Let's play devil's advocate: How do you defend anti-vaxxer?

[zassou]

On 3/12/2019 at 8:14 AM, Tog Driver said:

So, continuing with devils advocate: seems like almost every one here is acting like you will die if you don't get vaccinated.

 

"legal way to get rid of a kid"

 

but if this was the case then how did anyone survive before vaccines?

to keep this thread in the right track:

people do immune to some deseases, or some do contracted with the desease but shows no symptons at all, like typhoid mary.

 

yes, you probably dont need vaccines, tho the chance is very slim.

but in the lesson of typhoid mary, one person's will is outweighed by the well being of the mass. and to me thats governments' concern. thats why some contries mandates it's a civil duty to have vaccines as said above.

 

i think there is a more democratic way to solve the clash between personal freedom and public health safety:

a person or their gardians have to proove him / her is immune to certain desease in order to avoid vaccination. these tests will be expensive, wont get covered by health care like nhs system, have to take them at certified facilities, and have to take additional tests later like how mot for cars work.

 

money issue is the biggest deterrent imo, for those who too lazy to think for themselves, might as well take that mmr shot which costs peanut money, a lot less hassle than go thu the artificial hoops. but for those who are genuinly concered, it's never a bad thing to take a propper check up. hey, if some research institute do find a person who is naturally immune to deseases like aids, that will the discovery of the ages. and hey, those money can fund those researches too.

 

 

[dalekphalm]

17 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

The last time I brought this up on these fourms, I was given shit for it, but I find it relevant. 

 

I was paralyzed from a flu vaccine, I lost the ability to walk, my job, and pretty much everything else other then faimly, I was not given financial compensation either.  Said reaction is known as Guillain-Barre syndrome.  Vaccines are known to cause it, and I was a rather severe case, I spent over a year in rehab and was released wheelchair bound.  I am mostly better now, years later still a bit weak but still getting stronger as well.  But I will never get a vaccine ever again, and I tell my story to others because I feel like they should be informed. 

 

I am not an antivaxxer, but like all medications, they have potential aide effects that should be disclosed, and no one should be attacked for choosing to not be vaccinated. 

 

TLDR, let the anti vaxxers do what they want with their own body and stop fucking attacking them for it.  There are legit reasons for choosing not to be vaccinated. 

I understand your concerns, and the bad experience you had.

 

But, you have to consider that getting the actual Flu has a higher chance of giving someone Guillain-Barre syndrome than the vaccine itself does. Furthermore, we're talking chances of 1 in 100,000 that your risk will go up (That is to say, not a 1 in 100,000 chance of getting Guillain-Barre syndrome, but rather, you have a 1 in 100,000 chance of being at higher risk).

 

You suffered an incredibly massively rare complication. That's really unfortunate, and hopefully one day we can entirely eliminate conditions such as Guillain-Barre syndrome. But the chances are still much higher that a person will suffer life long complications or even death from the diseases we vaccinate against.

 

And those kinds of complications are indeed disclosed on every vaccine insert. Ideally your doctor should go through the insert with you though.

 

The problem is that while you ended up having a severe complication, that information isn't terribly useful to others. Yes, they should know it's possible, but it's so incredibly unlikely to happen, that anyone who decided against vaccinations because someone else got Guillain-Barre syndrome? That's a decision I wouldn't support, because the data doesn't support their concerns.

[Skanky Sylveon]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

But, you have to consider that getting the actual Flu has a higher chance of giving someone Guillain-Barre syndrome than the vaccine itself does.

Says who?  I want actual research papers on the topic. 

[dalekphalm]

24 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Says who?  I want actual research papers on the topic. 

