Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
from the the-way-of-the-world dept
Last week a story started to blow up that was used, once again, by the media to beat up on Facebook. The headline, from the Daily Beast, says it all: Facebook Axed Pro-Vaccine Ads From Hospitals and Health Orgs, Let Anti-Vaxxer Ads Slip Through. As the story notes, Facebook has (smartly) decided to not allow anti-vax nonsense advertising. It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising. It does this for a pretty good reason: anti-vax nonsense is killing people. Vaccinations save lives (and I know some anti-vaxxers reading this are foaming at the mouth to scream at us in the comments, and let's just be clear: you're wrong and you should stop it before you kill more people). Anyway, here's what went down:
This month, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the state’s official health department, bought 14 ads to promote a statewide program providing free pediatric vaccinations. Facebook removed all of them.
During the same time period, Children’s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine nonprofit founded and chaired by the nation’s most prominent vaccine conspiracy theorist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., successfully placed more than 10 ads stoking unfounded fear about vaccines and other medical conspiracy theories.
I saw some people on Twitter using this to attack Facebook, but actually it just highlights the same point we've been making for a few years now: content moderation at scale is impossible to do well and you will always, always make mistakes. And this is one of many kinds of mistakes that happen all the time. Unless someone is deeply, deeply engaged in these issues, distinguishing between anti-vax anti-science quackery can sometimes be difficult. And if moderators are taught to be wary of "vaccine" advertisements, they may just start to key in on anything that mentions vaccines -- including something from a government Department of Health. In some cases it appears that automated systems are to blame:
“It’s our understanding that auto-blocking software flagged these ads, since the text resembles when ads appear to be spreading vaccine misinformation,” said Emily Lowther, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Hospital Association, who expressed frustration at the phenomenon.
Of course, perhaps what's more interesting is that part of the reason the Daily Beast was even able to write this story is because of Facebook's transparency on advertisements with its Ad Library.
You could say that Facebook must do a better job at this kind of thing, but that would require focusing even more attention on these ads, which inevitably means some other set of ads will end up getting messed up as well. Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and that's not a Facebook issue, it's a societal one. There are some people who are going to be pushing bad information, and they're always going to seek to make it look as legit as possible. That's a problem, but expecting that one company can magically fix it seems like a silly thing to do.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, anti-vax, content moderation, vaccines
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
That's one of the problems, yes
Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and that's not a Facebook issue, it's a societal one.
Or, in this case, a 'limits of technology' problem.
When you've got two sides arguing about the same topic(in this case those that are correct vs nurgle cultists) then odds are good they're going to be using a lot of the same language, with the difference being the context of how the terminology is being used, and as many articles on TD have made clear over the years 'context' is simply beyond automated filters currently, and likely will remain that way until AI tech becomes a lot more advanced.
Add in societal(and potentially legal) pressures to 'Do Something' resulting in 'shoot first, ask only if it comes up' CYOA-style moderation and while 'they blocked the good while letting the bad through' is humorous in a slightly warped way it's not too surprising, as eventually the timing for such a 'match' was bound to come up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That's one of the problems, yes
And that doesn't even get into the quagmire of contentious issues where the issue isn't one of misinformation, but fundamental disagreements about what is desirable. Abortion for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That's one of the problems, yes
If a good girl with a gun shoots a bad girl in the foetus, is that murder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bravo, sir.
Also, I'm happy to take some heat if any such people need it explain to them again why their (usually) vaccinated asses didn't see diseases like measles and polio during their own childhood, and why their belief in misleading propaganda puts many others at risk, not just their own spawn.
Also, a mathematical one. It's pretty much impossible for anything to achieve 100% perfect accuracy on subjective data, given that the results themselves are subjective. But, let's say that Facebook magically creates a system that is 99.999999% accurate. With the amount of content Facebook receives, that still makes it mathematically certain that some posts will still slip through. Plus, certain that there will be false positives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Plus, certain that there will be false positives.
And the harder you try to clamp down on the Anti-Vaxers, the more false positives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fucking braindead idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mad, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's hard
Facebook makes its money off these ads. If it's impossible to moderate them correctly, what is the public's recourse? Zuckerberg's argument for free expression doesn't cut much ice against the concrete injuries Facebook is causing. Regulation should exist to protect the public until Facebook can solve this problem that you say is impossible to solve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So it's hard
"Regulate until the impossible is done..." So, you're saying that public expression should be permanently government-regulated? That doesn't sound like a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So it's hard
He appears to be saying that if something's impossible then regulation will magically make it possible - and that the regulators will not make any mistakes themselves in doing that.
Otherwise, he's saying that Facebook should be punished for things outside of their control, and he doesn't see the obvious issues that smaller players will face trying to adhere to the same rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So it's hard
Yep. someone is saying things that are getting people killed. But we must punish Facebook for someone elses speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So it's hard
"Platforms don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
You seem awfully desperate to tie this in with guns. Are you intelligent enough to understand the many fundamental differences?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
I would read that as a mickey take on the old pro-gun argument that guns are cuddly, innocent items which only when misused by a "bad person" will kill or harm another. (Of course, it is quite fine for a "good person" to use a gun to kill or harm another so long as the target is "bad", standing on the "good" property, the wrong colour skin if police, or holding a bag of skittles.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
"I would read that as a mickey take"
Perhaps, but it's a silly thing to bring up at all in this context, yet he's done it twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So it's hard
Your argument would hold some weight if we were talking about random post on FB, but we aren't. We are talking about ads that FB is selling. I think there is a huge distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
Considering the number of ads on Facebook, it’s a distinction without a difference.
Also, Facebook isn’t selling ads. They’re selling space for ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So it's hard
Find a platform that you like, and do not use Facebook. To do anything else is to try and impose your standards on somebody else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then such regulation will exist until Facebook doesn’t, because the problem will likely never be solved. No system is infallible or free from even implicit biases—not even an algorithm. 100% perfect moderation at the scale of Facebook’s size is improbable to the point of being impossible; it can’t happen no matter how much you tell the nerds to nerd harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.
I've just about suppressed zombies again, in large part because nearly all the old "accounts" have been resurrected. (IF were ever real, were abandoned for years...) You would however, if had my list, note that almost none of those have made a second comment. It's exactly as though Techdirt doesn't want the suspicious long gaps seen. -- If don't agree, then state some other reason consistent with dozens of "accounts" out for just one comment after 3-4-5-6-7-8 year gaps.
The resurrections almost never last long. ... Except for "Scary Devil Monastery" which made one comment, waited over 5 years to make a second, then took off at over 1000 a year! Anyone new, just go look at the 5 year gap after first of "Scary Devil Monastery" (easy way is on 2nd page, adjust the number up to total - 20):
https://www.techdirt.com/user/perge74
The "SDM" account is one of my best proofs. After total absence for FIVE YEARS, it turns out ardent Techdirt fanboy, vicious anti-dissent! You cannot explain those FACTS as other than astro-turfing.
And of course, actually "SCM" is Timothy Geigner, who also does the ultra-fanboy "Gary" account, apparently with Masnick's permission. Way back, Masnick called Geigner Techdirt's "comment enforcer", and clearly still is.
Anyhoo, today it's "Internet Copy Editor": 3 comments total, (1 per year), out after 40 month gap; begun Mar 18th, 2016
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.
Yes, taking the pills the nice men in white give you is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, Blue Balls
And of course, actually "SCM" is Timothy Geigner, who also does the ultra-fanboy "Gary" account
Wave Hiya buddy! How goes your quest to purge the mid-west of the jews?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everyone stays on Techdirt 24/7 like you do, Blue Balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Late in every way...
He's a bit late today actually, been busy yelling at the kids trick'n'treating that they are breaking copyright by looking like well-known figures whose IP is owned by corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.
"The "SDM" account is one of my best proofs. After total absence for FIVE YEARS, it turns out ardent Techdirt fanboy, vicious anti-dissent! You cannot explain those FACTS as other than astro-turfing."
Except it's fairly explainable due to me moving, switching jobs, having a real life or otherwise taking a hiatus from the online environment.
A FACT would be that astroturfing through an account in hiatus dormant for a few years is a very VERY inefficient way to astroturf.
But do go on, Bobmail, and repeat the same tired old attempts to marginalize people who happen not to agree with you when your arguments keep failing.
"Except for "Scary Devil Monastery" which made one comment, waited over 5 years to make a second, then took off at over 1000 a year!"
Except that way back then I was as prolific in posting as I am now, although mainly on torrentfreak...so just keep talking out of your ass, Bobmail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So it's hard
Facebook isn't causing anything here.
What is the public's recourse?
Err... to which public do you refer?
Any public should engage in counter-speech, critical thinking, and using evidence to make decisions. Also, ignoring advertising would be a massive boon to mankind in any case.
How are regulations going to protect them? Are you part of the dangerous "do something" crowd? Who is supposed to protect us from you? (Maybe you should see about having concrete and attainable regulations reinstated and properly enforced - like the ones which have served well until government after government has stripped them away. Please start with federal and state EPA regs if you are getting into that.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So it's hard
However, that does not mean Facebook is not a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
Perhaps. I’m unconvinced that it’s a significant problem that could or should be solved by the government getting involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
I agree, but FB is still a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem
The problem with the antivax crowd is a lack of critical thinking and research. If it was some huge government conspiracy, it would come out. They can't even keep top secret information from leaking.
At what point will this go from free speech to speech that causes harm. Should antivax parents be held liable when their children get sick and cause others to get sick? I think there should be an out for insurance companies. No vaccination because, "Oh Noes Autism!!", no coverage if your kid gets that illness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem
If the antivax speech causes harm, let a court order the speech taken down. You're either for the First Amendment or not. "Because stupid people can't think for themselves" doesn't justify censorship. Which idea comes next?
It's like that old WRKP episode where some moral-majority type wanted a clearly obscene record taken down first, then he said "Imagine" sounded like communism and had to go.
As for why a platform should be "forced" to host content it doesn't like, the answers are: neutrality, ensuring public access to free speech, etc. The difference between a platform and a publisher is this neutrality. The platform that runs a discriminatory housing ad is contributing to the same harm committed by the person who posts it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what reason should an open-to-the-public Mastodon instance be forced to host White supremacist propaganda if that instance’s owners don’t want to host it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then don't call it "open to the public," because it isn't.
What if it is same owner regarding the ISP? Should they then be forced to host it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re making the Blue Balls mistake of confusing “private” with “privately owned”. A privately-owned service can still be open to the public; that it has rules about what behavior and speech are acceptable for that service does not make it “private”. A private service would be a service wherein the general public doesn’t have access unless they’re allowed in with the explicit permission of the owner(s), typically by invitation of the owner(s) or a non-owner member of the service.
A privately-owned, open-to-the-public Mastodon instance has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to host any content which its owners don’t want on that instance. You have not yet provided a good reason for why they should be forced, by law, to host speech they don’t want to host. And you can’t come up with such a reason, because it will then be used as a defense for, say, compelling a bakery that doesn’t decorate cakes with pro-LGBT messaging into doing exactly that. I dare to hope that you don’t want to compel people to make statements against their conscience — that you have even a basic sense of integrity.
And by the by, IAPs do not host content. They provide the infrastructure — the “dumb pipes”, if you will — to people so they can reach that content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"And by the by, IAPs do not host content. They provide the infrastructure — the “dumb pipes”, if you will — to people so they can reach that content."
If the PPIA does not wish to transmit said message, why should they have to? Same argument.
No, I am not confusing private and private owned, you are confusing public and private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? You’re going the “I know you are, but what am I” route?
Look, you’re completely misunderstanding how the internet works and the difference between public and private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I understand public is open to everyone and private is the exclusion of some. Think of your router and how the internet works. What is your understanding of public and private?
" Really? You’re going the “I know you are, but what am I” route?"
Did you see any of his facts? Please do point his facts out to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Forget to mention, your privately owned router.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The IAPs provide a road (connection) to buildings (websites) within the community (on the Internet). In this analogy, your modem would be a “vehicle”, and your router would be seats for extra passengers.
I don’t know what kind of gotcha point you hoped to make here, but you ain’t makin’ it, son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't know the difference between public and private regarding a privately owned router?
No point in continuing here. Come back when you do understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
None. They both function exactly the same way. The only difference between them is who owns and operates them.
I could say the same about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You don't know the difference between public and private regarding a privately owned router?
None. They both function exactly the same way. The only difference between them is who owns and operates them.
LOL. You don't know the difference either. Privately owned by me whether it is public or private Einstein.
You people telling me I don't know the difference between public and private.
LOL. What a fucking joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…not…really? “Privately owned” is not a reference to whether service offered by the router — Internet access — is open to the public. It’s a reference to who owns the property (i.e., the router) in the first place.
“Privately owned” means a private entity, be it a single person or a corporation, owns the property/service. “Publicly owned” means the government, or the people who elect the government, owns the property/service. A privately-owned service can be either private (open only to those approved by the service’s owners or other authorized agents) or open to the public (open to anyone who can make use of the service). And an open-to-the-public service can be “free” to enter (e.g., a grocery store, a pharmacy, a gas station) or require some sort of fee (e.g., a cover charge at a nightclub), no matter whether the service offered within costs money to use.
Don’t make this mistake again, or else I will accept that as an acknowledgement of your ignorance and read your further contributions accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"…not…really? “Privately owned” is not a reference to whether service offered by the router — Internet access — is open to the public. It’s a reference to who owns the property (i.e., the router) in the first place."
Really? I did not know that. I thought when I bought it, you owned it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who decides if it is open to public or private? Me or you?
If you set it to open to public, who has access to it?
If you don't want me using it, is it still open to the public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, that’s the point. If you bought it, the public doesn’t own it — you, a private entity, owns it.
You’re the owner of the router. You decide whether the router’s WiFi signal is open for use to anyone within range of that signal (i.e., open to the public) or protected by a password (i.e., private).
Anyone within range of the WiFi signal.
An open signal is an open signal regardless of whether the owner of the router sending that signal wants someone to use it. They should password protect that signal if they don’t want unauthorized/unwanted persons using it. Don’t you know anything about even the most basic opsec? Christ, pick up a copy of The Smart Girl’s Guide to Privacy or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you imagine the shit storm resulting from a requirement that all private wifi enabled routers have to maintain anything any war driver leaves there?
Court: "No, you are not allowed to remove goatse from your router.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Can you imagine that a router doesn't store a damn thing? It's in the name genius. It's a "router", it routes traffic. It doesn't host any content at all. And this proves you have no idea what you are talking about because you don't understand basic network technology and architecture.
Defendant: "That's fine Your Honor since routers are incapable of storing any content whatsoever. Therefore I have none to remove."
Also, First Amendment says the government can't tell you to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"a router doesn't store a damn thing"
It it my understanding that certain ISPs force the customer leased wifi to enable connection via anyone within signal strength requirements. Once the interloper has breached your wifi security (lol) they will most likely look for your computer(s) which have been connected to the wifi via your lan.
What might these people do with your stuff? A just leave porn printouts for your perusal whilst others a a bit more nefarious.
And I also want to thank you for your well thought out reply to my comment as it demonstrates that you are a mature adult who shows signs of being a great diplomat. Do keep up the good work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I said what I meant to say. Do NOT put words in my mouth. A router doesn't store any content whatsoever. None. The firmware is entirely different. The firmware is part of what makes a router a router. Remove the firmware and you have a paper weight.
You assume incorrectly. Also, that is a leased router, it doesn't belong to the person, it belongs to the ISP, so that's an entirely different scenario. People who own their own router can do whatever they want with it and allow whomever they want to connect to it.
Well if you don't set a password it makes it pretty damn easy to breach. In other words, it takes no work at all since you left your network wide open. Only an idiot would do that.
....Once again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about. You connect to the LAN via your WiFi, not the other way around. The LAN (Local Area Network) consists of a group of computers on the same network segment and they connect to that segment/LAN via multiple means, generally either WiFi or Ethernet.
Depends. Did you not set a password on your computers too? If not, a lot. If you did, maybe not so much.
Well, if I was stupid enough to not set a password on my WiFi and properly secure it they might be able to do that. But I'm not that stupid so they can't.
Well thank you, I will. But do note I did mean to insult you several times in this and my previous comments.
Go educate yourself before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A router storing firmware is not storing anything - ok, lol
Oh, that is a different scenario ... ok.
Victim blaming - of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Firmware is not “content” in that it’s not photos, videos, etc. A router doesn’t store any of that. The only thing it stores is the firmware; without that, a router is an expensive paperweight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yup, that is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As Stephen said, firmware is not content, which, as you will note in my replies is what I was referring to.
I don't know, did you fail to properly secure your router and then had your network invaded by one of your house guests or a suspicious guy in a vehicle right outside your house? If so, then yes, I blame you. If you were not a victim of having your network invaded then you aren't a victim and victim blaming doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Old story read last year, can not find it.
