CDC, Vaccines and Autism

[HawktimusPrime]

This is complete bullshit.
Herd immunity is supported by BOTH simple mathematical models (which I can understand why you don't 'get it', because you clearly don't understand it), AND by vast numbers of publications AND the fact that many common diseases have been eradicated using herd immunity.

You have absolutely zero credibility on this issue, if you cannot understand something as simple as herd immunity - demonstrating something that basic is as trivial as a computer science model; you can find probably dozens of articles relating to it in math journals, let alone biology/epidemiology.

False.

Argue with Dr. Blaylock about this then.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...y-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR.

The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done. That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life.

 

[Joes Place]

False.

Argue with Dr. Blaylock about this then.

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2...y-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR.

The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done. That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life.

Your own link disproves your point.
You are referring to 'vaccine durability', and that people need repeat vaccines within 10 or 20 years to remain vaccinated, which is generally the recommendation from AMA and your physicians.

Also, 'losing their effectiveness' does NOT equal 'un-vaccinated', it means they may be more susceptible to contracting a disease. But they are generally STILL more immune than a 'disease-naive' person.

Again, you really do NOT understand the science OR the math here - OR the basic elements of risk management when you are touting "1300 individuals harmed by vaccines" when there are >50 million who have benefitted from them.

Keep Googling for obscure references. This is fun for people like me with Ph.D.'s in science....almost like being the running back in a PeeWee football league and breaking new rushing records every game...

 

[shank hawk]

Wow. The American voter truly IS illiterate on basic elements of science.
I'd love to be able to pop you into a time machine and send you back a hundred years or so, where you could experience all this wonderful 'vaccine-free' existence.

Just curious, would there be room in said time machine for all the pediatricians that don't vaccinate? Cuz' they should probably see the horrors of the early twentieth century too, before vaccines saved all the children. Stupid doctors!
A full 6% of pediatricians do not vaccinate their own children according to CDC guidelines and a whopping 13% do not plan to follow CDC guidelines when vaccinating their children in the future. When you expand the scenario to include pediatric specialists, the number jumps to 21%.
With regard to the MMR vaccine, the numbers aren’t much better regarding CDC compliance.

5% of general pediatricians and 19% of pediatric specialists planned to postpone the MMR jab for their own children until after 18 months of age, beyond CDC guidelines.

The most common reasons why pediatricians have already avoided at least one vaccine for their children, or plan to avoid vaccines for future children, are concerns about safety and too many vaccines given at once.
Sounds like exactly the same reasoning as “uncredentialed” Moms and Dads who choose not to vaccinate their children!

Here is a quotation from this study:

Ten percent of pediatricians and 21% of pediatric specialists claim they would not follow [CDC] recommendations for future progeny. Despite their education, physicians in this study expressed concern over the safety of vaccines.

Given that such a large percentage of pediatricians reject at least some (if not all) vaccines for their own children and do not follow the CDC’s timetable on when to administer vaccines to their own children, how could laws be justified which disallow the same right of refusal to parents such as what is happening right now in California, New Jersey and others?
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist....ject-cdc-vax-schedule-for-their-own-children/

 

[HawktimusPrime]

To Mr. Joe's Place:

No, I'm referring to Herd Immunity.

-Also, 'losing their effectiveness' does NOT equal 'un-vaccinated', it means they may be more susceptible to contracting a disease. But they are generally STILL more immune than a 'disease-naive' person.

Losing their effectiveness DOES equal unvaccinated at that point. The level of ineffective is impossible to measure, as is effectiveness until you are confirmed to be in contact. Your argument is invalid here.

-Again, you really do NOT understand the science OR the math here - OR the basic elements of risk management when you are touting "1300 individuals harmed by vaccines" when there are >50 million who have benefitted from them.

I do understand math well, but you seem to not understand that no math problem is truly complete when so many variables are left out. I.E(How many didn't decide to report, how many were turned down, how many never thought to report, etc.) Who is to say how many real occurences of vaccine injures we've actually had? You? Nope.

-Keep Googling for obscure references. This is fun for people like me with Ph.D.'s in science....almost like being the running back in a PeeWee football league and breaking new rushing records every game...

Keep calling them obscure references, even though they are referenced by Doctors themselves. I'd recommend taking some of this seriously. You can claim scientists all you want, but you are already showing that you have no problem with leaving very telling, important, and integral variables out of your discussions.

 

[Titanhawk2]

No, it hasn't. There's no debate, but you know that.