Not a research paper (I don't have time right now to do the research... pun intended), but:

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/guillain-barre-syndrome/symptoms-causes/syc-20362793

Quote

Guillain-Barre syndrome may be triggered by:

Most commonly, infection with campylobacter, a type of bacteria often found in undercooked poultry
Influenza virus
Cytomegalovirus
Epstein-Barr virus
Zika virus
Hepatitis A, B, C and E
HIV, the virus that causes AIDS
Mycoplasma pneumonia
Surgery
Hodgkin's lymphoma
Rarely, influenza vaccinations or childhood vaccinations

Also:

https://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/factsheet_gbs.htm

Quote

Getting GBS from a vaccination is very rare
In very rare cases, someone may develop GBS in the days or weeks after getting a vaccination. In 1976, there was a small increased chance of GBS after getting a flu (swine flu) vaccination. This means about 1 more case per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine.

Quote

Many studies have looked at seasonal flu vaccines and GBS
Since 1976, many studies have been done to see if other flu vaccines may cause GBS. In most studies no link was found between the flu vaccine and GBS. However, two studies did suggest that about 1 more person out of 1 million people vaccinated with seasonal flu vaccine may develop GBS. This continues to be studied.  For the most part, the chance of getting very ill from flu is far higher than the chance of getting GBS after getting the flu vaccine.

Emphasis added by me.

 

I know some people don't, but I thoroughly trust the CDC, and the studies they look at.

 

The TL;DR seems to be that the Swine Flu specifically has a slighly higher chance, at 1 in 100,000 increase over the normal risk.

 

Also, Seasonal Flu seems to be about 1 in 1,000,000 increase over normal risk.

 

Those are very very acceptable risk numbers.

[Skanky Sylveon]

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Not a research paper (I don't have time right now to do the research... pun intended), but:

I knew that you would link mayo clinic. 

That doesn't count.  My rehab hospital gets sent GBS patients all the time, they specialise in neurological injuries. 

 

Out of the 4 other GBS patients, there was only one who didn't recently get a vaccine. 

They said that the vast majority of GBS patients received a vaccine.  I'll take their words over yours.  And to be frank, most studies as well.

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Getting GBS from a vaccination is very rare
In very rare cases, someone may develop GBS in the days or weeks after getting a vaccination. In 1976, there was a small increased chance of GBS after getting a flu (swine flu) vaccination. This means about 1 more case per 100,000 people who got the swine flu vaccine.

I never said that it wasn't rare to get it from a vaccine, I just don't think you have a higher chance of getting it from the common cold.

17 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

For the most part, the chance of getting very ill from flu is far higher than the chance of getting GBS after getting the flu vaccine.

That's not saying that you are more likely to get GBS from the flu, it's saying that you're more likely to get real sick from the flu yhen get GBS from a vaccine. 

 

And I'm inclined to agree.  One problem with that though, I had pneumonia before.  It was far more pleasant then GBS.  I'll take pneumonia any day.

 

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

And those kinds of complications are indeed disclosed on every vaccine insert. Ideally your doctor should go through the insert with you though.

It wasn't disclosed to me.  Just a "you really should get vaccinated" then they bring out the needle before I could make a decision.  I felt rather forced into it to be frank.

 

Needless to say, I choose not to vaccinate myself, bolth me and my brother suffered from GBS the same year which I know is unheard of but it's the truth. 

 

No entity should force anyone into doing anything with their bodies, and I feel like people should be informed about the potential risks, and no, doctors don't disclose GBS as a potential risk.

[TempestCatto]

1 hour ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I knew that you would link mayo clinic.

What is the mayo clinic and what makes them bad (in a non-argumentative sort of way)? I ask because my aunt has been there a lot, and they claimed she was at risk of dying if not for the meds she's on now (no idea what she takes right now, she hasn't told anyone). She has a fuckton of health problems, but the whole family thinks a good portion of it is psychosomatic.

[Skanky Sylveon]

27 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

What is the mayo clinic and what makes them bad (in a non-argumentative sort of way)? I ask because my aunt has been there a lot, and they claimed she was at risk of dying if not for the meds she's on now (no idea what she takes right now, she hasn't told anyone). She has a fuckton of health problems, but the whole family thinks a good portion of it is psychosomatic.

Nothing inherently wrong with them, I just knew he would link it because it says this.