It was about comcast setting the wifi public hot spot to enabled by default on the leased routers it charged its customers for. According to some complaints the setting was disabled only to be device re-enabled by an update. I guess it is common practice to reset default parameters upon update, not sure why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then your point is discarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I presume he's referring to this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/comcast-sued-by-customers-for-turning-routers-into-publi c-hotspots/
I'm not sure what automated firmware updates on leased routers have to do with privacy of traffic routing through the device, but he's not entirely wrong with his claim (although, apparently not very good at searching).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yup that's the story. Apparently updates sometimes restore defaults, ISPs are not the only ones accused of doing this.
and yes, my search skills suck
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That’s a far cry from…
…which was the crux of the comment you made that started this small chain of replies.
Your point is, again, discarded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Discard the comment ... cool.
Is "Discard" one of the comment flag options?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. No it is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well then that's not the ISPs forcing you to open up your WiFi now is it?
Also, in that article it is made quite clear that the public hotspots being broadcasted were entirely separate from the customer's private WiFi. The public never had access to that and was on an entirely different network segment.
Maybe try educating yourself as I previously suggested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Are you seriously this stupid?
If you bought it, then you do. If I bought it, then I do. If you buy it and remove the WiFi password, then it is a privately owned WiFi network that is simultaneously open to the public. I don't recommend doing this but it is absolutely an option.
Anyone and everyone in range. Do you seriously not know how this works?
If I don't password protect it or otherwise restrict your access to it, YES.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, hence the term "privately owned". But that has nothing to do with whether it is open to the public or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said that. I said there is a none. A router is a router is a router. It performs the same function no matter who owns it or whether it is public or private. The fact that you are using a router to try and bolster your case is hilarious and a tad ignorant. Hence my reply.
Because there is none you dolt. A router is a router. It's function doesn't change based on whether it is "public" or "private". It literally doesn't care.
This word salad aside, a thing can be public (more accurately open to the public) yet privately owned at the same time. And in that instance, despite being "public" (more accurately open to the public) the owner of said thing can set the rules of how the public uses it however they wish. However, if something is publicly owned, then it can in no way be restricted to the public citizenry. Parks and town squares are publicly owned and can't be restricted. Social media sites, restaurants, and convention centers are privately owned but open to the public, contingent on the public obeying whatever rules that have been set forth by the owner.
Because you obviously don't.
The only joke here is the level of your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Congratulations, you've succeeded on adding the fact [asserts facts not in evodence] to the growing list of concepts (also including public and private) that you have yet to comprehend the meaning of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I was tired. Meant to be saying evidence.
So where is your evidence? You stated a fact.
Quit stating facts without evidence if you dislike it so much.
Do you understand the difference between public and private regarding your own privately owned router? Because your one trick copy/paste shtick is getting tiresome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Plaintiff asserts knowledge which they cannot coherently explain]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the slow class:
You made two assertions in that post:
"If the PPIA does not wish to transmit said message, why should they have to? Same argument.""
You have yet posted zero factual backing for either of them in this entire thread, which is precisely what [Asserts facts not in evidence] means. Expressing butthurt at being called out on your ignorance isn't going to change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second point first:
Except no, I’m not. A privately owned brick-and-mortar business can be either private or open to the public. The same goes for Internet services such as Mastodon instances — they can either be private (e.g., one-user instances, instances that require permission from the owners/other users to join) or open to the public (e.g., anyone with an email address can join). That a service opens itself to the public does not ever negate the fact that it has no legal, moral, or ethical obligation to host or remain “neutral” towards all speech.
A Jewish butcher can keep his store private — i.e., he can make his offerings available only to members of a certain synagogue — but if he opens his doors to the general public, he can’t then refuse to sell kosher meat to gentiles. That said, even if his doors are open to the public, he can still boot someone from his store if they yell anti-Semitic slurs while in it. He can’t violate someone’s First Amendment rights by saying “we don’t do that here” and punishing whoever breaks that rule. And those same general principles generally apply to websites, too.
Now I’mma circle back to that first question:
Please use an acronym everyone knows. Whatever the hell you mean by PPIA, I’ll assume you meant “ISP” (I prefer “IAP”, or “Internet access provider”) and work from there.
As for the question itself: Like I said, IAPs provide the dumb pipes for people to reach content, not the content itself. They’re not supposed to do anything that lets them pick and choose what content you experience, download, or upload — they’re supposed to give you a “road” to reach whatever “building” (website) you’re looking for. An IAP should no more be able to stop you from visiting and posting on 4chan than it should be able to stop you from visiting and posting on Techdirt — or YouTube, or Twitter, or Pornhub, or Neocities, or literally any other website in the world.
Well, that’s the ideal notion, anyway. We all know IAPs snoop on packets and throttle certain websites/types of data and other such nefarious bullshit. To pretend otherwise is ignorance on a level that lets someone confuse, say, “private” and “privately owned”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And a social site is supposed to provide somewhere to be social. If you want it to be a private club, so say at first, not after.
I can make my privately owned router public. As soon as I wish to exclude any one, it is no longer public, it is private.
Please explain what I am confusing about private and private owned.
"Please use an acronym everyone knows."
I obviously made my point. Practice what you preach for once.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A privately-owned, open-to-the-public brick’n’mortar nightclub provides somewhere for people to be social — but it still has rules and can still kick people out. For what reason should that standard not apply to Twitter or Mastodon?
In regards to a social interaction network (SIN) like Twitter? You’re confusing the idea that a privately-owned SIN must eschew that “everyone must follow the rules” standard when it stops being a private service and becomes an open-to-the-public service. After all, when I asked why a SIN should be forced to host any kind of speech, you said the following:
Feel free to correct the record if you meant something other than what you said in that context. And feel free to provide a good reason for making SINs host all kinds of speech even if the owners don’t want to host a particular kind of speech…if you can.
I had to look up the acronym so I could make sure it wasn’t some newfangled terminology I wasn’t aware of. I have used “IAP” before on these comments sections — hell, this is where I picked up the term “Internet access provider”! — and I’ll grant that you didn’t know that. But considering the acronym’s closeness to “ISP”, you could have deduced that I either meant something close to “ISP” or my finger slipped when I used it the first time — or, like anyone else, you could have asked what I meant by “IAP”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let me know when your night club is big enough to host the world, or a Country even, then we'll talk about similarities and just how "public" your club is.
Have all the rules you want. Enforce a dress code if you wish. Ban all the speech you want.
But that is not an open to the public "social" club. A social club means you may encounter speech you don't like or agree with. Banning that speech takes away from it being a social club. Not only can the pros not speak, but neither can the cons. Banning speech is the opposite of social. Especially considering the length of your list of banned speech.
Freer speech advocates are you?
"How old do you have to be, legally, to tell your Doctor what gender you are?"
You'd have that banned as well, not just nazis. You want a personal safe space in a public place. You want your rules enforced on someone else's platform just like Maza from Vox did.
Did you pick up the ISP error here or was it your own error because when I looked up IAP, in case it was some newfangled term I hadn't heard of, it didn't even come close to what you call IAP. That is an "in app purchase."
I talk about routers, you talk about cars. I talk about ISP, you talk about IAP. Ask you what IAP means? If you weren't constantly deflecting and obfuscating , I may have thought it was an error.
You just requested I use the standard, do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Size doesn’t matter.
Yes, it is, and this proves you’re mistaking two meanings of “public” now. The first, which I’m using, is a noun that refers to “the populace of a given area” — i.e., “the general public”. The second, which you’re using, is an adjective that generally refers to “owned by the government or the people which that government serves” — i.e., “public lands”.
An open-to-the-public brick’n’mortar business/service is not “public lands”. The business/service opens its doors to the general public, but it can still make rules about what speech and behavior is acceptable inside the building. Walmart can legitimately kick you out of one of its stores for wearing a T-shirt with a racial slur on it and you would have zero legal recourse to overturn that decision in the courts.
Open-to-the-public web services have the same right: Violate the rules for acceptable conduct on the service and you get booted, and you legally can’t do anything about it. Twitter can legally kick you off the service for using racial slurs, no matter how you feel about that. And no court in the land would force Twitter to let you back on — or host your speech — because you were upset about that decision.
Not…really? I mean, if you wanna be a Feminist-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe, go ahead and FART your ass off. If you wanna be a Nazi, say the Eighteen Words as loud as you want. But if you want a private entity to host your speech, be prepared for the people in charge to say “no”. You have no right to make them host your speech — and it doesn’t matter whether that private entity is a nightclub, a web service, or someone else’s private residence.
By the same token, you have no right to force others into listening. If I were to block you on Twitter for being an annoying jerk who spouted anti-queer diatribes at me for no reason, you couldn’t get a court to make me unblock you. And if you used the same rhetoric while physically in my presence, I could walk away or put in earplugs and you would, again, have no legal recourse to make me listen.
Please show me the law, statute, or common law court ruling that says you can legally force a third party to host your speech, even if they don’t want to host it, or make people listen to you regardless of whether they want to listen. You’d be the first person to do that if you can pull it off.
Key word, of course, being if.
It’s called “metaphor”.
Feel free to clarify which one you meant when you used ISP: the commonly understood meaning of “Internet service provider” (the company that provides your access to the Internet — i.e., an Internet access provider or “IAP”), or an Internet service provider in the more technically accurate sense (a company that provides a service available only through the Internet — e.g., Twitter).
Either way, everything I said still stands. And everything you said is still, by and large, a bunch of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Size doesn’t matter."
You disagree with this whole article and all the others about moderating?
This is the first time I have seen you express it.
Why don't you tell Mike how to ban blue and still keep this site open to the public? Blue uses TOR(The Onion Router).
How does Facebook do it? Do they make it private and require a password to use the site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You apparently disagree with the concept of “context”. Your question is ridiculous on every level, so I accept it as an acknowledgement of your ignorance. Your further contributions will be read accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That quote doesn’t suggest any of the rest of what you said.
Regardless, I think you’re conflating separate things.
“Size doesn’t matter” with regards to determining whether something is publicly-owned vs. privately-owned and whether something is open to the general public or not and to what extent. As such, size is immaterial regarding whether the people running it have the right to moderate and what limitations are on that right, if any.
Size does matter when it comes to how difficult it is to moderate successfully — moderation is impossible to do perfectly (or nearly so) at scale. That is a separate question that doesn’t involve anyone’s legal rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you saying that you can't socialize at a private club? Please, do tell.
Well now, that's an interesting statement. Exactly what do you mean by that? Do you mean you're broadcasting your wireless SSID without a password so anyone can connect to it and use it? Yeah, everyone can do that. But that's not making it "public" in the sense that it is belongs to the public, that just means you suck at network security.
Now do you mean you're making it accessible over the internet for someone on the other side of the world to access? Yeah, that's even worse network security. And it's still not "public" in the sense that it belongs to the public. That's just you being an idiot.
It was never public to begin. Publicly accessible, yes, but not "public" as in belonging to the public. And does that mean that restaurants are not open to the public? Because restaurants can kick out anyone they want to. Most businesses can.
Everything. Privately-owned means you own it, not the public and you can allow or disallow anyone (including the public at large) access to your stuff. As Stephen said, you can either have it be open to the public, or a private club. If something is publicly owned (meaning it's either owned or operated by the government) then and only then can it not determine who and who not to allow or what content to allow or not allow. Does that clear things up?
No, you didn't because nobody knows what you mean when you say "PPIA". The best I could find on the internet was the Public Policy and International Affairs Fellowship Program. But your usage seems to imply you're talking about an internet service provider (ISP or IAP), of which it most definitely isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Imagine a real world example, A site is like a store.
An ISP is like a road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sites host speech.
ISPs do not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Some time ago the phrase Super Highway was in vogue to describe the internet.
I can no longer find it but at the time there was a rather humorous commentary that explained how the internet is not like a superhighway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look, IAPs (like Verizon) are like telephone companies. All they do is transfer information between two or more devices. They are privately owned utilities.
ISPs (like Facebook) are more like stores; they’re privately-owned, and while they’re open to the general public, they reserve the right to kick you out if you break their rules or they feel you’re more trouble than you’re worth.
A government-run message board (physical or digital) is publicly owned and open to the public; furthermore, any moderation efforts are subject to restrictions from the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And I can leave my router public, but if I decide to ban you from using it, I turn it off public and give only certain people permission to use it. It is now private, even though I am still sharing it and letting people use it for free.
Why don't you tell Mike how to ban blue and still keep this site open to the public? Blue uses TOR(The Onion Router).
How does Facebook do it? Do they make it private and require a password to use the site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I wasn’t talking about routers. I was talking about IAPs and ISPs. Routers are a different discussion entirely that I am not getting into here.
For this discussion, I am not concerned with how to enforce or impose moderation. I am only talking about the differences between IAPs and ISPs, and how that affects the rights they have regarding moderation and such.
Also, AFAICT, this site doesn’t ban users at all.
Do what, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obligatory XKCD reference: https://xkcd.com/1357/
TL;DR Facebook cannot violate anyone's right to free speech by simply removing content they don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem
That's my problem with all these conspiracies, they all require a super-human level of plotting and secrecy, or some implausible money trail which relies on American financial and social structures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem
I think there should be an out for insurance companies. No vaccination because, "Oh Noes Autism!!", no coverage if your kid gets that illness.
Problem with that is it would be punishing the kids for the stupidity/gullibility of the parents, and the kids already have it bad enough if they're having to deal with a preventable illness that could have been avoided had they been vaccinated.
It's one of the more aggravating things with nurgle cultists, in that odds are good they got vaccinated so they aren't likely to suffer from their stupidity, leaving innocent people around them to suffer instead. Were it not that way it would be much less vexxing as the problem would basically be self-correcting, in that eventually the idiots would either die of old age and take their stupidity with them, or learn the hard way why vaccines are so important, potentially earning a Darwin Award in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not about moderation but bad journalism
This seems more like a problem with gotcha journalism rather than content moderation. Facebook made a mistake and then corrected it. I dislike Facebook as much as the next person, but they eventually sorted it out.
The Daily Beast on the other hand, is trying to blow up a non-story. Their scoop is that people make mistakes. If they want to show how Facebook is evil they can easily find better examples. This is just lazy journalism. This is yet one more example of journalists going for an easy story rather than doing the work to look at the more troubling ways that Facebook is impacting society but are more difficult to write about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism
"gotcha journalism"
What? ... Not this nebulous phrase again.
Was this part of an interview where crafted questions are asked intended to trip up the interviewee? You know ... like "What magazines do you read?" Tricky questions are hard to answer when you lie all the time and do not know what reality is anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism
If nobody had written about the mistake, would it have been corrected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism
This is a valid point. They likely would not have made the change if only the advertisers complained. From the article it does not look like Facebook has a good way to appeal these decisions. The authors of the article focus primarily on the bad decisions rather than how Facebook could improve the process. The authors still focus on the part that will attract the most attention rather than the bigger issue of how to fix the mistakes that Facebook admits happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you'll never stop those who dont understand or even WANT to understand something like this! all they see is what THEY WANT and everything else is completely ignored. that not only includes all the harm that their desire(s) will cause but there is no intention to even want to mend what they screw up. considering, yet again, the aim is to take something away from ordinary people, ie, the use of the internet and give, yet again, control of something else to those who have the most to hide, that is governments, politicians, the rich, the famous, the elite and all their friends!! being in control of us is not only the 'name of the game', it is their priority. heaven forbid if we have/keep something that those above cant use against us but is not usable by us for our benefit, regardless of whether it is against 'them' or not!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they are too big to moderate, then they are just too big. It's just like if a bank is too big to fail, then you either have to regulate closely so failure is less likely or break it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you propose breaking up Facebook?
Geographically? Politically? By age? Favourite colour?
If I'm in one category, how can i maintain friendship links with someone in another? ... by finding another service that's more like Facebook-that-was, and 'round the cycle we go again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
I think Facebook can be broken up...but not by a lynch mob or by direct government action.
Instead, remember "protocols, not platforms"....then....
a) Remove all copyright protection from Facebook (and other primarily user-generated platforms) content
b) Enforce open interface rules on these platforms... so they have some healthy competition and users can switch to smaller platforms with better moderation systems that better match their values and moods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
So give people the choice of handing away their copyright for nothing; or handing it to traditional publishers, if their work is accepted, in the hope of receiving royalties. That is tilting the playing field so far towards the traditional publishers that it becomes a cliff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
Facebook, itself a big publisher, should not own copyright in posts from the public, especially not from a contract of adhesion, and without any kind of marking or acceptance of legal responsibility via section 230.
So Techdirt, I want to explore if taking a copyright should require also taking legal liability for content, and this is the CDA 230 nudge we need to enable small platforms to compete with larger ones? What if, when Craigslist sued a scraper site for copyright, they also took on liability for the illegally discriminatory ads they were carrying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
Read the terms of service, as anybody who posts to Facebook grants them a license to reproduce their posts, to the groups that the poster selects. The poster still has their copyrights in their posts, and can publish them whole and unmodified elsewhere, and make money from their posts without interference or permission from Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDA 230 was not designed to help the government pick “winners and losers” in re: Internet services. Using it for that purpose would pervert the intent of those who wrote the bill in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
Facebook doesn’t own a copyright in posts from anyone but themselves. They get licenses to your posts, but you still retain the copyright.
