Andrew Wakefield on MMR vaccine

[level.eleven]

Couldn't win in the other thread so had to start a new one?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break_room/291637-uk_anti_vaxers_and_measles_epidemic.html

This thread will play out exactly like the last with the same people in it.

Pretty much. Anti-vaxers substitute emotion for evidence. They aren't going to be convinced by overwhelming evidence. The scariest fact is that some of these anti-vaxers consider themselves "educators" which means there is a strong chance that this nonsense will be passed on to another generation.

 

[Stickfight]

And this would aid them in making an informed choice.

No it wouldn't.

 

[Stickfight]

And that means exactly jack.

Vaccinations aren't the only area of medical treatment where the "prevailing wisdom" is operating contrary to the science.

Actually, that is how science is confirmed, via peer review. It most certainly is not the same as "prevailing wisdom" and most physicians are consumers in the process rather than active cintributors, but the process is there. It can't be undone with a few aspersions to conspiracy, at least not among anyone who knows better.

 

[steveh_131]

Couldn't win in the other thread so had to start a new one?

Who are you talking to? I didn't start this thread. And the OP wasn't in the other thread.

 

[steveh_131]

It most certainly is not the same as "prevailing wisdom"

Of course it is.

As long as you agree with the establishment, your articles get published and you get to keep your career.

 

[Stickfight]

That isn't the case at all. Science regularly upends consensus, that is one if its greatest features.

 

[steveh_131]

That isn't the case at all. Science regularly upends consensus, that is one if its greatest features.

That really depends on who benefits from said consensus.

 

[level.eleven]

Of course it is.

As long as you agree with the establishment, your articles get published and you get to keep your career.

Good grief. You are pretty far out there with the conspiracy theories.

The reason scientists don't debate conspiracy theories is because it draws them to arenas where objective information is supplanted by emotion. It is the same reason prominent biologists constantly turn down invitations to debate folks from the Discotute and AIG.

 

[steveh_131]

Good grief. You are pretty far out there with the conspiracy theories.

The reason scientists don't debate conspiracy theories is because it draws them to arenas where objective information is supplanted by emotion. It is the same reason prominent biologists constantly turn down invitations to debate folks from the Discotute and AIG.

Follow the money.

ETA: I actually wouldn't call it a 'conspiracy' theory. In general, researchers are inherently biased. If they can reach a conclusion that is beneficial to the company or grant that pays them, then they will. And the same bias will lead them to shun anyone who disagrees.

So. Who funds the science?

 

[Stickfight]

That really depends on who benefits from said consensus.

Nope.

 

[steveh_131]

Nope.

Alright, you convinced me.

 

[level.eleven]

Follow the money.

ETA: I actually wouldn't call it a 'conspiracy' theory. In general, researchers are inherently biased. If they can reach a conclusion that is beneficial to the company or grant that pays them, then they will. And the same bias will lead them to shun anyone who disagrees.

So. Who funds the science?

Got it. All science is bad. Including the science you use to refute accepted science. I'm getting dizzy.

 

[steveh_131]

Got it. All science is bad. Including the science you use to refute accepted science. I'm getting dizzy.

No. Science follows the money. I can do the same to get an idea of where the bias lies.

 

[88GT]

Actually, that is how science is confirmed, via peer review. It most certainly is not the same as "prevailing wisdom" and most physicians are consumers in the process rather than active cintributors, but the process is there. It can't be undone with a few aspersions to conspiracy, at least not among anyone who knows better.

Who said anything about peer review? This isn't about peer review. This is about the argument that the number of people in an industry who believe/support X is directly proportional to the "correctness" of X. No such relationship exists.j

"Knows better?" How's this for knowing better?

Here are just a few of the SOPs in childbirth based on the "prevailing wisdom," followed by the facts:

Non-medical induction of birth based on EDD; the idea that simply going post-dates is a medical risk in and of itself. It's not until the 1-2 weeks post-dates mark that the risk becomes equal to or greater than the risks associated with the inductions. So people have swapped a high risk induction for a low risk wait-and see approach. An approach, I might add, which is easily observable for telltale signs of things not going right.