 

It emphasizes that vaccination is one of the rarer ways to get it, but it has no evidence that backs up those claims. 

[Dash Lambda]

14 hours ago, floofer said:

Yeah I know, some people call a drip an IV though. Probably just getting mixed up with a blood test, but still trivial. Realistically you’re looking at 5 minutes for a quick jab. Like I said, even a nurse is qualified. That’s only 3 years training. 

What makes it a "medical procedure" worthy of the caution that phrase implies isn't how difficult it is to perform. When I say a vaccine is an "advanced medication," that's because there's a whole lot more going on with a vaccine than there is with most other medications. The primary agent in a vaccine is a very carefully engineered culture of the virus or microbe responsible for the disease (sometimes even a mostly artificial stand-in), and it's in a soup of stabilizers and supporting medicines that includes antibiotics, serum, and specific proteins. It's designed to cause a set of system-wide reactions that even make parts of your body act like you're sick, lasting for a couple weeks after it's administered and (semi) permanently changing the way your body functions.

 

A vaccine is not like a supplement or a pain killer, where there are a couple chemicals that fit into the right molecular holes for short time. It is a sophisticated medicine that causes a very complex reaction and costs orders of magnitude more time and money to research and produce.

 

Giving an injection is simple, but what's in that syringe and what it does are far from simple.

Which, honestly, I think is friggin' awesome.

 

Of course, when you have a treatment like that, things can go wrong. It's very dangerous for people with autoimmune diseases to take vaccines, some people are allergic and can develop anaphylaxis, and there was even someone earlier in this thread that was paralyzed for an extended period of time. Vaccines are not perfectly safe, and when they cause problems they can cause big problems. But that's just how medicine works, you can't solve a problem perfectly every time, the best you can do is solve it in the vast majority of cases -Which vaccines do.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

What makes it a "medical procedure" worthy of the caution that phrase implies isn't how difficult it is to perform. When I say a vaccine is an "advanced medication," that's because there's a whole lot more going on with a vaccine than there is with most other medications. The primary agent in a vaccine is a very carefully engineered culture of the virus or microbe responsible for the disease (sometimes even a mostly artificial stand-in), and it's in a soup of stabilizers and supporting medicines that includes antibiotics, serum, and specific proteins. It's designed to cause a set of system-wide reactions that even make parts of your body act like you're sick, lasting for a couple weeks after it's administered and (semi) permanently changing the way your body functions.

Most Vaccines don’t contain the initial virus or bacteria, but particles from the specimens to induce an immune response, for instance a vaccine for a gram-negative bacteria would contain an amount of LPS to trigger the receptors on the cells to initiate an immune response.

 

The effect lasts days and only creates T-memory cells or B-memory cells. These cells contain the antigen provided by the vaccine for detection by the immune system.

39 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

A vaccine is not like a supplement or a pain killer, where there are a couple chemicals that fit into the right molecular holes for short time. It is a sophisticated medicine that causes a very complex reaction and costs orders of magnitude more time and money to research and produce.

It’s not really engineered in that fashion. Most research on Vaccines is done to abdicate the effects of adjuvants, such as using viral particles or even RNA Vaccines.

39 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Giving an injection is simple, but what's in that syringe and what it does are far from simple.

Which, honestly, I think is friggin' awesome.

 

Of course, when you have a treatment like that, things can go wrong. It's very dangerous for people with autoimmune diseases to take vaccines, some people are allergic and can develop anaphylaxis, and there was even someone earlier in this thread that was paralyzed for an extended period of time. Vaccines are not perfectly safe, and when they cause problems they can cause big problems. But that's just how medicine works, you can't solve a problem perfectly every time, the best you can do is solve it in the vast majority of cases -Which vaccines do.

Herd immunity can only help those individuals who are unable to get the vaccine if we vaccinate at least 80% of the population.