Also, removing CDA §230 would only make it harder for small platforms to compete with larger ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
The obvious problem is that the only value FB offers is due to its size. If people wanted to leave for a smaller platform, they'd do it (there's no shortage of social media platforms that might replace it).
Clearly, there's no interest in a smaller Facebook.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's just like if a bank is too big to fail
False equivalency. If a bank "fails" as you described, it closes and people loose their money.
When Facebook "fails" to moderate a posting or advertisement the damage is incomparable.
That is like saying, "My bank made a mistake on my statement and a teller was rude to me. Since they can't get this right they should be shut down!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My thoughts also.
This is beyond comparing apples to oranges, this is fruit salad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A bank can be too big to be allowed to fail. You can thank fractional banking for that and that banks are underwriting each other.
That means that a big bank that fails can gut a lot of other banks, which is why in many cases the government/federal bank (or equivalent) steps in to save it with loans and guarantees.
If you don't know what fractional banking is, google it - then ponder what happens when a bank loan money from another bank so they can lend it out to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Rocky I don't see what that has to do with the comparison?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(I never got to the punch-line, I got a call and I apparently managed to post it when I left the computer).
Oh, comparing Facebook to banks is just silly because Facebook can fail hard without it financially crippling people since they can just move to another social platform. So it is a false equivalency.
Although, fractional banking as such is a interesting solution with some very dire ramifications when it fails.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is no such thing as "too big". Too powerful, sure. But the two are not the not same. Oh, and by the way, sites with less than 1,000 users have trouble with moderation. So tell me, how big is too big?
Microsoft Windows is installed and used on 85% of all desktops/laptops. Windows has the highest malware infection rates of any other operating system and probably the most security bugs and vulnerabilities. They are constantly putting people at risk by not making a 100% safe and secure operating system. So tell me, are they "too big"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Platforms don't defame people, PEOPLE defame people." Same flawed argument used in gun control.
"Auto safety at manufacturing scale is too expensive." In that scenario we don't allow auto manufacturing.
Content moderation is certainly possible "at scale" but SUBJECTIVE content moderation is not possible at any scale without becoming censorship. Use of terms like "troll" or "incorrect information" on things which are subjective are clear indicators, and especially what constitutes racism, misogyny, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In that scenario we don't allow auto manufacturing."
Incorrect. But, that's a completely different scenario. Nobody's saying that Facebook cannot afford to pay for 100% effective moderation at scale, they're saying that it impossible to achieve at any cost. As you say, once you're dealing with human subjectivity, it's censorship and in the eye of the beholder.
To use your auto safety example - we don't demand 100% perfection from car makers, we demand the best possible effort and when they fail, we judge their reaction to and ability to have prevented any safety issues. People don't seem to be demanding the same from Facebook, they seem to be demanding flawless perfection with punishment when they inevitably can't achieve that due to pesky reality getting in the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Love these silly comparisons, but at least this one has automobiles in it.
I wonder ... when was the last time FB was subjected to a recall of their defective product(s)?
LOL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"I wonder ... when was the last time FB was subjected to a recall of their defective product(s)?"
Never, since they supply the services from their own locations, meaning you have nothing to return to them to fix. Talk about silly comparisons...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moderation at scale is impossible...
Here's the crux of the problem:
Moderation is a matter of ranking for both importance and reasonableness in context, including who I am and what is my current state of mind or role....
Given that there are days I want to see what the idiots are up to on 4chan, (or both sides in the vacc/anti-vacc debate), but other days would prefer to ignore those dumpster fires, get vaccinated because i'm not stupid, and do tech stuff and Indian elephant polo scores, how do you moderate that?? (and this goes before someone quotes crap to say how bad it is, sometimes that's fine, sometimes not).
Sometimes you feel like a nut...sometimes you don't.
The only real solution involves multiple independent moderation domains that are each themselves reasonably small scale, and giving end users real choices among them.
The context issue is currently unsolved by computers, so moderation will need to be crowdsourced in some sort of average sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wondering if you could point out some objective content moderation for comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How is that a flawed argument, as it us people that post to the platforms. If you go down the road that platforms are responsible, you end up requiring that the pre-check all postings, which effectively kills all platforms unless they are posting letters to the editor as an axillary to their man content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must be great to be a True Believer
Masnick: "As the story notes, Facebook has (smartly) decided to not allow anti-vax nonsense advertising. It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising."
Because when you're a True Believer, any other views are heresy and must be suppressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
Are... you trying to say that it's the PRO vaccine movement that's solely based on faith and ignoring opposing arguments? Because science, history, facts and reality would like to disagree with you if so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
A large difference exists between a mere questioning of the efficacy and safety of vaccines—which is fine and proper and scientific, even—and anti-vaxxers pushing the dangerous idea that vaccines are inherently and improbably more dangerous to everyone than the diseases those vaccines mean to prevent. You not being able to see that difference is a personal problem; good luck in solving it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
Exactly. A parent saying "hey, I'm worried about the safety of vaccines for my child" is fine. A parent saying "I'm worried, so I'll take the word of random bloggers and celebrities and assert that any doctor who tries to correct me is part of the conspiracy" is not. The former is natural. The latter is dangerous, not only to that parent's kids, but to everyone around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
And Jill Stein was saying that WiFi was too dangerous to be used around children in the last election cycle. The anti-vaxers ate it up and claimed she was being scientifical. Everyone who tried to correct her was "sucking up to big pharma" or had some weird motive to point out that her statements were bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
Yes, that's the problem here. As soon as someone believes some pseudoscience, they're trained to reject the actual science. At least with wifi, the downsides of believing the misinformation don't include the possibility of maiming and killing children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
The larger problem is that everyone is a True Believer when it comes to their views. No one ever concedes anything, and those who control the wires control the flow of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
But at least we can all agree that anti-vaxers are objectively harmful to themselves and others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
If no one ever concedes anything (or changes their mind, or accepts new ideas), the flow of information is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
"The larger problem is that everyone is a True Believer when it comes to their views."
Not true. Take this issue, for example. I base my view that vaccines are vital and that anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots on history and science. However, if science were to conclude that vaccines were more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, I would change that view.
I'm a "true believer" in reality. these people are believers in fiction. I would change my view based on evidence that challenges my current view. These people have been presented with gigantic levels of evidence, yet they ignore what it says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
A large difference exists between... safety ...and ... dangerous...
This is an oxymoron.
If there is a question of safety, then how is that not dangerous?
If there was not a question of safety, then there would be no question of danger.
This is like giving O Positive blood to somebody with a Negative blood type.
Blood transfusions save lives, therefore it is OK to give positive blood to a negative blood type. NO, it not OK.
Neither is it OK to give the drug companies a blank check and a Get Out of Jail Free Card while they give campaign donations to politicians who invest the Congressional retirement fund in Drug companies, or whatever corruption they come up with.
It is NOT OK to ignore WHY the vaccines cause side effects.
And for some of the diseases, I think there are more injuries from the vaccine than from the disease. Those contraband anti-vax websites would have the statistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
Let me stop you there, THINK. If you bothered to inform yourself you would KNOW that the disease is much worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
Here's the crazy thing, though not what the OP had in mind:
There probably are more injuries from the vaccine from the disease... because if noone is getting the disease, a rare, tiny injury from vaccination means the statement is true.
However, without Vaccination, there would be huge injury from the disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
That's actually what's sad here. These people have grown up vaccinated against these diseases, as have their peers. Because they're all immune, the diseases are rare and weak. Generations now have no real first-hand knowledge of kids crippled by polio, maimed by measles or killed by smallpox. Because of that, they think that there's no real danger from the diseases, and are instead concerned with the more immediate "threat" of the vaccine, however small that might be.
The problem with this is that by the time they have caused enough outbreaks for these preventable diseases to become as virulent as they were a century ago, it won't be these idiots who suffer. It will be their grandchildren, along with the grandchildren of people who understood how bad their actions were from the beginning. They, being vaccinated, won't suffer. Their children are at greater risk, but are still protected by herd immunity from children with non-idiot parents. The following generation will be the ones dealing with real disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
1) not sure these things get more virulent over time...killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn't an effective long-term strategy. In fact, making the host sick isn't really a goal of these microbes, becoming commensal is much more effective to ensure long-term reproduction and survival.
2) The measles outbreaks are happening now. I don't think we will have to wait for the grandchildren!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
"not sure these things get more virulent over time"
Example: The Plague has several forms and as the disease spreads it can change forms and become much worse, once airborne (Pneumonic plague) is spreads much faster.
"killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn't an effective long-term strategy"
I doubt microbes take that into consideration. Consider Ebola, it kills quickly and does not seem to care about its long term strategy for survival.
"making the host sick isn't really a goal of these microbes"
Today I learned that microbes have goals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
And which is a more successful organism, Ebola or rhinovirus?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
I am not a scientist, but my guess is that organisms which are successful (able to sustain large populations over periods of time) have been made that way via natural selection and their success/demise is not of their own doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
"And which is a more successful organism, Ebola or rhinovirus?"
I don't think anyone caught in an Ebola outbreak really cares whether it's going to survive long term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
"1) not sure these things get more virulent over time...killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn't an effective long-term strategy."
That's true, but death is far from the only negative side effect from these diseases, kids are blinded, there's evidence that they cause immunity to fail against other diseases, etc. The disease will be fine when the kid is crippled, but humans normally like to avoid that kind of thing.
"2) The measles outbreaks are happening now."
Yes, but these take time to gather momentum. It will take a few decades before they get to the same point as they were a century ago, but it will happen while there's little disease breeding colonies allowed to thrive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
Luckily, the measles virus is slow to mutate, so we'll probably not see a new version spread frum the cultists' bioreactors as a new plague.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
"the dangerous idea that vaccines are inherently and improbably more dangerous to everyone than the diseases those vaccines mean to prevent."
This is an admission that vaccines are inherently dangerous.
Vaccines are not nutrients.
Vaccines consist of pathogens and toxins.
Vaccines stimulate the immune system.
Because the immune system thinks vaccines are inherently dangerous.
The immune system is a host defense system comprising many biological structures and processes.
In order to do a valid risk assessment, you must compare many biological structures and processes, not just one process such as a rash.
The skin is an organ of elimination, so a rash is a manifestation of the body ridding itself of pathogens and toxins.
But the immune system is comprised of other biological systems besides the skin -- the digestive system and the central nervous system, for example.
What do vaccines do to those systems?
What do vaccines do to the genetic makeup of the host?
An organ transplant changes the genetic makeup of the host.
So does a bone marrow transplant.
What does the chicken and monkey genetic material do to the host?
Is brain damage better than a rash?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
I’m not going to address everything you’re talking about as I frankly don’t have the time or patience to do so. However, there’re some fundamental flaws with what you’re talking saying.
How? Where in that does it say that they are inherently dangerous? And at any rate, everything has an inherent nonzero level of danger. We just have to compare the danger it poses to the danger posed by the alternative in order to make a reasoned decision. You can’t just say, “This is at least somewhat dangerous. Therefore, I should avoid it,” if avoiding that thing is even more dangerous.
Did you know that nutrients can be dangerous, too? It’s all about the dosage and underlying conditions. There are people who are allergic to oxygen and sunlight. And too much oxygen or sunlight can actually kill you. This statement is completely meaningless.
That’s kind of the point. Vaccines essentially act like target boards that the immune system uses to practice for the real thing.
Also, the immune system can be pretty overprotective. That’s why we get allergies and autoimmune disorders, and why organ rejection is a problem. It often perceives a threat where none exists (or way out of proportion from the threat actually posed).
Please explain where anyone said that anyone was only using a rash as part of a risk assessment.
Nothing worth noting (outside of certain individuals with allergies to the vaccine or something).
First of all, the only way the nervous system is even involved in the immune system is in regulating it. The nervous system itself isn’t actually part of the immune system.
Second, the thing is that outside of the lymphatic and circulatory systems, the rest of the immune system only serves to prevent diseases from entering the circulatory system in the first place. Almost all vaccines are injected, thus bypassing the rest of the immune system entirely to skip straight to the white blood cells. Oral vaccines would interact with the digestive system as well, but I don’t think we even use those any more.
Again, outside of certain individuals with a preexisting condition (namely a weakened immune system in this case) the answer is really nothing at all. The only genetic information contained in the vaccine is that of the dead and/or weakened virus(es), and your body will quickly dispose of them.
No, but a rash is a far more likely (though still rare) reaction to have to a vaccine than brain damage, so it’s pretty much irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Must be great
JDL, thanks for your regularly scheduled anti-science post. You are in part responsible for measles making a comeback - stand proud!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must be great
I'm more worried about polio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
Would you like some measles?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
I believe this post was meant as a joke post but that obviously failed looking at the responses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
"I believe this post was meant as a joke post but that obviously failed looking at the responses."
Poe's Law. When you try to make a parody of the irrational all you come off as is as a bona fide sample of the original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See also: "I was only pretending to be stupid!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Too true. There's no need at all to come up with even more insane ways to imitate the trolls - they'll do that entirely on their own anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The winning argument here, however, seems to be that it's up to the government to create a neutral, free-speech portal, but since people would use that to criticize the government...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Such a portal would be overrun with the kind of posts you see on 4chan's /b/ in short order—or, even worse, the kind of posts you see on /pol/.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Along with a few other posts that would never see the light of day, as on USENET.
Still the only way to have true free speech. A simple posting tax (even 0.0001 or whatever) could offset the costs by reducing traffic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, yeah. We get it, you're an old dude who can't get out of the past.
No it's not. No one is stopping you from starting up your own blog and saying whatever you want.
Pfft! You call that "free" speech? Did you miss the part where the government can't interfere in freedom of speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Winning argument
Nope...
The gubmn't should enable competition to allow smaller platforms to thrive....by dropping copyright in many cases and requiring interoperability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Winning argument
That won't work out the way you think it will. I'm guessing you never played any sport or game where it was necessary to look beyond just your current move and the next one.
If Facebook were to open up its data on the API it already has to any and all comers absolutely nothing would change. Facebook would still be just as big as they are. There may be countless little social networks popping up using FB's API but FB would just as likely block those sites from adding messages and content to FB's database. Nobody on FB would ever see that content and those little sites would languish in obscurity.
Interoperability will solve absolutely nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Winning argument
"Interoperability will solve absolutely nothing"
... except maybe the problems we have due to a lack of interoperability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because when you're a truth believer, views not supported by evidence are hearsay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gah - meant that to be a reply to JdL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Because when you're a truth believer, views not supported by evidence are hearsay."
Views != Fact
When you state your views as though they were fact, you should expect some push back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. Bill Posey
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/10/zuckerberg-hearing-anti-vaxx-question-and-ads /600577/
“Are you 100 percent confident that vaccines pose no injury to any person on this planet?”
That was a real question asked today by Bill Posey, a congressman representing Florida’s Eighth District, to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
At the hearing, Posey said, “The federal government has created a vaccination trust fund that has paid out over $4 billion to compensate those who have been injured by vaccinations.”
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/facebook-ceo-grilled-on-anti-vaccine-content
“I support vaccinations of children and adults, but I also support open and frank communication about the risks of vaccination,” Posey told Zuckerberg. “You testified that you believe in giving people a voice. Is Facebook able to assure us it will support users’ fair and open discussions and communications about the risks as well as the benefits of vaccinations?”
...
Posey responded by asking whether Zuckerberg is positive that vaccines don’t pose health risks.
“I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to be 100 percent confident but my understanding of the scientific consensus is that it’s important that people get their vaccines,” he responded.
Posey concluded his line of questioning by telling Zuckerberg that many of the people harmed by Facebook’s policy are parents of disabled children, and that he doesn’t think the government or Facebook “should be so quick to turn our backs on them.”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4825322/user-clip-vaccination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rep. Bill Posey
I'm sure he could have just said "I don't know how vaccines work", and "I get all my information from 4chan", and got the same information across with less effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
Who are you referring to--- Posey or Zuckerberg?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rep. Bill Posey
I doubt that aspirin is 100% safe. Why is the antivax cult demanding 100% safety? Even water is bad for you in large quantities, is there an anti-water cult making all sorts of silly claims? That dihydrogen monoxide can kill you dude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
Aspirin? Reye's Syndrome, ulcers, whatever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
Well, I, for one, want 100% safety in my vaccine. And what does aspirin and water have to do with vaccines? That is not the topic here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
You are correct, aspirin and water are not the topic here - one hundred percent safety in medications is the topic here. My question is why does anyone demand one hundred percent safety from anything - that is simply not going to happen.
