Vaccines, Autism and Glyphosate

originally posted by: Charlyboy
a reply to: Pardon?

I really get that and again I agree thee is no proof in the literature but if medically you are told its not possible and medical staff are 100% sure of this you wouldn't see evidence even if it was the case.

In this country (Australia) we have a situation where vaccine rates have dropped, whooping cough is on the rise and the government in its wisdom decided against through investigation and instead took away all benefits from parents with children who weren't vaccinated.

This has increased vaccination rates which is good, but unfortunately it has generated even more distrust in the government amongst certain groups.

I get its a well trodden path, I know there is no evidence but honestly I see a number of studies with large numbers and enough noise in the data that it would be easy to loose 50-60 kids out of a couple of thousand (so clutching at straws possibly but those 50-60 straws are still lives). Parents testimony really is important, its part of the clinical observation, no 2 humans are alike and although there is a high level of emotion with the parents it can't just be dismissed.

Anyway it is what it is, I would like to see cool heads prevail but like the climate debate, people seem to prefer the divided response.

Thank you for challenging me Pardon.

Never let a perceived conclusion cloud research else that research will always fail.

Never let a perceived conclusion cloud research else that research will always fail.

a reply to: Pardon?

You know I work with high level folk who write their paper before they have done the experiment and insert the data later, they have a preconceived idea how it will go, they then "massage the data" by removing outliers and "inconsistencies". This is a common practice in science, I wish it wasn't but it is.Its how we generate "solid" papers to ensure our next round of funding.

I once had to sit in a meeting with industry while our esteemed leader tried to sell a vaccine that at best showed a 28% protection in a population of 3,000 test subjects (this was livestock industries). The presentation was disingenuous, I approached him after and asked him how he could do that and he just said "it keeps the money coming".

Been in this game a long time mate, I have seen the landscape change dramatically over the past 20 years. Science has been corrupted by politics and money but thats another story...

a reply to: Charlyboy

Interesting how you keep moving the goalposts. We're now at the "all the evidence is a lie" stage of denial. Good luck with that gambit.

a reply to: GetHyped

When did I say all evidence is a lie? What I was saying is some science is not as honest as you may think. That is an observation born from experience not from hearsay.

I have lived and breathed science for over 20 years, I dedicated my life to this practice, I love science but it is unfortunately manipulated (at times) by those participating in it. This critique is not aimed at science, it is aimed at the people who manipulate it.

Whatever you think of my discussion here, you must at least understand this?

a reply to: Charlyboy

I had hoped that this thread would avoid the particular devolution it is undergoing. It is not the complete collapse of discourse that most others quickly suffer, but it's the same factors influencing the direction it has taken. Let me clarify my point, as I have seen it developing.

Charlyboy, who has many years of hands-on experience working with vaccines, posts a new topic that would normally attract rabid supporters of both side of the issue. The post clearly outlines a strong endorsement of the overall safety and efficacy of vaccinating children, but also gives an account of a child that Charlyboy can confirm had a clear and permanent neurological shift within hours of the vaccine being administered. This led the to sudden onset of autistic symptons where none had been present before.

So...
The proponents of vaccination assume this is, at the least, a soft attack on vaccinating children. Though the conversation had remained uncommonly civil, and Charlyboy has explained that the evidence is anecdotal as it stands, his(?, sorry if I missed that mark) motives are questioned, his competency is questioned, and it is assumed that he has a hidden agenda. Regardless of the fact that said "agenda" had been stated, explained and reiterated. He merely wishes to express that, with all of his knowledge of the subject, there are reactions that are puzzling and seem to indicate that a small fraction of the world may be at potential risk for an adverse reaction.

And...
The anti-vaxxers, somewhat correctly, assume that his general endorsement of, and belief in vaccinations is an argument against their own views. But the addition of the story of the friend's child makes it appear to them, mostly, that there is a big reveal, which will be an agreement with their ethos, backed by an experienced scientist who will be an excellent face to prop up for the croud.

Uh.. aren't Vaccines supposed to keep people safe from diseases? Do you want to die that badly?

a reply to: pfishy

Thank you pfishy, I was beginning to think this place was devoid of reason. Your summation is correct.

a reply to: Twang

Read the thread please, nobody is saying don't vaccinate....

a reply to: Charlyboy

Lots of people run headlong into this topic armed with far more emotion than information. And many suffer from believing that the information they have is absurd, whereas it is speculation at best, and misinformation at worst.