[Dash Lambda]

14 minutes ago, floofer said:

Most Vaccines don’t contain the initial virus or bacteria, but particles from the specimens to induce an immune response, for instance a vaccine for a gram-negative bacteria would contain an amount of LPS to trigger the receptors on the cells to initiate an immune response.

The effect lasts days and only creates T-memory cells or B-memory cells. These cells contain the antigen provided by the vaccine for detection by the immune system.

It’s not really engineered in that fashion. Most research on Vaccines is done to abdicate the effects of adjuvants, such as using viral particles or even RNA Vaccines.

I will not claim to have medical knowledge I don't, so I'm less arguing a point here and more trying to understand if and how I'm wrong:

 

It's my understanding that there are two general types that most vaccines fall into: Inactivated and live.

Inactivated vaccines are made by taking a culture of the pathogen and killing it, usually with heat/chemicals/radiation. These cultures can also be modified by filtering/purifying or by other chemical methods to improve potency or achieve the desired response.

Live vaccines use live cultures of the pathogen, pretty much always attenuated to be effectively harmless to humans, sometimes by growing the culture in an environment dissimilar to the human body. I do not know the other methods of attenuation.

 

It is also my understanding that the body typically does not start producing the desired antibodies until about two weeks after vaccination, which I take to mean that the immune response takes place over the course of weeks, not hours or days.

 

I know that the immune response is very complicated. I do not mean to claim we're engineering every part of that process, I just mean that we've engineered clever ways to trick it into doing very specific things.

 

I also know that the majority of research on vaccines is not just to figure out the primary mechanism. Regardless of that, vaccines are much more expensive to develop and produce than normal medications.

 

May I ask what your background is for this? You mentioned being taught by a vet, so I'm curious.

 

54 minutes ago, floofer said:

Herd immunity can only help those individuals who are unable to get the vaccine if we vaccinate at least 80% of the population.

Yes, and I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that scary things can and do happen, so people have a right to be weary. Not of autism or corporate conspiracy, but of the same things they should be weary of with any other medical procedure.

(Note: Being weary does not mean refusing to vaccinate, it means recognizing that shit happens.)

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I will not claim to have medical knowledge I don't, so I'm less arguing a point here and more trying to understand if and how I'm wrong:

 

It's my understanding that there are two general types that most vaccines fall into: Inactivated and live.

Inactivated vaccines are made by taking a culture of the pathogen and killing it, usually with heat/chemicals/radiation. These cultures can also be modified by filtering/purifying or by other chemical methods to improve potency or achieve the desired response.

Live vaccines use live cultures of the pathogen, pretty much always attenuated to be effectively harmless to humans, sometimes by growing the culture in an environment dissimilar to the human body. I do not know the other methods of attenuation.

Map there are attenuated, which you described (just weakened pathogens) and adjuvant, where key immune triggering aspects are taken from the pathogen and used to allow the immune system to potentiate the correct response. 

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

It is also my understanding that the body typically does not start producing the desired antibodies until about two weeks after vaccination, which I take to mean that the immune response takes place over the course of weeks, not hours or days.

You will have an immediate response to any foreign matter in your body, but in this case the innate immune system will react to the vaccine and recruit the appropriate adaptive response, as well as try and subdue the foreign pathogen. The recruitment for the adaptive response (to which antibodies are created in a B-cell response) is around 3 days.

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I know that the immune response is very complicated. I do not mean to claim we're engineering every part of that process, I just mean that we've engineered clever ways to trick it into doing very specific things.

It’s more managing the existing processes. Car-T-Cell therapy is a good example.

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

I also know that the majority of research on vaccines is not just to figure out the primary mechanism.

It kind of is. Figuring out how memory cells retain the antigen and how specific they are is important. The more we can break up a pathogen and use it as a vaccination, the less side effects it will have. Safety is the number one aspect of vaccination.

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Regardless of that, vaccines are much more expensive to develop and produce than normal medications.

Depends on the medication and vaccine.

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

May I ask what your background is for this? You mentioned being taught by a vet, so I'm curious.

I’m training to be an immunologist.