Right, when your baby develops a high fever the day after her vaccination, and the doctor says it can't be related - yep, no debate.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Just curious, would there be room in said time machine for all the pediatricians that don't vaccinate? Cuz' they should probably see the horrors of the early twentieth century too, before vaccines saved all the children. Stupid doctors!
A full 6% of pediatricians do not vaccinate their own children according to CDC guidelines and a whopping 13% do not plan to follow CDC guidelines when vaccinating their children in the future. When you expand the scenario to include pediatric specialists, the number jumps to 21%.
With regard to the MMR vaccine, the numbers aren’t much better regarding CDC compliance.

5% of general pediatricians and 19% of pediatric specialists planned to postpone the MMR jab for their own children until after 18 months of age, beyond CDC guidelines.

The most common reasons why pediatricians have already avoided at least one vaccine for their children, or plan to avoid vaccines for future children, are concerns about safety and too many vaccines given at once.
Sounds like exactly the same reasoning as “uncredentialed” Moms and Dads who choose not to vaccinate their children!

Here is a quotation from this study:

Ten percent of pediatricians and 21% of pediatric specialists claim they would not follow [CDC] recommendations for future progeny. Despite their education, physicians in this study expressed concern over the safety of vaccines.

Given that such a large percentage of pediatricians reject at least some (if not all) vaccines for their own children and do not follow the CDC’s timetable on when to administer vaccines to their own children, how could laws be justified which disallow the same right of refusal to parents such as what is happening right now in California, New Jersey and others?
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist....ject-cdc-vax-schedule-for-their-own-children/

Excellent post here and I guarantee that angry mass of liberal hate mongers will be all over this. Which shows who they really are in the end.

 

[Joes Place]

Just curious, would there be room in said time machine for all the pediatricians that don't vaccinate? Cuz' they should probably see the horrors of the early twentieth century too, before vaccines saved all the children. Stupid doctors!
A full 6% of pediatricians do not vaccinate their own children according to CDC guidelines and a whopping 13% do not plan to follow CDC guidelines when vaccinating their children in the future. When you expand the scenario to include pediatric specialists, the number jumps to 21%.
With regard to the MMR vaccine, the numbers aren’t much better regarding CDC compliance.

5% of general pediatricians and 19% of pediatric specialists planned to postpone the MMR jab for their own children until after 18 months of age, beyond CDC guidelines.

The most common reasons why pediatricians have already avoided at least one vaccine for their children, or plan to avoid vaccines for future children, are concerns about safety and too many vaccines given at once.
Sounds like exactly the same reasoning as “uncredentialed” Moms and Dads who choose not to vaccinate their children!

Here is a quotation from this study:

Ten percent of pediatricians and 21% of pediatric specialists claim they would not follow [CDC] recommendations for future progeny. Despite their education, physicians in this study expressed concern over the safety of vaccines.

Given that such a large percentage of pediatricians reject at least some (if not all) vaccines for their own children and do not follow the CDC’s timetable on when to administer vaccines to their own children, how could laws be justified which disallow the same right of refusal to parents such as what is happening right now in California, New Jersey and others?
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist....ject-cdc-vax-schedule-for-their-own-children/

Delaying vaccines does NOT equal not vaccinating. Your link shows a LARGE majority of pediatricians (>90-95%) DO vaccinate. Considering there is ALWAYS a fringe element of people who are against something, that is a fairly large consensus.

You really this incapable of reading comprehension?

 

[Joes Place]

To Mr. Joe's Place:

No, I'm referring to Herd Immunity.

-Also, 'losing their effectiveness' does NOT equal 'un-vaccinated', it means they may be more susceptible to contracting a disease. But they are generally STILL more immune than a 'disease-naive' person.

Losing their effectiveness DOES equal unvaccinated at that point. The level of ineffective is impossible to measure, as is effectiveness until you are confirmed to be in contact. Your argument is invalid here.

-Again, you really do NOT understand the science OR the math here - OR the basic elements of risk management when you are touting "1300 individuals harmed by vaccines" when there are >50 million who have benefitted from them.

I do understand math well, but you seem to not understand that no math problem is truly complete when so many variables are left out. I.E(How many didn't decide to report, how many were turned down, how many never thought to report, etc.) Who is to say how many real occurences of vaccine injures we've actually had? You? Nope.

-Keep Googling for obscure references. This is fun for people like me with Ph.D.'s in science....almost like being the running back in a PeeWee football league and breaking new rushing records every game...

Keep calling them obscure references, even though they are referenced by Doctors themselves. I'd recommend taking some of this seriously. You can claim scientists all you want, but you are already showing that you have no problem with leaving very telling, important, and integral variables out of your discussions.