Use of Pitocin for elective, non-medically indicated induction; Pitocin is not approved for such usage, and who among this crowd knows of the lethal risks of prolonged Pitocin drip?

Use of Pitocin to "speed things up" in an already-progressing labor pattern; the 1cm/hour is bull****, but docs like to use it so they can get the whole thing over with. It's not uncommon for primips to be in early labor phase for much longer than the docs would have our mothers-to-be believe. True dystocia almost never occurs, but any slowing of labor progression will be labeled dystocia and the mom pumped with Pitocin to "get things back on track." Pitocin is not approved for this usage either.

VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) is medically too risky. It's less statistically risky to the mother (given certain circumstances; certain cesareans preclude the candidacy of a mother for a VBAC) or child than a RCS (repeat cesarean), but it is risky to the doc because people often want to blame someone when things go wrong. The truth is that there are greater risks, in terms of adverse outcomes and actual statistical risk of incidence, in the cesarean than in the VBAC. But you'll never get the medical community to admit it.

Continuous electronic fetal monitoring; it actually contributes to higher cesarean rates than intermittent fetal monitoring, and because of this, increases the risk of adverse effects to mother and child.

Elective inductions themselves are monumentally risky because the very act of inducing labor in a body that isn't primed for it creates an artificial condition that then must be managed and controlled, which usually leads to a **** load of interventions, all of which have their own risk factors. The cumulative risk of an artificial induction is outrageous. I cringe when someone simply gushes with excitement over being induced. How can you be excited about adding risk to your pregnancy?

IV fluids.

Epidurals.

GBS testing

gestational diabetes testing

All of these are SOP for prenatal care and labor and deliver in the U.S. All with the approach that they are meant to "catch" things before they go wrong. The problem is that they actually contribute to the risk factors rather than mitigating them. What's worse is that their risk factors are glossed over or ignored completely.

The vast majority of women giving birth in America are doing so with little to no real informed consent. Most of the decisions made in the doctor's office and delivery rooms are made to protect the docs, not the mother and the baby.

So I do "know better."

Should I discuss the treatment of papillary thyroid cancer with a completely thyroidectomy and radioiodine treatment as well?

 

[Stickfight]

Alright, you convinced me.

I gave you as much evidence as you gave me.

Should I lay down your "you can't prove this is impossible so you have to accept it as true" card or do you want to do that on your own again?

 

[Stickfight]

Who said anything about peer review? This isn't about peer review. This is about the argument that the number of people in an industry who believe/support X is directly proportional to the "correctness" of X. No such relationship exists.

I did.

And this thread is about the benefits of vaccination versus the risks, which is most definitely a matter that medical researchers can and have quantified more accurately than any collection of anecdotes ever could. You'd like it to be about the applications practiced by the medical industry, but it isn't.

 

[steveh_131]

I gave you as much evidence as you gave me.

Should I lay down your "you can't prove this is impossible so you have to accept it as true" card or do you want to do that on your own again?

My evidence: Human nature

I'll leave the burden on you to show that scientists are immune to it.

 

[Stickfight]

My evidence: Human nature

I'll leave the burden on you to show that scientists are immune to it.

Scientists aren't, science is.

 

[steveh_131]

The vast majority of women giving birth in America are doing so with little to no real informed consent. Most of the decisions made in the doctor's office and delivery rooms are made to protect the docs, not the mother and the baby.

So I do "know better."

Absolute truth, here.

Child birthing in U.S. hospitals is 90% about the convenience of the doctor and 10%, at most, about the best interests of the mother.

Example: Most women give birth on their backs. Why? Because doctors don't want to get pooped on. Ignored is the documented research showing that it produces distress in the baby, tearing of the mother, and many other things. It is the most un-natural and difficult way for most women to give birth.

But it's easier for the doctor.

 

[steveh_131]

Scientists aren't, science is.

Science is nothing more than a procedure followed by flawed and biased humans.

It is not magical, as much as you want to place your faith in it.