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

Yes, and I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that scary things can and do happen, so people have a right to be weary. Not of autism or corporate conspiracy, but of the same things they should be weary of with any other medical procedure.

(Note: Being weary does not mean refusing to vaccinate, it means recognizing that shit happens.)

Scare-mongering is the worst part of vaccinations. It’s the safety aspect, we can’t really force people to have Vaccines, even though the majority is quite safe.

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

What is the mayo clinic and what makes them bad (in a non-argumentative sort of way)? I ask because my aunt has been there a lot, and they claimed she was at risk of dying if not for the meds she's on now (no idea what she takes right now, she hasn't told anyone). She has a fuckton of health problems, but the whole family thinks a good portion of it is psychosomatic.

The main problem with the Mayo Clinic, along with any other "online medical repository" (Eg: WebMD) is that people read it, self diagnose, and assume the worst.

 

Then, often, to make matters worse, they often will try and self treat rather than just going to a doctor for a proper diagnosis.

6 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Nothing inherently wrong with them, I just knew he would link it because it says this.

 

It emphasizes that vaccination is one of the rarer ways to get it, but it has no evidence that backs up those claims. 

To be fair, the Mayo Clinic was the top result with relevant information.

 

Which I further backed up with the CDC - though for the sake of argument, let's assume that it's not clear whether the Flu Virus itself or the Flu Vaccine are more or less likely to cause the syndrome.

 

Okay - for the sake of argument (and since neither of us has any hard data on this matter), I'll assume it's a wash, and that you have equal chances of getting the syndrome from either source.

 

The CDC article clearly articulates that the chances of getting the syndrome is still insanely slim - potentially upwards of 1 in a million increased risk over normal risk.

 

Does that help or comfort you? Hell no. But it's crucial information for others who need to weigh the risks of the vaccine vs the risks of the disease they are vaccinating against. While the Flu isn't particularly deadly (though, yes, it does kill perfectly healthy people in very very small numbers), I don't even care about the Flu vaccine (I do get it myself though).

 

So if people skip the flu vaccine? While I personally think they should strongly consider getting it, that's not overly concerning. Skipping the vaccine schedule though, is concerning.

 

Yes, people need to know that there is a risk of getting the syndrome, or having an allergic reaction, etc. But they also need to know that the risk of getting the syndrome is incredibly small. Far smaller than the risks associated with the vast majority of any of the diseases on the vaccine schedule.

 

Take measles for example. It has a 95% rate of contagion, and while most people get over it without major complications, some aren't so lucky, and have life long blindness/deafness or even death.

 

So, I'm not discounting your experiences. Nor am I saying there are no risks. I'm saying the risks are small, and that people need to VERY CAREFULLY weigh all information, including the risk assessment.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Nothing inherently wrong with them, I just knew he would link it because it says this.

 

It emphasizes that vaccination is one of the rarer ways to get it, but it has no evidence that backs up those claims. 

That's basically lifted straight form the National institute of neurological disorders and stroke.   Given it seems to be triggered by the immune system reacting to an infection, it stands to reason that a vaccine has a chance to set it off,  but we are talking in orders of magnitude less than any other viral infection. 

 

Quote

Most cases usually start a few days or weeks following a respiratory or gastrointestinal viral infection.

It would be erroneous to make the weaker observation the key argument in a debate where it is likely that vaccines could intentionally prevent more cases of GBS.

[Skanky Sylveon]

6 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

So, I'm not discounting your experiences. Nor am I saying there are no risks. I'm saying the risks are small, and that people need to VERY CAREFULLY weigh all information, including the risk assessment.

That's pretty much what I said, that people should have all of the information and make an informed decision, so I don't know why we are even having this debate now.

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

That's basically lifted straight form the National institute of neurological disorders and stroke.   Given it seems to be triggered by the immune system reacting to an infection, it stands to reason that a vaccine has a chance to set it off,  but we are talking in orders of magnitude less than any other viral infection. 