You could have a perfect whatever pill that solves your ailment but you choke on it whilst swallowing .... not 100% safe is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's great. Let me know when you start your company that can guarantee 100% safety in vaccines. If you live long enough and don't contract the measles and die before then.
The topic is 100% safety. The reason why water and aspirin were brought up is because neither of them is 100% safe. You can die from ingesting too much water, you can drown in it, etc... Here's the list of side effects of aspirin:
You can die from a number of conditions on that list. That doesn't exactly sound 100% safe to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re not going to get it. All drugs have a risk of side effects, even if the effects are ultimately mild.
It’s almost as if human biology isn’t 100% consistent across all of humanity and everyone will react differently to everything from aspirin to the MMR vaccine. Imagine that~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Package Inserts
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
Package Inserts and Manufacturers for some US Licensed Vaccines and Immunoglobulins
https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
M-M-R® II
(MEASLES, MUMPS, and
RUBELLA VIRUS VACCINE LIVE)
ADVERSE REACTIONS
The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality,
within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed
vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:
Body as a Whole
Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability.
Cardiovascular System
Vasculitis.
Digestive System
Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea.
Endocrine System
Diabetes mellitus.
Hemic and Lymphatic System
Thrombocytopenia (see WARNINGS, Thrombocytopenia); purpura; regional lymphadenopathy;
leukocytosis.
Immune System
Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported as well as related phenomena such as
angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or
without an allergic history.
Musculoskeletal System
Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia.
Arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), and polyneuritis are features of infection
with wild-type rubella and vary in frequency and severity with age and sex, being greatest in adult females
and least in prepubertal children. This type of involvement as well as myalgia and paresthesia, have also
been reported following administration of MERUVAX II.
Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to persistent
virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients developed
chronic joint symptoms.
Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In
women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children
(children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),{17,56,57} and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer
duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years. In adolescent girls,
the reactions appear to be intermediate in incidence between those seen in children and in adult women.
Even in women older than 35 years, these reactions are generally well tolerated and rarely interfere with
normal activities.
Nervous System
Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see
CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS);
acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile
convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia.
Encephalitis and encephalopathy have been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of
M-M-R II or measles-, mumps-, and rubella-containing vaccine administered since licensure of these
vaccines.
The risk of serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains
less than the risk of encephalitis and encephalopathy following infection with wild-type measles (1 per
1000 reported cases).{58,59}
In severely immunocompromised individuals who have been inadvertently vaccinated with measlescontaining
vaccine; measles inclusion body encephalitis, pneumonitis, and fatal outcome as a direct
consequence of disseminated measles vaccine virus infection have been reported (see
CONTRAINDICATIONS). In this population, disseminated mumps and rubella vaccine virus infection have
also been reported.
There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have a
history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may
have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination.
Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles
vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed. This is far less than the association
with infection with wild-type measles, 6-22 cases of SSPE per million cases of measles. The results of a
retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest
that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing measles with its
inherent higher risk of SSPE.{60}
Cases of aseptic meningitis have been reported to VAERS following measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccination. Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic
meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic
meningitis.
Respiratory System
Pneumonia; pneumonitis (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); sore throat; cough; rhinitis.
Skin
Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritis.
Local reactions including burning/stinging at injection site; wheal and flare; redness (erythema);
swelling; induration; tenderness; vesiculation at injection site; Henoch-Schönlein purpura; acute
hemorrhagic edema of infancy.
Special Senses — Ear
Nerve deafness; otitis media.
Special Senses — Eye
Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; retrobulbar neuritis; conjunctivitis.
Urogenital System
Epididymitis; orchitis.
Other
Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following
vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines; however, a causal relationship has not been
established in healthy individuals (see CONTRAINDICATIONS). No deaths or permanent sequelae were
reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and
adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.{61}
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, health-care providers and manufacturers are
required to record and report certain suspected adverse events occurring within specific time periods after
vaccination. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has established a
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which will accept all reports of suspected events.{49}
A VAERS report form as well as information regarding reporting requirements can be obtained by calling
VAERS 1-800-822-7967.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Package Inserts
Cool. Just like every medication, vaccines have a list of possible issues associated with them, to be taken into account with your doctor (not some random blogger) when deciding what's medically best.
Now, compare that to this:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/measles/complications/
Common complications
More common complications of measles include:
diarrhoea and vomiting, which can lead to dehydration
middle ear infection (otitis media), which can cause earache
eye infection (conjunctivitis)
inflammation of the voice box (laryngitis)
infections of the airways and lungs (such as pneumonia, bronchitis and croup)
fits caused by a fever (febrile seizures)
Uncommon complications
Less common complications of measles include:
liver infection (hepatitis)
misalignment of the eyes (squint) if the virus affects the nerves and muscles of the eye
infection of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord (meningitis) or infection of the brain itself (encephalitis)
Rare complications
In rare cases, measles can lead to:
serious eye disorders, such as an infection of the optic nerve, the nerve that transmits information from the eye to the brain (this is known as optic neuritis and can lead to vision loss)
heart and nervous system problems
a fatal brain complication known as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), which can occur several years after measles (this is very rare, occurring in only 1 in every 25,000 cases)
Measles in pregnancy
If you're not immune to measles and become infected while you're pregnant, there's a risk of:
miscarriage or stillbirth
your baby being born prematurely (before the 37th week of pregnancy)
your baby having a low birth weight
If you're pregnant and think you have come into contact with someone with measles and you know you're not immune, you should see your GP as soon as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Package Inserts
It's amusing (but not surprising) that the method these liars use to claim harm from vaccines is identical to the process that frauds, I mean homeopaths, use to claim their quackery is effective.
"X happened sometime around when I took Y, therefore X caused Y!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
"It's amusing "
It would be amusing if it were only themselves they were damaging. At least homeopaths don't normally harm people outside of themselves and their own children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
The drinking bleach one almost unbelievable, who in their right mind would even consider doing such a stupid thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Way too many people:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/the-fda-warns-not-to-drink-bleach-in-case-you-needed -that-reminder/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's overlap.between bleach cronkers amd antivaxxers. One of the motivators for "parents" strapping their children to their beds and forcing bleach into them is the false claim that doing so can cure autism.
(In reality it only psychologically traumatizes them and dissolves their intestines)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
idk, sounds like child abuse to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is child abuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
😳
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!
It was 99.9999998 percent WAX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Placebo power!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
I recall that studies have found that homeopathic remedies are the only thing besides nothing that is less effective than administering a placebo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Package Inserts
Why did you post a UK website instead of the US CDC website?
Are things different across the pond?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
PaulT hails from the UK. Therefore, he naturally looks at the UK site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Package Inserts
There is beginning to be a problem with your suggestion.
Google:
california vaccine medical exemptions doctors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Package Inserts
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/hcp/index.html
Treatment
There is no specific antiviral therapy for measles. Medical care is supportive and to help relieve symptoms and address complications such as bacterial infections.
Severe measles cases among children, such as those who are hospitalized, should be treated with vitamin A. Vitamin A should be administered immediately on diagnosis and repeated the next day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or, you can get vaccinated against measles and never get it in the first place. Sounds like a much better option to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People are afraid of the side effects, and there is no motivation for the drug companies to make them safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I'm afraid of spiders, yet the vast majority of them are harmless to me and actually help control the local mosquito population. Just because people are afraid of something doesn't mean anything other than they are afraid of it. People are afraid of vaccines for no good reason.
Uh, yeah, there is. It's called "losing a lot of money" otherwise. If the vaccines aren't relatively safe then A) they won't get approved by the FDA to begin with, B) they will get fined and/or shut down by the FDA, and C) they will be subject to a class action lawsuit and/or criminal investigation costing them, at best, millions or billions of dollars, and at worst criminal charges and going to jail. They have PLENTY of incentive to make them as safe as possible. If they aren't at least reasonably safe, why hasn't the entire vaccinated population of America (hell, the world) dropped dead yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" C) they will be subject to a class action lawsuit and/or criminal investigation"
Nobody can sue the drug companies - Pay attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, they can. Especially if they have evidence they were harmed by the drug companies. What on earth gave you the idea they were immune to lawsuits? I can cite several if you want proof.
I was. Obviously you were not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nobody can sue the drug companies
Yes, they can. Especially if they have evidence they were harmed by the drug companies."
You cannot sue a drug company for a vaccine injury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program
The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, popularly known as "vaccine court", administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruesewitz_v._Wyeth
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's because vaccines do not, by themselves, cause injury.
Regardless of that, if vaccine makers are found to be deliberately not taking proper precautions to make sure the vaccines they produce are safe and do not contain too high levels of impurities, they ABSOLUTELY can be sued because that's deliberate intent and against the law.
The FDA can also sue them for negligence and fine them and/or shut them down. Drug companies are in no way immune to lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
So, there is no medical treatment for measles after you get it, meaning it’s very hard if not impossible to cure. Furthermore, measles can cause additional complications and can be very severe.
By contrast, in addition to many being mild, the side effects from the vaccine for measles are pretty easy to treat and almost never have long-term effects. In addition, it prevents measles, thus getting the vaccine all but ensures the previous issues will never come up.
So basically, get the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Are you a doctor?
People are afraid of the vaccine.
People have applied for compensation for injuries from the Vaccine Court.
They don't trust the ingredients, safety studies, reporting of side effects, and the fact that the doctors don't inform people of the side effects before they are given.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why does it matter?
Irrelevant. Nobody cares. People are scared of all kinds of stuff. A lot of which is harmless.
Also irrelevant. Many have been denied compensation due to lack of evidence that vaccines caused the injuries.
That just means they are a bunch of uneducated idiots. You are more likely to die in car crash than you are to have any negative side effects from getting vaccinated. Yet people aren't screaming their heads off that we should junk all the cars and go back to the horse and buggy days. (Well, maybe the Amish.)
This is blatantly false. It is required by law that doctors inform patients of the side effects before administering any vaccine. They even give you a fact sheet that has all the side effects listed on it before sticking you. And generally doctors aren't the ones giving you the vaccines, it's nurses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"It is required by law that doctors inform patients of the side effects before administering any vaccine."
False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Or are you just in denial about what the federal regulations say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
I’m an autistic person who has been vaccinated. You could say that I have experience from the other side of the equation. But unless you are a doctor, I don’t see how that’s remotely relevant.
That fear is irrational, as I’ve already explained.
Well, that doesn’t actually matter unless they actually won compensation. Any moron on the street could apply for compensation for injuries from vaccines. That doesn’t mean that their claims have any merit.
That really says more about them than the vaccines. If they don’t trust any of those, I’m not sure what to tell them. It doesn’t sound like they’d trust any evidence that doesn’t conform with their preconceived notions. But that’s not my problem.
As for the bit about doctors not informing people of the side effects, that is either a lie or, if true, grounds for a lawsuit. Doctors are required to inform their patients of any side effects of any medications they administer, including vaccines, beforehand by law and under medical ethics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
"Any moron on the street could apply for compensation for injuries from vaccines."
False - There is a Statute of Limitations and you have to find a lawyer who is willing to take the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, you can represent yourself, not that you should, but there are plenty of lawyers willing to take such a case, unfortunately. Also, the statute of limitations is kind of irrelevant if the moron on the street brings the case within the statute of limitations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Uhhh… that doesn’t actually refute what I just said.
The statute of limitations doesn’t impose any restrictions on who can apply for compensation; only when they can do so. Even a moron on the street can apply for compensation within the statute of limitations.
Plus, I said that anyone can apply for compensation. I never said anything about how successful the application would be. In other words, my statement could be read to include anyone who could apply for compensation, regardless of whether or not the application has any merit whatsoever, including cases where the alleged wrong falls outside the statute of limitations.
First, they could file their claim pro se, without a lawyer. True, a claim filed pro se is substantially less likely to succeed, but again, my statement says nothing about the likelihood of success. All that matters is that the claim could be filed, not whether or not the claimant would win.
Second, as we’ve seen in many cases reported on this site, even a moron on the street can get a lawyer willing to take the case, even if the case has no merit.
Look, I was addressing this particular claim:
This statement says nothing about whether the applications were filed with a lawyer or pro se, whether or not they were within the statute of limitations, whether or not they were otherwise deficient on their face, whether or not the claimed injuries were proven or not, or whether or not causation was proven or not. In other words, you said nothing about their success or likelihood of success, or even anything about the merits of the applications. You may have tried to use it as evidence that vaccines cause injuries, but if so, that is simply insufficient. (You also said nothing about how numerous these applications are.)
To demonstrate the insufficiency of the statement (which you offer no evidence for, but it’s probably true), I said:
Your response doesn’t address this point, really. While failing to apply within the statute of limitations or not having a lawyer to represent the claimant may suggest that the claim has little or no chance to succeed, that only proves my point. Your original statement did not exclude people with little to no chance to succeed. People can file a claim that has absolutely no chance to succeed.
Your original statement would still be accurate even if exactly two people have applied for compensation for alleged injuries allegedly caused by vaccines, neither of whom had a lawyer, both filed outside the statute of limitations, neither of whom had actually suffered any injury from any cause whatsoever, neither of whom had ever actually been vaccinated, and neither of whom prevailed. It is extremely broad and completely meaningless.
But fine. Let’s restrict the applicable cases to those filed with a lawyer within the statute of limitations. That still doesn’t disprove my main point. Sure, maybe not just any moron on the street would be able to file an application that falls within these restrictions, but that doesn’t raise the bar much higher than that.
Even under these new conditions, the statement would still be true if at least two people applied for compensation for alleged injuries allegedly caused by a vaccine, had at least one lawyer representing them (it could be the same lawyer for each), and filed within the statute of limitations, even if none actually suffered any injury at all from any source whatsoever, if none had ever been vaccinated at any point in their lives, and/or the alleged injuries were not or could not possibly be caused by any vaccine or the particular vaccine at issue. It’s also still true even if every petitioner lost on every claim.
That’s not enough to prove that there are people who have been injured by vaccines. That’s not even enough to prove that there are people who think they have been injured by vaccines. It certainly doesn’t prove that the harm caused by vaccines matches or exceeds the benefits of being vaccinated by any measure.
To be clear, this particular comment is not saying anything about the actual truth or falsehood of any particular claim or allegation. I am sure that there exists at least one person out there who was genuinely injured by a vaccine, where compensation was sought and obtained for that injury. All that I’m saying is that, even if I accept everything you’re saying as true, without more, this particular claim is completely and utterly meaningless. There are few conceivable and/or possible scenarios where that statement would be false. It proves essentially nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
"Doctors are required to inform their patients of any side effects of any medications they administer, including vaccines"
False
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, TRUE. Care to try and dispute the federal regulations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Package Inserts
Result found: Grossly negligent and corrupt "Doctor" Tara Zanvliet now facong punishment for selling fraudulent exemptions to trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state is causing problems.
Google: "Thorn Schwartz" vaccines
Thorn Schwartz, 11, who is severely autistic, is not allowed to go to school anymore, according to his parents. That’s because his school district. The family is now suing the school and the state commissioner of health.
In June after an outbreak of measles, ... in ... New York City, the state repealed the religious exemption for vaccines. But lawmakers said they didn’t change the medical exemption. The Schwartz family wants state Supreme Court to suspend the denial so Thorn can go back to school...
On Sept. 9, the Schwartzes got a letter from the school principal that said the BOCES doctor reviewed Thorn’s exemption and ruled it is “not consistent” with guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control...
“I also object,” writes Kerri, “to a doctor who does not know Thorn being able to decide what his body can or cannot tolerate, or what is in his best interest medically... There is no way a doctor who has never met Thorn or at least talked with Dr. Ostrander can make a decision about the effect that vaccines could have on Thorn.”
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Google: "Thorn Schwartz" vaccines
Funny how you leave out the part that there is no actual medical reason preventing Thorn from being vaccinated against measles.
"His parents feel it might be a bad idea" is not a medical opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
"The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state "
Never mind the micromanagement by the fed and insurance cos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Funny,
Pretty much sums up Ms. Zandvliet's gross negligence - granting phony exemptions to patients she never examined and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
"Immunocompromised" amd "Has had severe allergic reaction to components used in a vaccine" are on the list of medically valid reasons to offer an exemption from vaccinations.
"Her father's half-brother has asthma"
"She's had been vaccinated with no ill effect"
"He has autism"
"Her parents paid me $180 in cash"
(All are real antivaxxer excuses) Are notably absent from that list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
What, is he going to get more autism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Well, if the medical reasons given did not include “allergic reaction to vaccines” or “immune deficiency” or something like that, then there is absolutely no medical reason not to get the vaccine.
If there is a legitimate medical reason that Thorn should not take the vaccine, that should have been included in the form for his exemption. That is, the form should have included all the information needed for a doctor who has not personally met Thorn or spoken to his doctor to independently determine that, based on the guidelines from the CDC, Thorn should not be vaccinated. If the reasons given are not consistent with CDC guidelines to exempt someone from vaccines, then the child isn’t exempt. The burden of proof is on the parents/doctor to prove that a vaccination would be likely be more harm than help for the child, and the reasons have to be consistent with science-based medical knowledge.