Lol.
No. You do not get it. Losing effectiveness is NOT the same as never having a vaccine. It simply means you have a higher likelihood of contracting something than a fully immune person.

You also have NO answer to the 50 million people who HAVE benefitted from vaccines, vs. barely 1000 who have had reactions.

You toss out a whole lotta "maybes" but few facts.

They are obscure references. You simply are not able to discern the difference between good science and bad scienc. Probably because you don't understand science at all. Leave those things to the adults in the room. You're vastly undereducated on this topic (and many others here). Our public education system failed you on the science. I'd guess you barely pulled C's in most of those classes....

 

[Joes Place]

Excellent post here and I guarantee that angry mass of liberal hate mongers will be all over this. Which shows who they really are in the end.

LMAO. Yep. Hook, line, sinker. You clearly don't understand what's actually being written.
See my response above. Perhaps it's easier for you to comprehend.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

LMAO. Yep. Hook, line, sinker. You clearly don't understand what's actually being written.
See my response above. Perhaps it's easier for you to comprehend.

You're not really a scientist are you? I can tell that you are not. You really need to stop making up such outrageous claims that you can't back up.

 

[Joes Place]

You're not really a scientist are you? I can tell that you are not. You really need to stop making up such outrageous claims that you can't back up.

Translation: I'm totally owned in this thread and have nothing else I can coherently answer.

 

[Joes Place]

Here's another little nugget for HP and his science-challenged buddies to suck on:

Acetaminophen causes FAR higher rates of bad reactions, deaths, etc. than ALL vaccination effects combined.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364

Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses; 100 of these are unintentional. The poison surveillance database showed near-doubling in the number of fatalities associated with acetaminophen from 98 in 1997 to 173 in 2001. AERS data describe a number of possible causes for unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses.

CONCLUSIONS:
Each year a substantial numbers of Americans experience intentional and unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses that, in severe cases, lead to serious illness and possible death. This summary of a series of analyses highlights the need for strategies to reduce this public health burden.
​

Let's run the math AGAIN vs. your own link on vaccine risks:

56,000 ER visits per year equals 560,000 ER visits over a decade, vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
26,000 hospitalizations per year equals 260,000 over a decade vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
458 deaths per year equals 4580 over a decade, or >4 times vaccine risk rates
100 unintentional deaths per year is on par with vaccine reactions, at 1000 over a decade

Note that liver failure, and subsequent liver transplants or dialysis is one of the MAJOR problems with acetaminophen use. Go Google for yourself how many liver failures are associated with this 'safe' drug that's been on the market for a long time, and is clearly still safe enough to market to the masses....

I will reiterate (for those with short attention spans): ALMOST EVERY medical procedure, or drug, or intervention, comes with associated risks. NOTHING is risk-free. When 50 million people benefit from something that may cause 1000 people serious side effects, at a 0.025% risk rate, that is VERY low in the scheme of modern medicine. So, please, stop spouting all this BS when you clearly do not understand the context of most of your posts here. Leave the science to those with actual science degrees, medical degrees, epidemiololgy and nursing degrees. When you don't understand something, defer to SOMEONE who has the expertise, not to random idiots on the internet.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Translation: I'm totally owned in this thread and have nothing else I can coherently answer.

I've had more than enough coherent answers, but unlike a scientist, you take nothing but your own opinion into account, purposely leave out variables, and show your emotional capacity as a factor in your debating. You have not yet expressed why there is a Vaccine Injury program in the first place, you have no explained how diseases such as Scarlet Fever are so rare, despite there being no vaccine(reason being, is that they couldn't come up with one that didn't cause serious injury, though they are still trying to make one), and you have not in anyway given credence to the fact that vaccines have in fact caused issues.

Therefore you have owned absolutely nothing. Keep the responses direct to these accusations if you can.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Here's another little nugget for HP and his science-challenged buddies to suck on:

Acetaminophen causes FAR higher rates of bad reactions, deaths, etc. than ALL vaccination effects combined.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364

Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses; 100 of these are unintentional. The poison surveillance database showed near-doubling in the number of fatalities associated with acetaminophen from 98 in 1997 to 173 in 2001. AERS data describe a number of possible causes for unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses.