Again, that's just a website stating that without having any research papers hacking it up.  So I'll take the words of the doctors that treat patients who have suffered from GBS over that.

[Gareque]

There is no reason to not vaccinate your children.

 

1 - The person who spread the rumour even admitted it was a lie and lost his medical licence over it iirc.

2 - The rumour is that it causes autism.  How is an autistic child worse than a dead one?  If your first thought is "Oh gods, my child has autism, I wish they were dead!" then you do not deserve to be a parent and I pity the childs life.

 

It does not and should not bode defending and imo, the act of enforcing it on your child should be an act of child cruelty, carrying appropriate punishments for both endangering your child and potentially everyone they come into contact with.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

That's pretty much what I said, that people should have all of the information and make an informed decision, so I don't know why we are even having this debate now.

Again, that's just a website stating that without having any research papers hacking it up.  So I'll take the words of the doctors that treat patients who have suffered from GBS over that.

 

They are treating doctors. Their sole purpose is to research these types of diseases and make life better for everyone.

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

52 minutes ago, mr moose said:

They are treating doctors. Their sole purpose is to research these types of diseases and make life better for everyone.

Did you know that the doctors that treat GBS patents aren't allowed to say for a fact that it was vaccine related?

All That they are legally allowed to say is that someone had a vaccine that was around a time period that would like up with the reaction. 

 

So forgive me if I'm skeptical of that statement.  I want research papers.  Everything else is dribble. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Did you know that the doctors that treat GBS patents aren't allowed to say for a fact that it was vaccine related?

All That they are legally allowed to say is that someone had a vaccine that was around a time period that would like up with the reaction.

That makes sense - even with research papers, all we can say is something like "The evidence strongly supports conclusion X" followed by all the data that they used to come to that conclusion.

 

I wouldn't want a doctor saying with absolute certainty that it was caused by vaccines, because it's impossible for them to accurately say "for a fact" that it was vaccine related.

 

Even if vaccines do cause a lot of them, you cannot without a doubt say it causes all of them. Even ones that happen around the time someone gets a vaccine, that doesn't prove it was the vaccine. Coincidences happen all the time in science.

 

It's the duty of researchers to perform studies to understand whether coincidence was a factor or not, and if so - how frequently.

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I wouldn't want a doctor saying with absolute certainty that it was caused by vaccines, because it's impossible for them to accurately say "for a fact" that it was vaccine related.

Yet there isn't strong legal ramifications if they do so on non vaccine related illnesses. 

It isn't a means to keep the doctors in check from an ethical standpoint, it's a liability standpoint.

[dalekphalm]

10 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Yet there isn't strong legal ramifications if they do so on non vaccine related illnesses. 

It isn't a means to keep the doctors in check from an ethical standpoint, it's a liability standpoint.

Either way, it makes sense. Scientists don't (and shouldn't) work in terms of "this is absolutely, without a doubt, 100% the one and only truth". A doctor, while not necessarily a scientist (some are, some are just doctors) should follow the same process.

 

So even if you're saying it's "illegal" for them to say it was caused by vaccines as a fact? Well, even if it weren't illegal, they shouldn't say that, because it simply wouldn't be true. As I stated, even if all of your assumptions and arguments are correct, there would still be occasions where someone got a vaccine, yet also got the syndrome by total coincidence (or through some other method and it was just coincidence with the timing).

[Skanky Sylveon]

10 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

So even if you're saying it's "illegal" for them to say it was caused by vaccines as a fact?

Well, that law prevented me from getting any kind of compensation from the injury.  A doctor needs to sign saying that they have reason to believe that said reaction was caused by a vaccine. 

 

All of the doctors who treated me refused to sign it in fear of loosing their job.

 

That was the point which I was trying to make, but I guess you're caught up in something else.

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

even if all of your assumptions and arguments are correct

I really don't care whether you believe me or not.  I'm not here to change anyone's mind, I'm just sick of people mocking others for making a choice to not vaccinate.  It disgusts me.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Did you know that the doctors that treat GBS patents aren't allowed to say for a fact that it was vaccine related?