And by the way, “severe autism” is not a good reason not to get vaccinated. There is no link between vaccines and autism. Plus, I’m pretty sure the theory was that vaccines cause autism. Even if that was true (and it absolutely is not), why would that mean that a person who already has autism shouldn’t be vaccinated?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
"there is absolutely no medical reason not to get the vaccine."
Are you a doctor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
One need not be a doctor to share facts from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Irrelevant. I am merely stating what doctors and researchers have said. The only medical reasons to not get vaccinated are immune-deficiency and allergies, as those are the only cases where vaccines have ever been shown to cause any injury that is severe, long-lasting, or both, and the only known causes for an increase in either the chance or severity of adverse effects from vaccines that can be predetermined.
Perhaps you don’t believe me. You want proof. Well, here’s the thing: I am not making a positive claim. If you want to argue about my point, then you’ll have to prove that there is another valid medical reason to not get vaccinated. You have the burden of proof here. If I’m wrong, then it shouldn’t be that hard to prove me wrong. Just find one other medical reason that would be a valid reason to not get vaccinated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Oh, and by the way, I like how you trimmed that quote to suggest that I said that there is absolutely no medical reason to not get vaccinated, when the entire quote would show that I’m saying that the only valid medical reasons to not get vaccinated are if you’re allergic or have an immune deficiency:
(BTW, that also would include a family history of allergic reactions to the vaccine or one of its ingredients. That would also be a valid medical reason, and it falls within my statement, or at least that was my intention. After all, that would suggest a strong likelihood that the person would also have an allergic reaction to that vaccine.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Notwithstanding that "The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state" has yet to exist, all the following text works to disprove that claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Here is the help you need.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Toom1275 is saying two things about your claim that “micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state is causing problems.”
1) The implied claim that the state micromanages doctors and medical exemptions is false.
2) Everything else you said in that comment, presumably in order to prove your claim, actually refutes your claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
People who have had adverse reactions to vaccines naturally seek doctors who will give out medical exemptions because they specialize in treating the vaccine injured. Since California abolished philosophical and religious exemptions, more people have sought medical exemptions. Many don't want to actually wait until they are vaccine damaged in order to get medical exemptions. If one child in the family has been damaged, they don't want to risk having another child damaged.
If I saw a lot of damaged children around me, I wouldn't want to wait until my child became damaged and then seek a medical exemption. I would want to prevent damages and get a medical exemption BEFORE my child was damaged. Wouldn't you?
And if a lot of doctors are afraid of giving out medical exemptions, then people who are afraid of side effects seek out doctors who are sympathetic to vaccine damaged children.
In the California hearings, which can be seen on Del Bigtree's High Wire website, legislative delegates can be seen asking about getting medical exemptions, because the proposed legislation would arbitrarily target doctors who specialized in helping the vaccine injured.
Someone called 50 doctors and asked if they would give medical exemptions, and all said, NO. So these vaccine injured can't even get medical exemptions for conditions under the CDC guidelines. So what are they supposed to do? Homeschool the children? This was brought up in the legislative hearing?
So the problem that was anticipated has come true very quickly, as you can see from the articles. This doctor has been targeted, and it has a chilling effect on other doctors in the state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All doctors can give out medical exemptions. They are just required to do it for valid medical reasons. If someone truly did have an adverse reaction to the vaccine, they would then receive an exemption from it. That is allowed by law. What's not allowed is "I don't want it! Nyah!".
But not for valid medical reasons.
If they can provide evidence that their other children would also be damaged by receiving the vaccine then they can get a valid medical exemption. If not, too bad so sad.
I would. But I don't see a lot of damaged children around me, or in the country in general. Can you point out these high numbers of damaged children that seem to be invisible?
Again, too bad so sad. Being afraid is not a legitimate excuse. You need to have actual physical evidence you or your child would be harmed by a vaccine.
Yes, because in most cases those injuries were not caused by vaccines and were instead caused by other factors.
Probably because they all prefaced their questions with "I'm afraid of vaccines".
This is blatantly false. BY LAW doctors, even under the new rules in California, are required to give out medical exemptions if they have good reason to believe the person receiving the vaccine would have a severe adverse reaction to it.
That is a legitimate option, yes. Or just get the vaccine. There are cases where a child's immune system is so compromised that they cannot receive a vaccine. In those cases their immune system is so fragile that even catching a cold from another child could kill them. In those cases their parents have to be super careful and actually do homeschool them to limit their exposure. This is a valid reason to be exempted from vaccines.
No, it hasn't, as I've explained. You're just making stuff up and using questionable sources to make your point.
Which doctor was that? Seers? The guy who got suspended because of malpractice? I have no sympathy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"BY LAW doctors, even under the new rules in California, are required to give out medical exemptions if they have good reason to believe the person receiving the vaccine would have a severe adverse reaction to it."
Please document this.
There was a video going around, referenced in the CA legislative hearings, where a woman called 50 CA doctors asking if they gave medical exemptions for vaccines, and they all said, No.
If you find a doctor in CA who gives medical exemptions, please let me know his name. I am looking for one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SB 276/714 does not prevent any doctor from issuing an exemption that is consistent with the standard of medical care for that condition or consistent with medical guidelines, unless they are on probation, facing accusation, or otherwise contributing to a public health risk in one or more communities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't see anything in the CA law that says a physician has to give any medical exemptions to anybody.
Why would they want to - they would be flagged after giving 5 for an entire year. And if they were second-guessed by the system 5 times, then would be busted.
The news is already full of doctors being rounded up and persecuted, just in the last few weeks.
So if you have an at-risk child you can either have them vaccinated and play Russian roulette on whether they will have a seizure and die after being shot up - again - or you can keep them home from school.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276
SB-276 Immunizations: medical exemptions.(2019-2020)
(2) A clinically trained immunization department staff member, who is either a physician and surgeon or a registered nurse, shall review all medical exemptions from any of the following:
...
(B) Physicians and surgeons who have submitted five or more medical exemptions in a calendar year.
...
(7) The department shall notify the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as appropriate, of any physician and surgeon who has five or more medical exemption forms in a calendar year that are revoked pursuant to this subdivision.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny, you left out that part earlier. I wonder why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because antivaxxers are incapable of speaking without lying, and lies of omission still count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one is saying that they are required to issue a medical exemption. We’re just saying that they can.
This is presumably based on what you later quote from that law allowing exemptions:
Except that that would only be a problem if the doctor is handing out at least five exemptions in a single year, at least five of which were found to be invalid and were revoked. So long as the doctor only issues exemptions for valid medical reasons, they have nothing to worry about.
In fact, because cases where there is a valid medical reason for not getting a vaccine are rare and most people get vaccinated at most once per year in most years (even if that one time includes multiple vaccines; that could be covered under a single exemption), most doctors wouldn’t ever have a reason to submit five or more medical exemptions in a single year unless they were submitting at least one invalid one that should be revoked. So actually, it makes perfect sense to give doctors who have submitted five or more exemptions over the course of a single year should receive increased scrutiny.
Furthermore, in order for an exemption to be revoked, not only would certain conditions have to be met for the exemption to be reviewed in the first place, but also the exemption would have to be for a nonmedical reason, for a medical reason that does not adequately support an exemption, or for a valid medical reason that is shown to not apply to the patient (this particular one is harder to prove).
So any doctor with one or more patients who have a valid medical reason to not get vaccinated have no good reason not to issue an exemption to such patients. This is especially true for the first four patients. Any doctor who submits five or more medical exemptions in one year should be scrutinized, and any doctor who submits five or more medical exemptions within one year that have been revoked should be busted for it. The former suggests that something unusual is going on, and the latter suggests that the doctor is willing to issue medical exemptions to people who don’t actually need them. And as for “being busted”, that just means the appropriate medical board will be notified about the doctor’s actions; if there is no actual wrongdoing, nothing is keeping the board from taking no action against that doctor.
Contrary to what you said, merely being second-guessed five or more times in a year isn’t enough to get busted; their exemptions would have to actually be revoked, not just get re-examined.
Show us, then. I’d bet that in all of those cases, the doctors issued exemptions for nonmedical reasons, invalid medical reasons, or valid medical reasons that simply don’t apply to that patient.
First of all, only those who have a severe allergy to one or more of the ingredients of a vaccine are going to have a seizure and die from getting that vaccine; even those with immune deficiencies aren’t going to get a seizure from the vaccine; they’ll just get a disease or something (not that that’s not serious or potentially deadly or anything). If they survived getting that same vaccine before despite having had a severe allergic reaction to it, only a truly incompetent or unethical doctor would refuse to issue a medical exemption to that patient.
In fact, if a person has had the same vaccine before, has not acquired an immune deficiency since then, and has survived long enough to get the vaccine again, then unless that person had a major adverse reaction the first time, that person has nothing to worry about. If they had such a reaction the first time, then any competent, ethical doctor would be willing to issue a medical exemption for that person, and that exemption would not be revoked. If they had acquired an immune deficiency since then and are aware of it, then that should be in the medical record and an exemption should be issued by a doctor prior to the second vaccination.
In other words, if a child is legitimately at risk of having a severe adverse reaction to a given vaccine and a doctor is made aware of it, that doctor should be able to do tests to safely prove that the child is at-risk and issue a medical exemption for that child to not receive that vaccine. If a parent genuinely knows that their child is at-risk, and the reason is valid, then they should have absolutely no problem getting a medical exemption from a doctor, and that exemption will not be revoked.
This is a perfectly valid option. In fact, children who are at-risk because they have an immune deficiency probably should be kept home from school, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html
Yeah, because she was looking for INVALID medical exemptions. In other words, she was trying to find someone who would giver her a fake medical exemption when none was warranted. Medical exemptions are still a thing in California
Here you go. However, I would expect you will have to prove that you or your child has a pre-existing medical condition that would make it dangerous for either of you to receive a vaccination and not just a personal belief based on false facts and quack science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
I’ll keep this one brief. There are very, very few valid medical reasons that would justify a medical exemption from getting a vaccine as required by the law to enter a public school. In most of those case, this would be because their immune system is incredibly weak, so they probably shouldn’t attend a public school anyway.
If you can’t get an exemption, and you’re unwilling to get your child vaccinated, then yes, homeschooling is a perfectly reasonable option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Del Bigtree and High Wire
Del Bigtree has a website called High Wire where anti-vaxers can go instead of going to Facebook and Pinterest or Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thing is, should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us? And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease? Especially when the suppliers of such drugs financially benefit from that assumption and cannot benefit from any possible non-drug treatments that could work just as well, if not better.
For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening. Another question. How many of you know how these diseases they're meant to prevent are actually contracted? Some require very specific circumstances that most people will never come into contact with. And how many people who administer vaccines actually know what's in them? How many of you do? Why do you trust the word of large drug companies who financially benefit from these things? And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don't typically vaccinate?
And don't go talking about otherwording, these are actual questions, and they deserve to be answered. I'm open to learning more, but these are things I wondered about and which no one seems to address when this topic comes up. They seem to simply assume the majority opinion is correct without doing their own research.
One more question. When was the last time allopathic medicine cured anything? And if the drug companies are so concerned about us, why has medicine devolved to simple symptom management? It's more profitable than actually curing people, because healthy people don't need drugs, only sick or supposedly sick people do. So why should we trust an industry that prioritizes their profits over helping people even if it means earning less money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[AntivaxC provodes no facts in their Complaint to support their contentions]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Our AC here (to whom Toom1275 has assigned the moniker “AntivaxC”) has made a number of claims, but has offered no factual support for any of them. Toom1275 is just pointing that out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the perennial low-hanging fruit I've taken to picking on when bored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you an administrator of this website who is authorized to make decisions that mere mortals cannot do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you convinced that your arguments comprosed entirely of nonsequiturs, red herrings, and nearly every other form of logical fallacy would be convincing to anyone with functioning cognition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Completely irrelevant.
So “mere mortals” are incapable of deciding that someone fails to support their claim or to give someone a funny and/or insulting nickname? People need authorization to do those things? I’m afraid I don’t see the problem here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease?"
Because we understand how vaccines actually work.
"For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/04/29/measles-is-back-blame-the-an ti-vax-movement/
"And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don't typically vaccinate?"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-amish-dont-get-autism/
Also, even if it was true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
"these are actual questions"
Which have been answered ad nauseum every time one of you uneducated idiots ask them instead of looking for the actual answers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have to go back a good few generations to see the effects of no vaccinations, or wait for a major disease outbreak due to the loss of herd immunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Thing is, should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us?"
Absolutely not. However in the case of vaccinations, we know for a fact that this is not the case, there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines do much much more good than harm. And even your framing of the question is intellectually dishonest. You are a bad person and should be ashamed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The current vaccination rate in America is, what, somewhere around 85%-90%? It used to be higher. By your logic, if vaccines have a 50/50 chance of either preventing disease or causing further harm, then AT A MINIMUM, 45%-50% of the American population should have autism by now. They do not. Therefore we can conclude that vaccines are FAR more likely to have health benefits than causing further harm. (Also there are many studies showing the rate of side effects to be a tiny fraction.)
Have you heard of anti-vaxxers and health nuts? Regardless of those nut jobs, vaccines do not treat a disease, they prevent it. There is currently no other way to prevent a disease other than to vaccinate against it. Treating a disease means you already have the disease and now you're trying to get rid of it, which is infinitely harder and usually more painful, physically and emotionally. I leave it to you to choose which of those two options are better.
All of us. Seriously, how the diseases spread and contracted are well documented. Are you saying you've been living under a rock for the last few decades?
Ebola maybe. Chicken pox, polio, measles, and others like them? Yeah everybody has a chance to encounter those on a daily basis and most of them are spread by skin-to-skin contact or by being airborne. Like measles. EXTREMELY contagious. You can catch it by walking into a room a contagious person was in 30 minutes ago.
Practically all of them, since most of them are medical professionals. But what does that have to do with anything? You don't have to know the specific chemical composition of a vaccine to inject it into somebody. You just need to know that the syringe contains the vaccine.
Anyone who wants to. The ingredients and composition of vaccines are publicly available to anyone who wants to know.
Because they are required to go through federally mandated testing for chemical composition and impurities to be certified for public use. Also several decades of use have shown that they are safe for the general public.
Well they do actually still get diseases and get sick, but even if they didn't: herd immunity and isolation.
They have been. Many times. But apparently you are just uneducated since you didn't know that.
https://www.google.com
Then you either aren't actually reading the articles on the topic or live in an echo chamber, because they are addressed, constantly.
Because the science was settled years ago. Are you going to argue that gravity isn't a real thing just because no one in the general public bothers to verify it for themselves?
You asked three more.
Today, yesterday, the day before that, every single day for the last few thousand years. Any more stupid questions?
It hasn't. There are unfortunately some diseases (like Alzheimer's, MS, Crohn's, etc...) that we just don't understand enough about and about the human body to be able to cure them. The best we can do is manage symptoms. However, there are a LARGE amount of diseases that we can now cure and/or prevent through modern medicine.
No one is saying some drug companies don't do this, but not all. However, if you think for one second that finding the cure to cancer would not make the first drug company to figure it out wealthier than ANY other company in the world, you are delusional.
You have made an assertion with zero facts to back it up and applied to every single company in said industry. One example proves you wrong. But regardless of this, NOBODY is trusting the drug industry. Nobody. People are trusting independent review and oversight agencies that decide whether the drugs these companies produce are safe for humans and can be publicly sold and administered. Your lack of knowledge of how this all works is telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only medications in general, approved use that would be as likely to inflict harm as to help us are used to treat diseases that are even worse. The most recent known exception was the overprescription of opioids, but that was an outlier.
As for vaccines, I have never seen evidence that shows any vaccine is as likely to be harmful as it is to be helpful, and you present none.
Simple. Any substance capable of treating a disease is, by definition, a drug.
In all seriousness, we have a ton of scientific research on the topic done over the course of centuries. This has been a pretty well-settled question.
Well, there have been the recent measles outbreaks.
Well, I already explained measles (which can be caught by just about every possible vector one could catch a disease) and polio (which spreads through contaminated food or water). HPV is an STD, so that means sex or a transfer of infected blood. Chicken pox and the flu are known to be highly contagious; the former spreads through skin contact, and the latter is airborne. How’s that?
The only one of those I can think of offhand is HPV, which can cause cancer. Unless the vaccine has a pretty high rate of inflicting serious, incurable harm, I’d say the benefits outweigh the risks.
I can’t say with absolute certainty, but I’d imagine any doctor worth their salt is aware of what’s in them.
Well, it varies from vaccine to vaccine, but I believe that in general, there would be a preservative (like thiomersal), some sort harmless liquid like a saline solution, a sample of weakened and/or dead viruses, and maybe an immune booster.