CONCLUSIONS:
Each year a substantial numbers of Americans experience intentional and unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses that, in severe cases, lead to serious illness and possible death. This summary of a series of analyses highlights the need for strategies to reduce this public health burden.
​

Let's run the math AGAIN vs. your own link on vaccine risks:

56,000 ER visits per year equals 560,000 ER visits over a decade, vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
26,000 hospitalizations per year equals 260,000 over a decade vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
458 deaths per year equals 4580 over a decade, or >4 times vaccine risk rates
100 unintentional deaths per year is on par with vaccine reactions, at 1000 over a decade

Note that liver failure, and subsequent liver transplants or dialysis is one of the MAJOR problems with acetaminophen use. Go Google for yourself how many liver failures are associated with this 'safe' drug that's been on the market for a long time, and is clearly still safe enough to market to the masses....

I will reiterate (for those with short attention spans): ALMOST EVERY medical procedure, or drug, or intervention, comes with associated risks. NOTHING is risk-free. When 50 million people benefit from something that may cause 1000 people serious side effects, at a 0.025% risk rate, that is VERY low in the scheme of modern medicine. So, please, stop spouting all this BS when you clearly do not understand the context of most of your posts here. Leave the science to those with actual science degrees, medical degrees, epidemiololgy and nursing degrees. When you don't understand something, defer to SOMEONE who has the expertise, not to random idiots on the internet.

Also, any serious scientist doesn't go around acting so juvenile and arrogant as you do. You act like a Junior High School kid and then accuse everyone of doing the same thing.

None of your evidence can truly be taken serious into vaccines, because of the lack of variables and data. You are arguing for big pharma in this case. I'm willing to bet you have never taken that into case. 1300 reactions is not accurate as has been pointed out many, many times. That is the amount of CASES, say it again, CASES, that have been won.

Your lies are catching up with you.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Here's another little nugget for HP and his science-challenged buddies to suck on:

Acetaminophen causes FAR higher rates of bad reactions, deaths, etc. than ALL vaccination effects combined.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364

Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses; 100 of these are unintentional. The poison surveillance database showed near-doubling in the number of fatalities associated with acetaminophen from 98 in 1997 to 173 in 2001. AERS data describe a number of possible causes for unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses.

CONCLUSIONS:
Each year a substantial numbers of Americans experience intentional and unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses that, in severe cases, lead to serious illness and possible death. This summary of a series of analyses highlights the need for strategies to reduce this public health burden.
​

Let's run the math AGAIN vs. your own link on vaccine risks:

56,000 ER visits per year equals 560,000 ER visits over a decade, vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
26,000 hospitalizations per year equals 260,000 over a decade vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
458 deaths per year equals 4580 over a decade, or >4 times vaccine risk rates
100 unintentional deaths per year is on par with vaccine reactions, at 1000 over a decade

Note that liver failure, and subsequent liver transplants or dialysis is one of the MAJOR problems with acetaminophen use. Go Google for yourself how many liver failures are associated with this 'safe' drug that's been on the market for a long time, and is clearly still safe enough to market to the masses....

I will reiterate (for those with short attention spans): ALMOST EVERY medical procedure, or drug, or intervention, comes with associated risks. NOTHING is risk-free. When 50 million people benefit from something that may cause 1000 people serious side effects, at a 0.025% risk rate, that is VERY low in the scheme of modern medicine. So, please, stop spouting all this BS when you clearly do not understand the context of most of your posts here. Leave the science to those with actual science degrees, medical degrees, epidemiololgy and nursing degrees. When you don't understand something, defer to SOMEONE who has the expertise, not to random idiots on the internet.

Oh also, just to make this victory even sweeter for me. Note, that I never said that vaccinations don't have their place in certain situations. I have simply said that they CAN be dangerous, and that people who don't get vaccinated are hardly as unhealthy as those that do. That was my argument from the beginning. Due to you being a left vs right minded person, you were unable to see that. You never even asked me what my opinion of the big picture of what we are talking about was.

Now Mr. Scientist, go tell your colleagues that you have been schooled.

 

[Joes Place]

I've had more than enough coherent answers

No. You haven't. And you have had no response to my comment and clear indication on how LOW the risks for vaccines are relative to other aspects of modern medicine. FAIL

unlike a scientist, you take nothing but your own opinion into account, purposely leave out variables, and show your emotional capacity as a factor in your debating.

No. I've linked relevant information. The fact that you cannot comprehend it is beyond my capability to help you out. FAIL

You have not yet expressed why there is a Vaccine Injury program in the first place.

No. I've clearly stated that there is NO SUCH THING as ZERO RISK in medicine - in ANY ASPECT of medicine.
Your Straw Man attempt here is yet ANOTHER FAIL

you have no explained how diseases such as Scarlet Fever are so rare, despite there being no vaccine(reason being, is that they couldn't come up with one that didn't cause serious injury, though they are still trying to make one), and you have not in anyway given credence to the fact that vaccines have in fact caused issues.