All That they are legally allowed to say is that someone had a vaccine that was around a time period that would like up with the reaction. 

 

So forgive me if I'm skeptical of that statement.  I want research papers.  Everything else is dribble. 

 

Did you know that doctors aren't allowed to say anything unless there is sufficient evidence to back it up?   That is exactly what I expect from a doctor, I do not want a doctor guessing about my illness.  

 

So you first claim that you'd take the word of treating doctors because they know better than  the NINDS,  then when you find out that's where they get the majority of their information you now claim they are being forced to say things (even though it is very logical to say those things). Now you want research papers.

 

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Hope-Through-Research

 

Knock yourself out, I am sure you can look up all the citations they provide.  Forgive me for not googling them all for you,  but this is something that if you are truly seeking facts you will be able to do for yourself. 

 

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Knock yourself out, I am sure you can look up all the citations they provide. 

None of those are towards GBS.

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Did you know that doctors aren't allowed to say anything unless there is sufficient evidence to back it up?   That is exactly what I expect from a doctor, I do not want a doctor guessing about my illness.  

The incubation period for GBS is about 14 days, I got a vaccine and around 2 weeks later started showing signs of weakness, I got a spinal tap to confirm that I was indeed suffering from GBS, and I got an antibody blood test indicating that I recently received a vaccine.  So if all of that isn't sufficient evidence to back it up, what is?

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So you first claim that you'd take the word of treating doctors because they know better than  the NINDS, 

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

None of those are towards GBS.

You claimed they were just saying stuff,  either read what they are saying and find evidence it's all made up to avoid legal trouble or stop making claims about such organisations.

Quote

The incubation period for GBS is about 14 days, I got a vaccine and around 2 weeks later started showing signs of weakness, I got a spinal tap to confirm that I was indeed suffering from GBS, and I got an antibody blood test indicating that I recently received a vaccine.  So if all of that isn't sufficient evidence to back it up, what is?

That's it,  you get GBS 14 days after a vaccine. Last time I looked we call that anecdotal evidence, you cannot claim causation from what is observational in a small number of experiences/cases. 

 

Quote

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

 

That someone likely (read; most likely in most cases) gets all their information from the same research publications.

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/48/1/48/290409

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939842/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00564-X/fulltext

 

 

Now we have established where treating doctors get their information from and have presented some of the publications here, what are you going to argue next?  That the lancet et al are paid off by "BIG PHARMA"? 

[Skanky Sylveon]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You claimed they were just saying stuff,  either read what they are saying and find evidence it's all made up to avoid legal trouble or stop making claims about such organisations.

Do you REALLY think that's going to be disclosed in paper?

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's it,  you get GBS 14 days after a vaccine. Last time I looked we call that anecdotal evidence, you cannot claim causation from what is observational in a small number of experiences/cases. 

You are obviously not reading everything else that I said.  The doctors who treated me (and several others) have stated that the vast majority of patients who got GBS recently had a vaccine, so it's more then a "small number" of cases.

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That someone likely (read; most likely in most cases) gets all their information from the same research publications.

So you're saying that doctors don't use personal experience to make any calls?  That they all just go by the book?  That sounds rather insulting to medical professionals. 

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Now we have established where treating doctors get their information from and have presented some of the publications here, what are you going to argue next?  That the lancet et al are paid off by "BIG PHARMA"? 

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case honestly.  Call me a tin foil hatter, I really don't care what you think about me.

 

You spend over a year in rehab and see the disgusting amount of legal cover ups and then you may see my point of view, and this is coming from someone who isn't strictly anti vax.  All I said is that vaccines like all medications have the potential to cause side effects, some of them severe, and that everyone should be well informed of the potential side effects before they agree to put something in their body, and maybe, just MAYBE not go all out auto attack someone who decides not to get vaccinated. 

 

And instead you decide to make claims that you cannot back up, and get in an argument with me over me being skeptical of said claims.