Of course, anyone who is concerned can always ask what the ingredients are.
I don’t. Although I would like to point out that, since more money can be made from treating a disease than preventing it, the incentives aren’t quite what you think they are.
I do trust the many researchers who’ve studied these vaccines and the diseases they’re meant to prevent. I trust the historical and scientific data and statistics, which show that, in general, the vaccines are far less dangerous than the diseases they are meant to prevent. I trust the FDA (though to a lesser extent) to ferret out the truly dangerous vaccines. I trust the CDC (again, to a lesser extent) to adequately way the risks rationally for the good of the public at large.
This has already been debunked, but to the extent that it is true, it can be explained by herd immunity and isolation.
And they have been. Many times.
Also, since you haven’t exactly made a statement about what we believe, “otherwording” wouldn’t really apply.
Either you weren’t really listening, or they had long gotten tired of answering the same question over and over and over again.
It happens all the time. It’s cured my strep throat and pneumonia on several occasions.
I’d just like to point out that this contradicts the premise of an earlier question, and kinda contradicts itself. The industry “prioritizes their profits…even if it means earning less money“? Do I need to explain how nonsensical that sounds?
As for why medicine has, in many cases, devolved into simple symptom management (an assertion with no evidence, BTW), you answered that yourself: it’s more profitable. I actually mention that in another answer. Also, some diseases simply don’t have a known cure, and we’d need some major advance in medicine to find one.
At any rate, like I said, I don’t trust the drug companies. I certainly don’t expect you to, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think that should be read as "an industry that prioritizes (their profits) over (helping people even if it means earning less money)".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then it was very poorly worded and inconsistent with the sentence preceding it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lol @ the shithead who thinks VAERS is proof that vaccines cause harm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is JdL throwing another one of his pro-plague fits? I finally put him on my block list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This CDC link describes the limitations of VAERS
https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html
This video demonstrates how to search VAERS data using CDC WONDER. You will also learn about the purpose of VAERS and strengths and limitations of VAERS data.
It is only as good as it is used.
If doctors don't report adverse events, then they are not on there.
If the vaccine injured don't report adverse events, then they are not on there.
If a child is vaccinated in the doctor's office and is treated in the emergency room with vaccine injuries, most ER doctors don't ask for a vaccine history, therefore they cannot report that the injuries were related to vaccines. And now doctors are telling parents that fever, vomiting, diarrhea, seizures, swelling of the brain, etc. are NORMAL side effects. Brain swelling causes the head to enlarge in babies and toddlers, and a substantial number of autistic children have enlarged heads. That is why people can spot autistic children years before they are diagnosed officially by professionals.
Most parents don't know what the adverse events of vaccines are, nor are they informed by the doctors that there is even such a thing as VAERS, so how can they report injuries?
And if the doctor says a vaccine injury is just a coincidence, then who are the injured children to say otherwise? Some that develop autism can't even speak.
According to the local health department, there should be no injuries ever reported to VAERS, since all vaccines are safe, and any information on side effects listed in the packages inserts has to be suppressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most of those are NORMAL side effects of aspirin and other pain meds too. What's your point?
There are a number of problems with your statement. You suggest that swelled heads means the child has autism. This is not true. There's a variety of conditions that cause brain or head swelling that do not result in autism. Correlation does not equal causation. Brain/head swelling is a POTENTIAL indicator of autism but not a sure fire diagnosis. Please don't go into medicine.
Stop lying. Informing patients of potential side effects is required by law. If you know a doctor who is not doing this, report them to the authorities instead of whining about it on here.
Because the science just doesn't support it. And speaking is not the only way of communicating. As you are aptly demonstrating by typing on this blog.
I don't recall any health department saying that, but that is more or less correct. Hot tip, people are sometimes idiots and liars and you can make a report without actually having been injured by it.
Why do you keep repeating this easily disproven lie? It's required BY LAW that patients be informed about side effects of vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"It's required BY LAW that patients be informed about side effects of vaccines."
Please document.
I don't see it in Virginia law.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter110/section100/
12VAC5-110-100. Responsibilities of Physicians and Local Health Departments.
A. Documentary proof for students immunized in Virginia. Every physician, registered nurse, and local health department providing immunizations to a child shall provide documentary proof, as defined in 12VAC5-110-10, to the child or his parent or guardian of all immunizations administered.
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title12/agency5/chapter110/section10/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't see it in Virginia law."
idk - you might try federal law, FDA policy, court order, let us know - k?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it's in federal law, which trumps state law: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you so much for this link to the CDC .
"Vaccine Information Statement"
I never heard of it.
All I knew about was the manufacturers package insert.
What is the difference between them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statements
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/vis-faqs.html
CDC
Q: Are VISs “informed consent” forms?
A: No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statement 2012
Here is a 2012 Vaccine Information Statement for MMR.
It gives percentages of risks.
The 2018 and 2019 versions don't give the percentage of risks
http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/vis/vis-mmr.pdf
VACCINE INFORMATION STATEMENT
2012
Mild Problems
• Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
• Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
• Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1
person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 6-14 days
after the shot. They occur less often after the second
dose.
Moderate Problems
• Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1
out of 3,000 doses)
• Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in
teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
• Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a
bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
• Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million
doses)
• Several other severe problems have been reported
after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they
are caused by the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Info. Statement MMR 2019
Here is the MMR Vaccine Information Statement for 2019 - for comparison.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Info. Statement MMR 2019
The current Information Statement does not indicate the severity of the side effects.
Nor does it indicate the longevity of the side effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Info. Statement MMR
The Vaccine Information Statement does not include the ingredients of the vaccines, such as MRC-5 cells.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant.
The ingredients are publicly available. If people are that concerned about what's in them they can look them up. Most people are content with the knowledge that vaccines have been studied for decades and rigorously tested for safety and effectiveness. The exact specifics are of no use to them personally as most people don't have the knowledge and expertise to understand them. Most don't even know what MRC-5 cells even are, or that they even exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant. People don't need to be told the exact percentages. If they are that worried about it they can look it up as it is publicly available. Or ask their doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statement 2012
So now you can see that they're extremely safe, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Information Statement 2012
I’m not sure what your point is. Seems to me like clear evidence that vaccines are pretty darn safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is completely irrelevant. The majority of the side effects are mild and go away within a few days to at most a couple week. You have a higher chance of getting adverse side effects from taking aspirin or ibuprofen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're welcome.
That is surprising seeing as how they are mandated by law to be given to patients prior to receiving a vaccine. Also, it's on a public agency website. If you didn't know it existed, I have to question how much research into vaccines you've actually done.
Irrelevant. The data used to construct each comes from the same place: scientific studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Others have already pointed out that we’re dealing with federal law here, which has been provided. I just want to ask, why did you look only at Virginia law, specifically? Why that specific state?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
Google: support group vaccine injuries
https://www.facebook.com/groups/VaccineInjuryStories/
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_adverse_event
Children's Health Defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
Google: why do antivaxxers keep bringing up the same idiotic debunked talking points?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
Because they have to live with damaged children.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vaccine+injured+babies&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa =X&ved=0ahUKEwicy9Da8cblAhUDmVkKHTm2AFIQ_AUIEigC&biw=1093&bih=475#spf=1572538313473
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
Yet you provide none none of your own. And Paul, you say they're debunked, but you haven't addressed a single one of them or said how they have been. Being unable to back up your assertion defeats your argument. All I did was ask questions, not say anything for certain, and I get attacked for it. How is that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You made the claim. You must offer the evidence. Don’t get pissy when people apply Hitchens’s Razor to your claim: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
"And Paul, you say they're debunked, but you haven't addressed a single one of them or said how they have been"
Yes, if you ignore the mountains of evidence and everything I've said, nothing has been debunked. How convenient...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
... and they think there is no other explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
"Because they have to live with damaged children."
So do the parents of children damaged by measles and other preventable diseases. Where's their fund?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
How dare you belittle families whose child died from vaccines, and call their heart wrenching stories "idiotic debunked talking points" !!
This is one that was shared on Facebook vaccine injuries site a week ago.
https://www.stopmandatoryvaccination.com/parent/vaccine-injury/two-month-vaccines-kill-infant-c ps-takes-other-children-mom-stops-all-vaccination/?fbclid=IwAR3-O5FKrh6OiLqzrdmTdsgGrwGBMXd-rot5XMIe ulADqnLkKWRBXgwsrLU
Have you no compassion or conscience? Do you think they WANTED their child to die? Is that how you would want to be treated if your child died?
This is horrific!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
Sigh.
Yet another fraud website from you.
You're really bad at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
Anecdotal evidence is insufficient.
Assuming this story is true (which I’m not 100% sure of, as that site is not a credible source), my heart goes out to the parents of that child. They absolutely have my sympathy. However, that doesn’t mean that being vaccinated is any riskier than not being vaccinated.
Unless you have statistics showing that the rate at which vaccinated people die from the vaccine exceeds the rate at which people would die from the disease(s) it prevents if no one was vaccinated, you won’t convince us to change our minds on vaccines. Arguments from emotion don’t defeat scientific or historical evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
The government doesn't provide statistics, and the studies that can be found keep getting deleted from this website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
The government doesn't provide statistics, and the studies that can be found keep getting deleted from this website.
You are lying. Nothing has been deleted.
You are also wrong about basically everything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
Neither of those things are true. I have previously cited websites from government agencies that provide statistics. And why would it matter whether the statistics came from the government or not? Any reliable source will do.
At any rate, that still doesn’t refute what I said. Without those studies or statistics, we have no reason to accept your argument as true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
How dare you belittle families whose children have been injured or died from vaccine injuries!!
Have you no compassion or conscience?
How would you feel if your child died from a vaccine injury and your story was referred to as an "idiotic debunked talking point?"
This is horrific !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
"Asserts facts not in evidence"
What does this actually mean?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
The meaning is plain. Try reading comprehension.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Support groups for Vaccine Injuries
It means you have made factual allegations but have failed to support them. Nor has anyone else done so here. It’s really quite simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Prove they have. Some children who have compromised immune systems and receive the vaccine have a valid case, 95% or more of the population does not.
I do but obviously you don't since you are intent on repeating lies and false data.
If that did happen, then I would ostensibly be able to show them a copy of either the medical or coroner's report that states conclusively they died from a vaccine because their immune system was already compromised. As far as I know, none of the people claiming their children died from vaccines has any scientific or medical evidence to back them up.
What's horrific is your total idiocy and willingness to be dishonest and ignore reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About the same as if someone used my dead child as a tool for an appeal to emotions that ignores factual evidence — you know, like you’re doing. You want us to feel bad, and you want us to ignore empirical evidence out of pity.
I have compassion for people whose children have died. Their loss is unimaginable. But until they can provide empirical evidence that their childred died from vaccines, I won’t ignore that lack of evidence because of someone’s feelings, be they mine or someone else’s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=usagov&query=vaccine+injury
Instead of going to social media or Techdirt, those with vaccine injuries should go to the U. S. Gov. website and search - vaccine injury - for reliable information.
You will get information about:
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | Official ...
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act: Vaccine Injury Table
Deaths following vaccination: What does the evidence show?
H.R.5546 - National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 ...
...Subtitle 2: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program - Part A: Program Requirements - Establishes the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as an alternative remedy to judicial action for specified vaccine-related injuries. ..
Part B: Additional Remedies - Sets forth procedures under which the person who filed a petition for compensation under the program may elect to file a civil action for damages.
Provides that no vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death:
(1) resulting from unavoidable side effects; or
(2) solely due to the manufacturer's failure to provide direct warnings.
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
Yes, nobody who understand vaccines thinks they're 100% safe. They're just way better than a measles or polio epidemic. Non-psychos help the people who are negatively affected . by the help being given, while psychopaths try to bring back diseases that have accounted for millions of deaths before vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
Vaccines cause injuries.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/monthly-stats-may- 2019.pdf
Total compensation paid over the life of the program is approximately $4.1 billion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
Driving causes injuries. Eating causes injuries. Falling down the stairs causes injuries.
It's a sad fact that nothing is 100% safe, and everyone dies in the end.
But there will always be ignorant shitheads to push your nonsense. Measles and Polio cause real harm, in significant numbers. Comparing that against a statistically insignificant potential harm is beyond idiotic.
Please take your anti-vaxer friends and move to Anthrax Island together where you can practice holistic nonsense without bothering the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
"Driving causes injuries. Eating causes injuries. Falling down the stairs causes injuries."
Soon there will be; Anti-Driving, Anti-Eating, Anti-Falling crusades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
Remember that VAERS has been targeted by cultists that are now intentionally filing false claims to misleadingly inflate VAERS's numbers. It's not like the submitted claims are fact-checked in even a cursory fashion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all a numbers game
It's easy to prove that anti-vaxxers position is pure bullshit and wishful thinking.
The chances of severe (and possibly permanent) complications (including death) after contracting measles far exceeds the chance of severe adverse (transitory) reactions from the vaccine.
Anyone with their faculties for critical thinking in working order realizes this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
"Vaccines cause injuries."
Measles causes injuries. Where's the fund for the kids of anti-vaxx morons who got harmed by preventable diseases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
So tell me, do you know how you actually get conditions like measles or polio? Or are you just replying based on what you think you know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes: You catch it from unvaccinated people who have it, and being unvaccinated themselves, they catch it from places where measles wasn’t damn near eradicated because of a lack of access to the measles vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
After a quick Google search, here’s what I found.
Measles spreads:
By mother to baby by pregnancy, labor, or nursing.
By airborne respiratory droplets (coughs or sneezes).
By saliva (kissing or shared drinks).
By skin-to-skin contact (handshakes or hugs).
By touching a contaminated surface (blanket or doorknob).
Polio spreads:
Through contaminated food or water.
So measles is extremely contagious. That’s just about every vector I’m familiar with outside of sex, blood transfusion, or contaminated needles, and I’m pretty sure those would also work.
As for polio, while it doesn’t appear to be quite as contagious as measles, polio still spreads pretty easily, since it’s through contaminated food and water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: U. S. Gov - vaccine injury
Are you a doctor?
What do psychopaths have to do with vaccine injuries?
Is that listed on the package inserts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re
What does it matter?
He's saying that anyone who thinks vaccines cause autism and aren't safe and should be banned is a psychopath. Like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False positives and false negatives on the same topic do make for catchy headlines.
Although I agree that the subject is critical and it's deplorable that the vaccination campaign got taken down (was it restored since?), this is indeed just a sign that no moderation will be perfect. Going by numbers, there will always be something worth pointing out as a "failure of moderation". Even big cases like this one will keep popping up here and there all the time.
So what now? Should we abandon moderation? Obviously not.
We can just keep moving forward, find examples of failures and research ways to refine the filters. Perfection can't be achieved, but we can try to get better over time.
The lesson to remember is just not to berate those who at least try to improve. It's difficult enough as it is, let's not provide incentive to give up in frustration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in a years time i expect to see in techdirt ,filters at scale do not work,
when eu laws about content come into effect.
Filters cannot tell parody, fair use or commentary video, or audio from possible
infringing content ,
there will be massive overblocking of content on social media or websites
that host user uploads .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we solve this already...Please..
Ok..
Lets go around and find children who have NOT been vaccinated...
That have Medical problems BASED on NO VACCINE...
Where is that Autism patient??
Where are the Measles, Pox, Diphtheria..
Come one, you can do this, it should be pretty easy...
One way or another..
IF THERE ARE NOT ANY.....What does that say??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Siblings
A lot of families are opposed to vaccines because they had one or more children who were vaccinated and were damaged, and they decided not to have the subsequent children vaccinated and those children were not damaged.
When extended family members see this, then they too become opposed to vaccines. Then friends and neighbors see what has happened, and they too are opposed. Then the school can see what has happened, etc. People who work in day care can see what is happening.
I have a relative who kept believing the Doctor who said the damaged children would be OK. Or correlation did not equal causation.
After BELIEVING 6 times, and having 6 damaged children, then she stopped BELIEVING. The seventh child was finally normal.
This has happened to thousands of families, and these are generally the ones who are on Facebook, in support groups, at legislative hearings, sending emails back and forth, etc. as far as I can see.
Autism affects a certain category of persons more, and according to someone who has been there, you won't have any trouble convincing certain categories of people of the risks of vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Siblings
[Asserts facts not in evidence. Again.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Siblings
The evidence is on the anti-vax websites that you don't want anybody to see.
Go to those websites. Do you want techdirt to become a forum for anti-vax evidence?
Anyway, what did you expect? Do you think you will find it on the US Gov website? They are the ones who are promoting the vaccines. And it is political with the drug companies.
You won't find it in the court records because vaccines are similar to Worker's Comp., only worse. How many court cases of workplace injury have you seen since 1949? Does that mean workplaces are safe? You can't take your employer to court over an injury, and there is no fault, and no claim for emotional distress.