Where is this coming from? I never argued anything of the sort.
And AGAIN, you are VASTLY INCOMPETENT. Scarlet fever is cause by a BACTERIA, not a VIRUS. We vaccinate against VIRUSES like measles, mumps, rubella, etc. My God; you have the intelligence of a 3rd grader here. FAIL

Therefore you have owned absolutely nothing. Keep the responses direct to these accusations if you can.

You are TOTALLY owned here. Keep 'em coming, because this is sheer entertainment for those with actual science degrees here!!!! LMAO

 

[Joes Place]

Oh also, just to make this victory even sweeter for me. Note, that I never said that vaccinations don't have their place in certain situations. I have simply said that they CAN be dangerous, and that people who don't get vaccinated are hardly as unhealthy as those that do. That was my argument from the beginning. Due to you being a left vs right minded person, you were unable to see that. You never even asked me what my opinion of the big picture of what we are talking about was.

Now Mr. Scientist, go tell your colleagues that you have been schooled.

Can you even write in coherent sentences?

It's "Dr Scientist" to you, btw...

 

[HawktimusPrime]

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/authorizinglegislation.pdf

Here's another nugget for you Joe. If there was never a problem that needs to be addressed. Than why did the US Government address the problem that doesn't need to be addressed?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Can you even write in coherent sentences?

It's "Dr Scientist" to you, btw...

No it's not, it's Dr. Fraud. As the resident 'former black man', I know when someone is being less than truthful about their identity, and........

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Can you even write in coherent sentences?

It's "Dr Scientist" to you, btw...

You could just simply say, "well I guess I never really did get your full take on this, sorry brah."

 

[HawktimusPrime]

No. You haven't. And you have had no response to my comment and clear indication on how LOW the risks for vaccines are relative to other aspects of modern medicine. FAIL



No. I've linked relevant information. The fact that you cannot comprehend it is beyond my capability to help you out. FAIL



No. I've clearly stated that there is NO SUCH THING as ZERO RISK in medicine - in ANY ASPECT of medicine.
Your Straw Man attempt here is yet ANOTHER FAIL



Where is this coming from? I never argued anything of the sort.
And AGAIN, you are VASTLY INCOMPETENT. Scarlet fever is cause by a BACTERIA, not a VIRUS. We vaccinate against VIRUSES like measles, mumps, rubella, etc. My God; you have the intelligence of a 3rd grader here. FAIL



You are TOTALLY owned here. Keep 'em coming, because this is sheer entertainment for those with actual science degrees here!!!! LMAO

Wait a second here, before we go further...did you just insinuate that there are no vaccines for bacteria? You best explain that real quick.

 

[shank hawk]

Here's another little nugget for HP and his science-challenged buddies to suck on:

Acetaminophen causes FAR higher rates of bad reactions, deaths, etc. than ALL vaccination effects combined.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364

Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses; 100 of these are unintentional. The poison surveillance database showed near-doubling in the number of fatalities associated with acetaminophen from 98 in 1997 to 173 in 2001. AERS data describe a number of possible causes for unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses.

CONCLUSIONS:
Each year a substantial numbers of Americans experience intentional and unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses that, in severe cases, lead to serious illness and possible death. This summary of a series of analyses highlights the need for strategies to reduce this public health burden.
​

Let's run the math AGAIN vs. your own link on vaccine risks:

56,000 ER visits per year equals 560,000 ER visits over a decade, vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
26,000 hospitalizations per year equals 260,000 over a decade vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
458 deaths per year equals 4580 over a decade, or >4 times vaccine risk rates
100 unintentional deaths per year is on par with vaccine reactions, at 1000 over a decade

Note that liver failure, and subsequent liver transplants or dialysis is one of the MAJOR problems with acetaminophen use. Go Google for yourself how many liver failures are associated with this 'safe' drug that's been on the market for a long time, and is clearly still safe enough to market to the masses....

I will reiterate (for those with short attention spans): ALMOST EVERY medical procedure, or drug, or intervention, comes with associated risks. NOTHING is risk-free. When 50 million people benefit from something that may cause 1000 people serious side effects, at a 0.025% risk rate, that is VERY low in the scheme of modern medicine. So, please, stop spouting all this BS when you clearly do not understand the context of most of your posts here. Leave the science to those with actual science degrees, medical degrees, epidemiololgy and nursing degrees. When you don't understand something, defer to SOMEONE who has the expertise, not to random idiots on the internet.