Honestly, I would never have posted in this thread had your OP seemed to be another repetition of the usual blind anti-vaxx protest, or a disdainful repudiation of that viewpoint (a polite debate from either side is occasionally worth joining, though).

But you were presenting the information, bolstered by your actual experience in the field, and explaining the anomalies and new findings as you understood them. And added a personal story of a friend's child.
What you didn't do is wave a banner and announce an agenda of disproving anyone who didn't like it. You merely presented the info and asked questions.

That, by the way, is how we DENY IGNORANCE.

a reply to: pfishy

That is what I was trying to do, if nothing else I understand how emotive and difficult this subject is to engage in. Thank you for taking the time to understand my endeavours.

Ignorance is rife and by merely taking sides in an argument that nobody fully understands is ridiculous in my mind.

I won't make an effort like this again, it was pretty tiring repeating myself over and over.

Thanks for getting involved

a reply to: Charlyboy

Repetition does get tiring.
On issues such as this, or 9/11, GMOs, etc, I do my level best to never take sides. Nor do I express my own beliefs about the subject. These personal rules are absolute regarding 9/11.
What I do comment for is to ask clarification of a point, or attempt to restate a comment if people are misunderstanding each other. As well as to point out when someone is contradicting something they've stated, or are purposely arguing an obvious and indefensible logical fallacy. Like, for instance, they are insisting that the Twin Towers were struck at night during a snowstorm. I don't get into whether jet fuel powers The Rock's smile or not.

Repetition does get tiring .

a reply to: pfishy

I would love to do a post on GMO's worked with them for a long time. Perhaps I might pluck up the courage in the future. I always try to keep an open mind, look at the evidence even if it is at times anecdotal. An awful lot of what we do is based on anecdotes in a way, blue sky science they call it, what they mean is high risk high return or hit n miss

originally posted by: Charlyboy
I have lived and breathed science for over 20 years, I dedicated my life to this practice, I love science but it is unfortunately manipulated (at times) by those participating in it.

Yet you fail to understand the difference between junk science (anti-vax rhetoric) and actual science?

Forgive me for being deeply skeptical of your credentials.

originally posted by: Charlyboy

Never let a perceived conclusion cloud research else that research will always fail.

a reply to: Pardon?

You know I work with high level folk who write their paper before they have done the experiment and insert the data later, they have a preconceived idea how it will go, they then "massage the data" by removing outliers and "inconsistencies". This is a common practice in science, I wish it wasn't but it is.Its how we generate "solid" papers to ensure our next round of funding.

I once had to sit in a meeting with industry while our esteemed leader tried to sell a vaccine that at best showed a 28% protection in a population of 3,000 test subjects (this was livestock industries). The presentation was disingenuous, I approached him after and asked him how he could do that and he just said "it keeps the money coming".

Been in this game a long time mate, I have seen the landscape change dramatically over the past 20 years. Science has been corrupted by politics and money but thats another story...

Without a doubt data manipulation is a blight on science (just what t-test will give me the best conclusion eh?).
So that's why everything needs to be checked thoroughly...

On a different note; for me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Irrespective of how many times you state that you work with top level scientists and have been involved in science for more years than anyone else what you've written doesn't really lend that any credence.

Your opening post linked to a study by the Geiers, a father & son "company" who promoted the use of a chemical castration agent, Lupron to "treat" autistic children and produced studies to back this up. David Geier has had his medical licence suspended or revoked in numerous states for malpractice. Mark Geier isn't a doctor...
Another post, which I pointed out at the time, contained direct quotes from what was essentially an anti-vax survey result.

Now it's easy to make the mistake of citing something you've only speed-read through because it fits in with your thread.
But only once.
To do it twice, both with the same anti-vax nuance, makes me very suspicious of just how scientific you really are.
Fact-checking is an absolute pre-requisite in science yet you seem not to have done that or hoped that it wouldn't be noticed.

Being suspicious helps people to DENY IGNORANCE (but being anal about facts helps more).

a reply to: Pardon?

Ok thats fine I didn't come here to talk about may career anyway, I understand the air of suspicion around here and thats why I don't get involved.

I just wanted to voice my thoughts on the matter based on experience and observation, nothing more.

Being anal about facts is ok so long as those facts are pertinent, this is not a peer review process its ATS, so forgive me if I didn't take 3 months preparing this...

I was going to write something about my thoughts on GMO's specifically rnai pathways and the potential for vertical or horizontal transmission but given how this went I think I will stick to lurking.

Have a good day, if ever you are in Australia drop me a message I will show you around the CSIRO building where I work.