It's the same with Vaccine Court, only worse. It is a Catch-22. If the injury is listed as a side effect, then you can't make a claim, because they are unavoidably unsafe. If the injury is not listed on the side effects, then you still can't make a claim. Or something to that effect.
And they bundle the vaccines so you can't identify which vaccine caused the injury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Siblings
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings
Are you blind? What evidence could possibly be stronger than vague anecdotes referring to non-doctors making medical determinations and telling people to find the evidence themselves, with a warning to be careful to ignore those that actually know what the hell they're talking about because obviously they're all in on the conspiracy?
Honestly, there's setting the bar high and there's putting it into orbit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings
It's a little weird for someone to trust independently verified facts about products that make orders of magnitude less money for "Big Pharma" less than they trust the claims of big-money antivax corporations that sell nothing but lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings
You already said this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Until you assert some empirical evidence, it will not be the last time they say it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Siblings
Sure, if it comes to that. Wasn't your complaint that nobody reads the sites you do, and nobody believes in the evidence you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Siblings
"The evidence is on the anti-vax websites that you don't want anybody to see."
Sorry dude, that's not evidence. I can link you to Marvel's website, that's not proof that Spiderman exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings
"Sorry dude, that's not evidence."
Which one in particular? Give an example.
Are you saying parents are lying, when they show before-and-after videos of damaged children?
Are you saying package inserts from the drug companies are lies?
Are you saying vaccine court cases are lies?
Are you saying videos of damaged children with helmets in wheelchairs at legislative hearings are lies?
Are you saying that 5,000 applicants for autism compensation at vaccine court, with before-and-after videos of damaged children, are not evidence?
If I was making vaccines, I would want to know why so many autistic children applied for compensation, wouldn't you? And I wouldn't ask autistic children who can't speak to provide their own medicine and science to prove their case. That's just backwards. And insane! I would spend money on research to find out why parents and doctors think the vaccines cause the autism. Because --- there seems to be a pattern, you know? But that is just me, I have a conscience.
Is that how the drug companies do safety studies? 5000 children have brain damage and they say it was just a coincidence?
What exactly are you talking about?
Have you even looked at these sites?
If so, which ones?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The entire site.
Yes. Or that they don't understand it wasn't the vaccine that caused it.
No. Are you?
Depends. The actual cases themselves? No. The fact that vaccines caused the injury that sparked the case? Yes. Or ignorance.
Maybe some. Again, or ignorance.
Absolutely YES. Anyone can file an application. That doesn't make it valid.
We already do. Fraud and/or ignorance in the vast majority of cases.
No, that would come from the medical and scientific community that has already concluded that vaccines are safe.
People already have. It's called ignorance and being uneducated.
Yes, one of ignorance.
No you don't.
If the science says it was caused by something else, then yes. Seriously, have you actually read any of these studies that have actually studied children with brain damage?
Actual medicine and science. Not quacks and people who don't understand how science works.
Yes.
Some of the ones you've posted as well as actual, real, medical and research sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings
Not necessarily. They may be lying, but if they’re not then they’re either ignorant or misinformed.
Sigh… As I’ve said many times before, that doesn’t prove causation, the more obvious signs of autism become apparent in all autistic children around that age, vaccines or no, and the videos actually showed that the children actually had autism since before the vaccines. IOW, they don’t prove that the children got autism from vaccines.
1) You did not provide package inserts as evidence before. You provided a link to a website known to provide false or misleading information.
2) Many side effects listed on these package inserts include possible side effects that appeared in testing but that may not actually be caused by the vaccines. It’s basically a list of possible adverse effects of the vaccine that you could reasonably claim were caused by the vaccine. It’s not definitive proof that the vaccines actually cause such reaction, but the bar you need to reach to prove causation is a lot lower for side effects that are listed than for those that aren’t.
3) Show me the package insert that lists “autism” as a potential side effect of a vaccine.
Well, they all lost, so honesty isn’t really at issue. Not every case brought in good faith has merit.
No. They just don’t prove a link between vaccines and autism.
Since all of them failed, and, as I said earlier, the videos don’t prove your claim anyway, I’d have to say that those 5,000 applicants are only evidence that there is actually no causal link between vaccines and autism.
Well, they’re either liars, ignorant, or misinformed. We know vaccines don’t cause autism. There have been numerous credible studies into the issue, and none of them could find a link.
Well, here’s what actually happens. The parent(s) of the autistic child(ren) hire a lawyer(s) to represent their child. The parent(s) and lawyer(s) then file a petition on the child(ren)’s behalf asserting that the vaccine caused the child(ren)’s autism. The lawyer(s) perform(s) an investigation that includes finding experts in the relevant field(s), and it is the experts who then provide testimony and/or evidence regarding the science and medicine to support the claim. (Of course, the parent(s) and lawyer(s) collect other evidence, such as medical history and videos.)
Note that the child has essentially no direct involvement in any of this.
1) That research has been done many, many times already, both in terms of whether vaccines cause autism (they don’t) and why many people think they do (which I’ve already explained in detail in another comment).
2) If thousands of people make the same ridiculous claim, that doesn’t necessarily mean that claim is worth investigating.
3) Considering the sheer number of people who get vaccinated, it’s unsurprising that at least 5000 vaccinated children have autism. Considering the misinformation that has been spreading, the desperation of parents with a “damaged” child, the fact that, even in unvaccinated children, the signs of autism tend to become more apparent around the same age that the MMR vaccine is supposed to be given, and how litigious our society is, it’s equally insurprising that around 5000 of them were willing to file a claim over it. Nothing suspicious there.
4) Having a conscience is more than fine. It’s just meaningless when discussing scientific facts, theories, hypotheses, and/or evidence, and also in most cases when discussing what the law is. Arguments from emotion are unhelpful and often counterproductive in these areas.
It’s not quite a coincidence. It’s more of a statistical inevitability. Again, given the sheer size of the vaccinated population in America, there is nothing unusual that 5000 of them have autism, or that 5000 of them have brain damage. At any rate, there have already been a number of studies into the possibility that vaccines cause autism, and they all came back negative. In addition to there being no causal link that was able to be proven, the rate of autism among vaccinated children was not statistically significantly different from the rate of autism among unvaccinated children.
And by the way, how dare you call autism “brain damage”! Yes, autism is a mental disorder, but that doesn’t make it brain damage! I also find it horribly offensive that people like you think that autism is so terrible that you’d rather risk your child getting a completely preventable disease with a high rate of fatality than risk your child getting autism.
Yes, and it was more than I care to remember. This is such an old debate that should have died off like a decade ago at the latest that I can’t be bothered to recall which anti-vaxxer sites I have or have not seen. I do remember that they were all bad.
But regardless, it’s not our job to do your research for you. You made the claim. You have to support it with specific evidence, not just “the anti-vax sites that you don’t want anybody to see.” The burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your assertion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings
"Are you saying parents are lying, when they show before-and-after videos of damaged children?"
I'm saying that parents aren't medical professionals and no cause and effect is shown by those practiced in the field. A distraught parent lashing out at the closest target is not clinical evidence.
"Are you saying package inserts from the drug companies are lies?"
I'm saying that every drug has a list of potential side effects listed on them, and vaccines are no different from over the counter drugs in that regard.
"Are you saying vaccine court cases are lies?"
I'm saying that the risk of vaccines is not zero, but they are far preferable to the risks associated with the diseases that maimed and killed millions before vaccines were invented.
"Are you saying videos of damaged children with helmets in wheelchairs at legislative hearings are lies?"
I'm saying that emotional tactics don't override scientific evidence.
"Are you saying that 5,000 applicants for autism compensation at vaccine court, with before-and-after videos of damaged children, are not evidence?"
I'm saying that does not conclude that the risk is greater than the risk of disease.
Funny how your assumptions are not what I actually think, huh?
'If I was making vaccines, I would want to know why so many autistic children applied for compensation, wouldn't you?"
Yeah, I'd be asking why there's a cult of anti-vaxxers so ready to reject the entirety of medical history because Jenny McCarthy and a know fraudster told them to ignore medical science. But, that;'s nothing to do with what you're claiming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Siblings
Another problem tends to be...
Yatter yatter yatter..
you can have 10 people with a problem, but they are sounding like 100-1000..
It dont matter the group.. All groups on the net should be SETUP as no advert, excess posting.. those that wish it, can Add it.. Otherwise SIT BOOBO SIT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Siblings
"Yatter yatter yatter.."
Your post doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Makes more sense than any of yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Siblings
Please provide citations for that these kids got autism from vaccines and not their parents genetic predisposition for neurological development issues (you know, do a genetic control for markers that indicate neurological disorders).
Here's something to think about: When a family gets a kid that exhibits something on the autism-spectrum, a lot parents has to have something to blame just to cope with it mentally. And since the time that lying piece of shit Wakefield published his totally made up paper on vaccines some of these parents found something to blame.
Also, the statistics of autism in vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids would show a huge discrepancy if the anti-vaxxer idiocy where true, which it doesn't. It's amazing the disconnect these people have in their reasoning. That 3 million people die every year to diseases that is easily stopped by a vaccination (1.5 million of those who die are babies under the age of 5) doesn't seem to faze them.
Here's a fun fact: If you are unvaccinated and contract measles, it suppresses your immune-system by resetting your B-cells memory. That means you will contract other diseases much easier, even those you already have had. See https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/4/41/eaay6125
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Siblings
'Please provide citations for that these kids got autism from vaccines and not their parents genetic predisposition for neurological development issues (you know, do a genetic control for markers that indicate neurological disorders)."
This is something for the scientists to do.
Don't ask autistic children who can't speak to do it.
All the parents know is that their kid was normal, then after a vaccine they were damaged.
In the test case mentioned, the autistic little girl had diarrhea for 7 years, and there were only 2 or 3 doctors in the entire country who treated this type of thing, the doctor that testified found patterns. Now why doesn't the government train more gastro doctors to research and treat these cases, if they aren't satisfied with the evidence given by one doctor? If I was making vaccines, I would want to know WHY the vaccine injured were suffering from gastro problems, wouldn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Meaning you have no evidence to link to.
No one is.
And there could be any number of reasons for that that are NOT related to a vaccine. I'm reasonably sure the kid didn't go from normal to brain dead 10 seconds after getting the shot in the arm.
Did you respond to the wrong post? I don't see where you mentioned such a case in this thread.
Do you have evidence that A) vaccine injured are suffering from gastro problems and B) it was caused by a vaccine? You've yet to provide evidence of either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
" In the test case mentioned, the autistic little girl had diarrhea for 7 years, and there were only 2 or 3 doctors in the entire country who treated this type of thing, the doctor that testified found patterns.
Did you respond to the wrong post? I don't see where you mentioned such a case in this thread. "
The Michelle Cedillo case:
https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/200 70612_cedillo_pps299-575.pdf
Arthur Krigsman...
and you further state that only two individuals in this country have any experience in the colonoscopic findings in children with autism...
"so it's been many years now where the only symptom has been diarrhea."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean this guy? The guy who is generally regarded as a quack? Oh and he worked with Andrew Wakefield, the guy who fabricated THE ONLY study suggesting a link between vaccines and autism and lost his medical license over it. Yeah, I'll take a hard pass on believe ANYTHING coming from either of those two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While the other AC has already adequately demonstrated the biggest problems with this, I still haven’t seen why you keep linking autism and diarrhea. These are two completely unrelated conditions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Siblings
Look, no one is asking any children to provide the evidence. Yes, that is something the scientists do; that’s why you call “expert witnesses” to testify at the hearing or trial. I don’t understand why you can’t seem to grasp this.
Look, I’ve already discussed this when talking about the before-and-after videos. Suffice to say that 1) that doesn’t prove causation, 2) that’s just when signs of autism generally become apparent to parents, with or without vaccines, and 3) in the test cases, experts were able to identify signs that the children had had autism since before the vaccine.
So many issues… again.
1) Diarrhea is not linked to autism. Just because the vaccine gave her diarrhea does not prove that the vaccine gave her autism.
2) It’s not the government’s job to train doctors or to decide exactly what will be researched. Researchers do apply for grants that must get approval from the government (though it is possible to fund the research through other means), and there are regulations banning or severely restricting research in some areas as well as imposing requirements on all research, but they can’t force people to do research on any particular topic (in general, at least).
3) It is commonly known that at least some vaccines have the possibility of causing diarrhea. This has been investigated already, and there is simply no good way to eliminate that risk. What I want to know is whether you think diarrhea is worse than the disease(s) that the vaccine(s) prevent(s).
4) As a symptom, diarrhea isn’t all that serious in and of itself.
There’s more, but even I have my limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Siblings
"A lot of families are opposed to vaccines because they had one or more children who were vaccinated and were damaged"
...and a lot of families were glad to nearly eradicate polio and measles because of the generations of people harmed by those diseases. I think they count more than the people who don't understand how vaccines work and want to blame something for them having a less than perfect child.
"After BELIEVING 6 times, and having 6 damaged children"
I call absolute bullshit, unless you can link to the medical stories about this supposed family. After all, the chances of this happening are so low there must be some major case studies in medical journals somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Siblings
Considering that there's less than zero proof of any link between vaccines and autism, claiming that these kids were "damaged by vaccines" cannot be anything less than malicious, deliberate lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Siblings
"Considering that there's less than zero proof of any link between vaccines and autism"
Literally the only evidence there's ever been was Andrew Wakefield's study. A study that was found to be not only deeply flawed (if not outright fiction), but also conducted in order to promote an alternative vaccine that Wakefield would directly profit from. Wakefield wasn't originally anti-vaccines as a whole (although he's since seen ways to make a mint by pretending to be), he only wanted to spread doubt about the combined MMR vaccine so that he could sell his alternative. He's now been banned from practicing medicine due to serious misconduct.
But, for some reason, this study is the only one that matters to these people. Even after Wakefield confessed that he made it up and retracted the study, to these people that's just part of the conspiracy, as is any actual doctor telling the truth about how important vaccines are.
That's what's truly sad here. These people were lied to for profit, but even the liar confessing to his fraud is not enough to convince these people not to expose everybody to preventable diseases, which are far more dangerous than any vaccine could be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Siblings
No, there's also studoes lile the one by Christopher Shaw and Lucja Tomjlenovic, that showed that aluminum-based vaccine adjuvants caused autism in mice through a combination of fictional neurochemical processes, inventing the definition of "mouse autism" and photoshopped gene expressions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Siblings
Not necessarily, though that likely is the reason for a good number. In the case of duped parents it can simply be because they do believe it to be true thanks to the lies and other misinformation they've been tricked by. They'd still be spreading dangerous information and for that they deserve to be called out but there wouldn't be any malice from it, just ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Siblings
"After all, the chances of this happening are so low there must be some major case studies in medical journals somewhere."
Are you calling my relative a liar? You don't even know them. How dare you!
How is this type of thing going to be reported in medical journals when it was the doctors themselves who kept insisting that all these known side effects of the vaccines are normal?
Of course the doctors see patterns of causation, but they will lose their license if they speak up.
That is why parents have to go directly to Facebook, Pinterest, Youtube, legislative hearings, and do mass emailings because they cannot be heard anywhere else! Duh---
And that is why they rally around some pied piper, because they are too exhausted dealing with head banging and leaky anuses to do otherwise.
How many health departments or libraries have support groups for the vaccine injured? There should be a government program of support, not curses, denial and persecution!
Shame on the people on this site who use foul language and persecute sick people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Siblings
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, just you.
And which side effects are those? The normal ones like rash, irritation around the injection point, etc...? Or the fake ones like that they cause autism or brain damage?
They do and they have, but the patterns don't point to autism caused by vaccines, or else the entire American population would be a bunch of blithering idiots right now.
No, it's because they are a bunch of uneducated idiots who don't understand the science behind vaccines. Most of them would probably say they still include mercury when in fact mercury has been removed from a lot of them.
Probably very few because vaccines don't cause autism.
Not for ignorance and stupidity there shouldn't.
This is my "I don't give a crap" face. No one is persecuting sick people. We're saying their parents and/or caregivers who are denying the science behind vaccines are a bunch of uneducated idiots who are endangering the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Siblings
Yes, but those categories of people are those who aren’t willing to accept that there is no single cause for autism and want something to blame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notice that despite all the table-pounding, gish-galloping, and projection, the Nurgle cultist still has yet to post even a single piece of factual evidence to support their position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dear lord, we've finally done it! We've evolved a subset of the human species that is sexually aroused by rabies!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Notice that despite all the table-pounding, gish-galloping, and projection, the Nurgle cultist still has yet to post even a single piece of factual evidence to support their position."
This doesn't make any sense.
People have side effects from vaccines.
Package inserts list side effects.
My child got Guillain-Barré syndrome from a flu vaccine, which is a known side effect. The doctor diagnosed it and said it came from the shot.
How is that not a fact?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/guillain-barre-syndrome.html
The body’s immune system damages nerve cells, causing muscle weakness and sometimes paralysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If that is true and not another lie (which I doubt) then my condolences and it is a fact.