Thank you, Mr. PhD scientist man. You just unwittingly exposed the fact that our medical system in this country is nothing but legalized prostitution.

The johns with the $$$ (Big Pharma) can get whatever they want from the compliant whores (medical schools, media, FDA, CDC, et al) because that's what prostitutes do.

Two weeks ago on PBS' Frontline there was a one hour show on the supplement industry explaining how they are practically getting away with murder. With the super ominous mood music playing in the background, you would think that millions of dead children are littering America's streets - felled by the deadliest herbal concoctions known to man. OMG, an herbal weight loss supplement sickened 70 people in Hawaii. The horror! Johnson & Johnson kills 400-500 people a year and destroys the livers of thousands more..........YAWN. Some little supplement company sickens 70 and we have to expose their deadly sins for the world to see. Follow the money. The science - forget about it.

Vaccines are nothing but bargain basement technology according to one very wise American. Heed his advice.

 

[lawsonhawk]

Here's another little nugget for HP and his science-challenged buddies to suck on:

Acetaminophen causes FAR higher rates of bad reactions, deaths, etc. than ALL vaccination effects combined.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16294364

Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses; 100 of these are unintentional. The poison surveillance database showed near-doubling in the number of fatalities associated with acetaminophen from 98 in 1997 to 173 in 2001. AERS data describe a number of possible causes for unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses.

CONCLUSIONS:
Each year a substantial numbers of Americans experience intentional and unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses that, in severe cases, lead to serious illness and possible death. This summary of a series of analyses highlights the need for strategies to reduce this public health burden.
​

Let's run the math AGAIN vs. your own link on vaccine risks:

56,000 ER visits per year equals 560,000 ER visits over a decade, vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
26,000 hospitalizations per year equals 260,000 over a decade vs. 1300 reactions to vaccines
458 deaths per year equals 4580 over a decade, or >4 times vaccine risk rates
100 unintentional deaths per year is on par with vaccine reactions, at 1000 over a decade

Note that liver failure, and subsequent liver transplants or dialysis is one of the MAJOR problems with acetaminophen use. Go Google for yourself how many liver failures are associated with this 'safe' drug that's been on the market for a long time, and is clearly still safe enough to market to the masses....

I will reiterate (for those with short attention spans): ALMOST EVERY medical procedure, or drug, or intervention, comes with associated risks. NOTHING is risk-free. When 50 million people benefit from something that may cause 1000 people serious side effects, at a 0.025% risk rate, that is VERY low in the scheme of modern medicine. So, please, stop spouting all this BS when you clearly do not understand the context of most of your posts here. Leave the science to those with actual science degrees, medical degrees, epidemiololgy and nursing degrees. When you don't understand something, defer to SOMEONE who has the expertise, not to random idiots on the internet.

I was actually going to comment on the tendency for docs to advise parents to give kids acetaminophen after the shot (vaccination) as acetamin . . ties up two CYP enzymes which would amplify any vaccine side effect.

 

[Joes Place]

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/authorizinglegislation.pdf

Here's another nugget for you Joe. If there was never a problem that needs to be addressed. Than why did the US Government address the problem that doesn't need to be addressed?

More Straw Man arguments.

I never stated there was 'no problem'. I CLEARLY stated that there are risks associated with ANY medical procedure, drug or vaccine. Do you understand this point yet?

 

[Joes Place]

Thank you, Mr. PhD scientist man.

You're welcome, as are millions of other folks who have been spared polio, mumps, measles, rubella, etc.

People will start clamoring for a Zika virus vaccine now that it's hitting the Americas. Maybe you can go explain to them that they don't need it, and should be dealing with an epidemic of microencephaly by more 'Bible praying' or whatever it is you uneducated zealots recommend nowadays....

 

[Joes Place]

No it's not, it's Dr. Fraud. As the resident 'former black man', I know when someone is being less than truthful about their identity, and........

LOL. Nope. Quite a few posters on here know who I am, and know that I have a PhD, medical and physics background. And I have about 20 patents to my name to boot.

So, of the two of us, only one has been 'less than truthful about their identity'. You.

 

[Joes Place]

Two weeks ago on PBS' Frontline there was a one hour show on the supplement industry explaining how they are practically getting away with murder.

Once again, someone who DOES NOT UNDERSTAND that the 'supplement industry' is NOT the drug/pharma industry. It is UN-regulated!!!

