy, commonly used by people who don’t have factual information and try to use the seal of authority to bluff their way through.
CG, going back to 1950 for data as the Pink book does, how can you say that’s scientifically honest? Please. And google the diagnostic change in polio after the vaccine. It’s not some weird conspiracy, it’s a fact.
You mention things like not having inert placebo testing for:
“– Non-stick cookware
– Every pesticide we put on our croplands
– Every one of the thousands of chemicals grandfathered in by the FDA in the 1960s because they were already in use by companies all over the United States
– People who eat meat from CAFO farms (fed hormones and antibiotics) vs grassfed meat vs. vegans”, and you mention household cleaners elsewhere…
Yes, some of these are real problems also, though no one is injecting 1 day old infants with non-stick cookware or household cleaners….? You seem determined on downplaying the lack of vaccine safety studies, another industry tactic.
“There are over 1 million doctors in the United States. Those are the people actually seeing patients (not you or I). If there were this massive and obvious problem with vaccines that outweighed the benefits, don’t you think that after over 2 decades, we would be hearing an outcry from the Doctors?
I want to be clear, I’m not arguing that no one has ever been hurt by a vaccine. But there just seems to be a clear consensus among doctors that a) vaccines aren’t causing autism, and b) vaccines save way more lives than they ever might endanger”
You don’t classify an autism rate of 1 in 59(and expected to continue increasing) a massive or obvious problem? You don’t classify the US having the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world a problem? You don’t classify 1 in 6 children in the with a chronic disability a massive problem? Medical care is the 3rd leading of death in the USA, there is no outcry from the medical profession over this statistic, so not sure what your point is? Consensus means crap, especially when livelihoods depend on holding certain beliefs or positions(see global warming). Science and consensus are often opposed, so take your consensus argument elsewhere. CG, there is honestly too much industry inspired content in your post to address them all, but at least you admit there are no legitimate vaccine safety tests. You claim Dr’s believe this or believe that(consensus), but without legitimate safety tests, opinions are like you know what……, especially when incomes depend on it. Nice troll touch with mentioning peer review…as if that means anything….maybe this will interest you…”“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” -Dr. Richard Horton, Editor in chief of the Lancet or this: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” – Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), or this, which shows just how far the peer review process has fallen…
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academics-bust-leftist-peer-reviewed-journals-with-fake-papers-on-dog-rape
CG, your feigning interest and objectivity on this subject was blatantly transparent from your first post. Pharma trolls only have limited material in their toolbox, and you’ve attempted nearly all of them. When you want to honestly discuss the lack of vaccine safety science without trying to downplay the issue, I’ll listen. When you want to honestly discuss the value(or lack of value) of vaccines on long term human health, I’m all in. When you want to discuss the agenda being pushed to remove us of our rights to refuse medical/pharmaceutical interventions, I’m in. Until then, you’ve exhausted my interest in rebutting obvious pharmaceutical talking points which are based on very limited and cherry-picked data, emotion, and supposition. At least you were somewhat more competent than Governor or some of the others……
If you want another good text on the subject try JB Handley’s “How to End the Autism Epidemic”. At the end of the day, science is not on the pharmaceutical companies side on this issue, and more and more people are recognizing this and demanding real science in place of the bumper sticker slogans like “vaccines are safe and effective” that lack the science to make this claim, as you yourself have already admitted.