But, based upon your complete lack of understanding on this topic, and your childish comprehension of most of this info, I can see where 'herbal supplements' and 'medical pharmaceuticals' appear like the same thing: they both come in bottles with pretty labels and have lots of nice ads to go with them. Only one of the two types of pills actually has to pass through a crapload of regulatory/safety hurdles before they can sell it to you....

 

[HawktimusPrime]

LOL. Nope. Quite a few posters on here know who I am, and know that I have a PhD, medical and physics background. And I have about 20 patents to my name to boot.

So, of the two of us, only one has been 'less than truthful about their identity'. You.

Sure, anyways you're clearly dodging something. Stop it Joe.

 

[shank hawk]

You're welcome, as are millions of other folks who have been spared polio, mumps, measles, rubella, etc.

People will start clamoring for a Zika virus vaccine now that it's hitting the Americas. Maybe you can go explain to them that they don't need it, and should be dealing with an epidemic of microencephaly by more 'Bible praying' or whatever it is you uneducated zealots recommend nowadays....

Did you say your PhD was in comedy? It certainly isn't in critical thinking. I was attempting to look at the data you supplied:

Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses; 100 of these are unintentional. The poison surveillance database showed near-doubling in the number of fatalities associated with acetaminophen from 98 in 1997 to 173 in 2001. AERS data describe a number of possible causes for unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses.

and reconcile it with the FDA mission statement:

Statement of FDA Mission
FDA is responsible for protecting t
he public health by assuring the safety,
efficacy and security of human and veterinar
y drugs, biological products, medical
devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics,
and products that emit radiation.
FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed
innovations that make medicines more e
ffective, safer, and more affordable and
by helping the public get the accurate
, science-based information they need to
use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health. FDA also has
responsibility for regulating the manufac
turing, marketing and distribution of
tobacco products to protect the public
health and to reduce tobacco use by
minors.
FDA also plays a significant role in t
he Nation’s counterterrorism capability. FDA
fulfills this responsibility by ensuring
the security of the food supply and by
fostering development of medical products
to respond to deliberate and naturally
emerging public he
alth threats.

For some reason, the two just don't coincide. We don't have science in this country: if we did Tylenol wouldn't be on any shelf in the country and the good folks at J & J would be in jail. But just keep shillin' there son while the FDA keeps on whorin', and just keep trying to convince people that cancer and autoimmune diseases are better than chicken pox and the measles.

 

[HIWB]

We don't have science in this country: if we did Tylenol wouldn't be on any shelf in the country and the good folks at J & J would be in jail. But just keep shillin' there son while the FDA keeps on whorin', and just keep trying to convince people that cancer and autoimmune diseases are better than chicken pox and the measles.

This pretty much says everything you need to know about the anti-science zealots on this planet.
All of their bases are covered: support big pharma or big ag? Shill
Support the fda or EPA? They're corrupt and you're a shill.
Support science that doesn't agree with something they found on mercola, natural news, or collective evolution? You're just not enlightened enough to know how to do the best internet research, man. And you're a shill.

 

[Joes Place]

I was attempting to look at the data you supplied:

Keyword here is 'attempting'. You really don't understand medicine, science or any aspect of regulatory approval processes.

I, on the other hand, have been involved in several approvals for medical devices/methods and have an advanced degree. You're a PeeWee football player trying to get onto an NFL roster here, chum.

 

[Joes Place]

Sure, anyways you're clearly dodging something. Stop it Joe.

Translation: "Mommy!!!! He's being mean to me by hitting me with FACTS!!!"

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Did you say your PhD was in comedy? It certainly isn't in critical thinking. I was attempting to look at the data you supplied:

Analysis of national databases show that acetaminophen-associated overdoses account for about 56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations yearly. Analysis of national mortality files shows 458 deaths occur each year from acetaminophen-associated overdoses; 100 of these are unintentional. The poison surveillance database showed near-doubling in the number of fatalities associated with acetaminophen from 98 in 1997 to 173 in 2001. AERS data describe a number of possible causes for unintentional acetaminophen-associated overdoses.

and reconcile it with the FDA mission statement:

Statement of FDA Mission
FDA is responsible for protecting t
he public health by assuring the safety,
efficacy and security of human and veterinar
y drugs, biological products, medical
devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics,
and products that emit radiation.
FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed
innovations that make medicines more e
ffective, safer, and more affordable and
by helping the public get the accurate
, science-based information they need to
use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health. FDA also has
responsibility for regulating the manufac
turing, marketing and distribution of
tobacco products to protect the public
health and to reduce tobacco use by
minors.
FDA also plays a significant role in t
he Nation’s counterterrorism capability. FDA
fulfills this responsibility by ensuring
the security of the food supply and by
fostering development of medical products
to respond to deliberate and naturally
emerging public he
alth threats.

For some reason, the two just don't coincide. We don't have science in this country: if we did Tylenol wouldn't be on any shelf in the country and the good folks at J & J would be in jail. But just keep shillin' there son while the FDA keeps on whorin', and just keep trying to convince people that cancer and autoimmune diseases are better than chicken pox and the measles.

Just out of curiosity...could you point to the actual cause of your "56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations [and] 458 deaths [that] occur each year"?

Is it acetaminophen?

 

[Joes Place]

For some reason, the two just don't coincide. We don't have science in this country: if we did Tylenol wouldn't be on any shelf in the country and the good folks at J & J would be in jail. But just keep shillin' there son while the FDA keeps on whorin', and just keep trying to convince people that cancer and autoimmune diseases are better than chicken pox and the measles.

Coming from someone who cannot understand the difference between 'supplements' and actual 'drugs' from a PBS Frontline episode, I don't think you have a clue as to what FDA does, how medicines are approved, how drugs are removed from the market, or anything about vaccines. Put back on your tinfoil hat and go hide underground.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Translation: "Mommy!!!! He's being mean to me by hitting me with FACTS!!!"

Such as Scarlet fever being bacterial and there could be no vaccine for it because we only use vaccines for viruses?

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Coming from someone who cannot understand the difference between 'supplements' and actual 'drugs' from a PBS Frontline episode, I don't think you have a clue as to what FDA does, how medicines are approved, how drugs are removed from the market, or anything about vaccines. Put back on your tinfoil hat and go hide underground.

Says the scientist who thinks that vaccines are only for viral diseases......

Worst scientist ever..........

 

[shank hawk]

Just out of curiosity...could you point to the actual cause of your "56,000 emergency room visits and 26,000 hospitalizations [and] 458 deaths [that] occur each year"?

Is it acetaminophen?

You'll have to ask Dr. scientist joes place. I just highlighted what he had linked above.

 

[shank hawk]

Coming from someone who cannot understand the difference between 'supplements' and actual 'drugs' from a PBS Frontline episode, I don't think you have a clue as to what FDA does, how medicines are approved, how drugs are removed from the market, or anything about vaccines. Put back on your tinfoil hat and go hide underground.

I understand all too well - supplements are food. Drugs are poisons.

As far as knowing what the FDA does, that too is clear. It's like saying I don't know what a whore does when the traveling salesman walks through the door with a boatload of cash. Sure I do; she does whatever the hell he wants her to - and acts like she enjoys it.

Meet Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for the FDA. In 1981 he worked for the law firm, King & Spalding, where he lobbied for Monsanto and established the firm’s “food and drug law” practice. In 1991, he moved over to the FDA to fill a newly created position, Deputy Commissioner of Policy. Between 1994 and 1996, he did a stint at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as the Administrator of Food Safety. Then he returned to King & Spalding, then to Monsanto as VP for Public Policy, and today, he is again, a senior advisor to the FDA, occupying yet another newly created position, Deputy Commissioner of Foods.

Taylor is just one example of the “revolving door” policy that exists between private corporate interests and the agencies that exist for their benefit. When a corporation or a group of corporations become large enough, powerful enough, the government ceases to regulate them, and instead becomes a thug, regulating the competition on their behalf.

So the game is, Monsanto controls the food, Big Pharma controls the drugs. Both lobby Congress for legislation and the FDA is the hired gun that stands in the middle to protect their interests. One hand offers the poison while the other offers the remedy. If anyone comes along to resist, or offers a healthy alternative, like raw, non-homogenized, non-growth hormone milk, or an all-natural remedy like red yeast rice extract, the FDA is there for the proverbial smack down; to raid, seize, and destroy.

Is it any wonder, given more than 40% of the FDA’s budget comes from the private sector they purport to regulate? Doesn’t it seem like just good business to take extra-special care of your largest paying clients; even if it means a little malfeasance on the side?
http://www.usobserver.com/archive/june-12/racketeering-fda-monsanto-pharma.htm

 

[tarheelbybirth]

You'll have to ask Dr. scientist joes place. I just highlighted what he had linked above.

You should read it. Is acetaminophen responsible for all those stats you highlighted?

 

[shank hawk]

You should read it. Is acetaminophen responsible for all those stats you highlighted?

They seem in line with what I have read before, that's why I didn't question his numbers or sources.

Do you feel the numbers are skewed, or is there another reason for asking the question? Not trying to be a dick (though admittedly I am capable of such ) just curious.