However, another fact is the following statement from that site you linked:
There you go. Your chances of getting GBS from a flu vaccine are 0.000000001. In fact, you are more likely to get GBS after you get the actual flu so getting the vaccine actually improves your chances of not getting GBS.
Only if it's not working properly. Your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So this year, parents who believed the anti-vaxxers and chose not to vaccinate their kids for measles, subsequently panicked when their kids did end up with measles and inundated their local medical systems for the vaccine they chose not to take.
It's funny how none of the anti-vaxxers have anything to say about that.
Well, it'd be funny if it wasn't also facepalmingly stupid and tragic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Antivax assclowns: https://respectfulinsolence.com/
;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This comment is very rude and disrespectful to people who are concerned about health and safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And your comments ignore reality and decades of settled science and medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the concern was genuine, reasonable, and based on credible scientific evidence, you might have a point. Sadly, that is not always the case, and in particular anti-vaxxers rarely if ever meet these criteria. I can’t speak to whether or not you’re being genuine. Using Hanlon’s Razor, I’ll assume you are until proven otherwise. Your reasonableness is often lacking, though, and as for evidence, the evidence/arguments you provide generally falls under one or more of the following:
1) They are not credible or come from a source that has been shown not to be credible.
2) They rely on arguments from emotion, which is simply not good enough and generally unpersuasive.
3) They don’t support the point you’re trying to make.
4) They provide weak support at best and are easy to refute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is all you f*cks deserve given the blood on your hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's the truth about so-called "herd immunity":
"The population of the U.S. stood at about 318.9 million in 2014.7 The “baby boomer” generation (those born between 1946 and 1964) account for about 24% of the total population.8 Many years ago, it was believed that childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2-10 years after being given.9
Thus, for at least the past 40 years, the one-quarter to nearly 40 percent of the U.S. population represented by the baby boomers has had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated as a child. If you include those born after 1964, the percentage of the unprotected surpasses 50 percent. According to retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, “If we listened to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95 percent.”9
Given that at least half the population has effectively been without vaccine protection for many years, we should have experienced a massive resurgence in childhood infectious diseases. But this has not happened. In other words, we haven’t had herd immunity in the U.S., and yet the world hasn’t come tumbling down."
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2015/06/the-misunderstood-theory-of-herd-immunity/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Assuming that site isn't utter bullshit, which I do not admit, then it means that the 2-10 years of herd immunity did so much damage to the disease that it is taking it many many years to rebound. That means the vaccines work.
I do not admit the referenced site is not psuedo-scientific bullcrap however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's utterly bullshit.
Even a cursory google search turn a lot of Dwoskin on the site.
The Dwoskin Family Foundation is a morally corrupt organization raking in millions from simpletons pouring it into fraudulent antivax studies and a vast array of astroturfing disinformation sites with names like "National Vaccine Information Center"(NVIC) and "Childrens' Medical Safety Research Institute"(CMSRI).
Leaves little doubt about a site for which I see no factual stories on its frontpage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Most" is a bit disingenuous, and I would like to see facts saying most do. Some yes, but most? Regardless of that, measles, rubella, and diphtheria have been proven to be effective for the majority (if not all) of the vaccinated person's lifespan.
There's also the point of this word: "effectiveness". Effectiveness is a scale, not a binary effect. For some vaccines their effectiveness declines at a slow rate, and others a much faster rate. So after 50 years sure, some vaccines may be 0% effective, but other vaccines may still 75%, 80%, 90% still effective. Which still provides a good amount of protection against that disease. Especially if everyone else is vaccinated against at as well.
There's also the fact that even if the vaccine wears off completely, your body still can retain some memory of it and fight the disease off more effectively than if you had never received a vaccination.
No, no it doesn't. Because A) some vaccines last longer than 10 years, B) some vaccines have a "booster" schedule because the low effectiveness is known, and C) people born after 1964 got vaccinated too. Your math sucks.
I just proved this wrong.
Not really. We only would have seen a resurgence if it was reintroduced in America, and only then if it was reintroduced to people who didn't have the immunity (like everyone choosing not to get vaccinated).
Well actually, it has. You may have heard of the measles epidemic currently ongoing in the US because people haven't been getting vaccinated against it. Kind of seems to run counter to your argument there.
P.S. (that site you linked to is total BS)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"no vaccine-induced immunity"
Good thing that vaccines aren't the only thing that cause herd immunity, then. Though, I'm sure the kids that you idiots are dooming to permanent damage from preventable illnesses will understand why you were scared of the vaccines that saved millions of injuries before them.
“If we listened to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95 percent.
...which is actually happening you tosser.
"we haven’t had herd immunity in the U.S"
So, you don;'t understand the term. Got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks to herd immunity, Measles - one of the most contagious diseases known - had been declared elimimated in the US in 2000.
Until these shitsticks went brought it back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Truth, my ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
CEDILLO V. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedillo_v._Secretary_of_Health_and_Human_Services#cite_note-Decision- 22
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/2007061 1_cedillo_pps1-298.pdf
However, there is another equally important purpose for this hearing. That is, Michelle is one of nearly 5,000 children diagnosed with autism or similar disorders who have filed compensation claims under the Vaccine Act. These 5,000 claims have been grouped together in a joint proceeding known as the Omnibus Autism Proceeding...
Next, I want to mention some other people who are also very important to this proceeding. That is the families of all the other 5,000 Vaccine Act claimants who have been diagnosed with autism or similar conditions...
Now, the omnibus proceeding itself is created because of the sheer number of claims. As the Special Master described, nearly 5,000 claimants who allege that thimerosal, the MMR or a combination of them caused these serious injuries. These are families, and it's important to understand this. These are families who followed the rules. These are the families that brought their children in for pediatric vaccines. These are the families that immunized their children. The public policy decision on mass immunization is a tradeoff...
What the Secretary is forced to defend against is about 5,000 cases that the Secretary knows nothing about, knows nothing more in the majority of those cases than the names of the petitioners...
Q So could any of the 5,000 children that now have claims before this Court get that genetic test, be identified with that gene, and then we could determine that that particular person's autism was caused by the handling of the mercury due to that gene defect? ...
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/200706 13_cedillo_pps576-858.pdf
Q So, in your opinion, is MMR responsible for an epidemic of autism?
A No.
Q In your opinion, is it responsible for 5,000 cases of autism? ...
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/200706 26_cedillo_pps2870-2917.pdf
Next I want to acknowledge again the other people who are also very important to this proceeding, and that of course is the families of the other 5,000 Vaccine Act claimants who have been diagnosed with autism or similar conditions. Some members of those families have been with us in the courtroom at various times.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf
This case concerning Michelle Cedillo is one of more than 5,000 cases filed under the Program in which it has been alleged that a child’s disorder known as “autism,” or a similar disorder, was caused by one or more vaccinations. A brief history of the controversy regarding vaccines and autism, along with a history of the development of the 5,000 cases in this court, will follow...
The emergence of those two controversies led to a large number of claims filed under the Program, each alleging that an individual’s autism, or a similar disorder, was caused by the MMR vaccine, by thimerosal-containing vaccines, or by both. To date, more than 5,000 such cases have been filed with this court, and most of them remain pending...
CONCLUSION
The record of this case demonstrates plainly that Michelle Cedillo and her family have been though a tragic and painful ordeal. I had the opportunity, in the courtroom during the evidentiary hearing, to meet and to observe both of Michelle’s parents, and a number of other family members as well. I have also studied the records describing Michelle’s medical history, and the efforts of her family in caring for her...
Nor do I doubt that Michelle’s parents and relatives are sincere in their belief that the MMR vaccine played a role in causing Michelle’s devastating disorders. Certainly, the mere fact that Michelle’s autistic symptoms first became evident to her family during the months after her MMR vaccination might make them wonder about a possible causal connection. Further, the Cedillos have read about physicians who profess to believe in a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and both autism and chronic gastrointestinal problems. They have visited at least one physician, Dr. Krigsman, who has explicitly opined that Michelle’s own chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are MMR-caused. And they have even been told that a medical laboratory has positively identified the presence of the persisting vaccine-strain measles virus in Michelle’s body, years after her vaccination. After studying the extensive evidence in this case for many months, I am convinced that the reports and advice given to the Cedillos by Dr. Krigsman and some other physicians, advising the Cedillos that there is a causal connection between Michelle’s MMR vaccination and her chronic conditions, have been very wrong. Unfortunately, the Cedillos have been misled by physicians who are guilty, in my view, of gross medical misjudgment. Nevertheless, I can understand why the Cedillos found such reports and advice to be believable under the circumstances. I conclude that the Cedillos filed this Program claim in good faith...
Thus, I feel deep sympathy and admiration for the Cedillo family. And I have no doubt that the families of countless other autistic children, families that cope every day with the tremendous challenges of caring for autistic children, are similarly deserving of sympathy and admiration. However, I must decide this case not on sentiment, but by analyzing the evidence. Congress designed the Program to compensate only the families of those individuals whose injuries or deaths can be linked causally, either by a Table Injury presumption or by a preponderance of causation-infact evidence, to a listed vaccination. In this case the evidence advanced by the petitioners has fallen far short of demonstrating such a link. Accordingly, I conclude that the petitioners in this case are not entitled to a Program award on Michelle’s behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Notably absent from that spam post is even a single child who was harmed by a vaccine.
Scammers like the Cedillo family and especially the quacks that misled them et al could make a good case for assigning "vexatious litigant" status to entire groups that concertedly act in bad faith like above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Are you saying a U. S. Gov. court case is spam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Are you saying that if you had a child who was injured by a vaccine and you applied for compensation, then you would consider yourself a spammer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
The case, no. You posting the entire text here rather than just a link? Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Spam..."You posting the entire text here rather than just a link? Yes."
The entire text was not posted here. The hearing went on for days, and the transcript is hundreds of pages long.
The quotes were found by searching for "5,000" . The point of the post was to emphasize the 5,000 whose cases were not heard, and were adjudicated on the basis of 3 test cases. The evidence heard for the one test case here dealt mostly with damage to the gastro-intestinal system, as far as I could see from glimpsing at it.
How can you adjudicate 5,000 other cases from testimony about 3 cases? Evidence from some of the other cases may involve swelling of the brain, neurological damage, auto-immune problems, etc.
How can any autistic side effects be adjudicated, once and for all, until infinity, based on 3 test cases, just because a panel voted to not include autism in the authorized list? How does that make any sense? Especially since there were huge numbers of complainants, so many that they had to convene a special process to adjudicate them?
And parents can't get lawyers to represent them since the court has already given notice that they will not pay legal fees.
How is a non-verbal autistic child who has had diarrhea for 7 years supposed to file pro se and whip up new evidence? Tell me that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
You did not post the transcript. You posted the ruling, which included some parts of the transcript. But fine. You still posted a lot of the text from the ruling, and that can be considered spam because of the oppressively long nature of the post.
Well, problem #1 is that the ruling you’re quoting from was only about one case, and only ruled on that one case. It did not say that the other cases necessarily lacked merit. And none of what you posted ever gave an exact number for how many test cases were fully adjudicated, so how would you have expected us to know that only three of the 5000 cases were ever heard.
First of all, you only mention that one of the cases was based on damage to the gastro-intestinal system. According to you, three test cases were fully heard. The other decision you post mentioned that, after the first case, a number of test cases were heard and proposed different potential causal links between vaccines and autism. It’s likely that if any of the cases involved “swelling of the brain, neurological damage, auto-immune problems, etc.”, that would have been brought up in the other test cases that were heard.
Second, according to the other decision you quoted from, after the first case(s) failed,
What this means is that, based on the result of that/those test case(s), almost all the remaining petitioners chose, of their own volition, to withdraw their claims or ask to be ruled against. The most likely reason for that is that their claims were based entirely on the same causation theories that had already been determined to be lacking in merit. And this was before the ruling that failed to grant the petitioners the entirety of their fees, so you cannot use that as an excuse for why these petitioners chose to end their cases.
You are making way too much of the numbers here, which are dubious anyway.
First, you keep saying that 5000 were decided based entirely on the merits of three test cases. There are two problems with that. 1) The vast majority of the 5000 petitioners chose of their own volition to end their claims before their respective hearings and before a later decision to only award partial costs to petitioners. You can’t complain about them not getting the opportunity to be heard when they chose to give up their right to a hearing. 2) According to the second decision quoted, there were “six extremely lengthy special master decisions” prior to that one. To give you the best chance of success, let’s say that each case had two decisions: one on the merits, and one on fees (though I’m not sure that that’s the case). The decision itself was on a different case, as it comes after the six decisions that were supposedly for three test cases. That makes, at a minimum, four test cases that reached a hearing. Of course, without more information, it’s more reasonable to believe a total of six or seven test cases reached a hearing. So a lot fewer than 5000 cases were actually adjudicated, and more than three cases were heard.
Second, you can definitively say that none of the remaining cases could possibly have merit if the hearings that have occurred have thoroughly disproven all their theories of causation under the same factual scenarios. If your entire argument has already been shown to be impossible in another case with the same factual scenario, then your argument has no chance of succeeding.
Third, there was a lot more to the defense’s arguments than “a panel voted to not include autism in the authorized list.” There was the fact that signs of autism always become more apparent around the same age that children take the MMR vaccine, even in unvaccinated children. There was the fact that, in all the test cases heard, the child could be shown to have had autism since well before they received the vaccine. There was the abundance of research available that showed no link between vaccines and autism, as well as a lack of credible evidence supporting such a link. There was the fact that all the proposed theories of causation were shown to not be based on scientific evidence and were, in fact, implausible at best and disproven at worst. There was the fact that all the evidence offered in support of the claims were determined to be faked, incorrectly interpreted, or insufficient. There was the fact that many of the petitioners’ expert witnesses lacked expertise in the relevant fields.
Also, I think you misunderstand how an Omnibus case works. Not all of the cases were ever going to be heard, in all likelihood. Instead, their cases were going to largely be based on the adjudication of a limited number of test cases to determine if the theories of causation, factual scenarios, and expert witnesses were enough to support the petitioners’ claims. These test cases were selected by the petitioners’ lawyer(s) as the ones with the highest likelihood of success. If all the test cases failed, then the remaining cases would almost certainly fail too, so those would likely be dropped in some fashion without having to go through 5000 hearings. If they succeeded, then the later hearings would be able to succeed without having to prove their theories of causation each and every time, instead relying on the particulars of the case to prove that their claim fit the requisite scenarios. It’s a lot like a class action lawsuit in that way, though there are some differences.
That’s because the claims that they’d be basing their petitions on have already been fully adjudicated multiple times and found to be completely lacking in scientific merit. If they proceed with a weak claim that is unlikely to succeed based on previous similar cases, then of course they won’t be compensated for legal fees. That would be absurd.
Look, the diarrhea has nothing to do with the autism. Based on your own sources, diarrhea is on the official list of plausible side effects for vaccine. As such, claiming you were injured by vaccines causing you to have diarrhea is not a weak claim, so you could seek petitioners’ fees and would likely succeed on that. It’s not that autistic people can’t say they weren’t injured by vaccines in any respect; they just can’t win on claims that they were injured because the vaccines caused autism. As I’ve said, autism doesn’t cause diarrhea.
Also, no one expects a child to file a case pro se, period. In such cases, the parents could act on their child’s behalf. They might be able to find a lawyer willing to represent their child pro bono if there’s any merit to their case.
But at any rate, the fact is that a legal or scientific theory that has already been tested multiple times and found completely lacking each time is not likely to ever succeed. In fact, I would be stunned if it did, and I would suspect that something went wrong with the process. In this case, I don’t expect them to whip up new evidence because there is no new evidence to be had, and I don’t expect them to file pro se because the facts and theories underlying their claims have already been adjudicated multiple times and failed, meaning they’d be filing a case with next to no chance of succeeding even in the best-case scenario.
I’m okay with that because, despite a lot of research in the area, there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that vaccines cause autism, and that claim has already gotten a fair shake at being tried in an official hearing multiple times. Even if the autistic child in question had a competent lawyer representing them, I’d still expect them to lose as there’s no good reason why they should win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Are you saying that over 5,000 victims of vaccine injury concertedly acted in bad faith?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
No, but the lawyers who represented them might be. From the ruling:
No one is saying that the families were acting in bad faith. That said:
Also, to reiterate something:
And in a later ruling,
So the physicians may be incompetent, negligent, or acting in bad faith, and the lawyers may be acting in bad faith. The families probably aren’t, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
I'm saying it's absoultely not clear those 5000 are actually victims of vaccine injury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
If 5,000 people cleared the screening to even get into vaccine court on autism cases, you don't see this as a red flag?
You don't see an elephant in the room?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Look, the parents may have been acting in bad faith, but if you consider the sheer number of vaccinated children in this country, it’s statistically probable that there would be 5000 autistic vaccinated children whose parents were fooled into filing this lawsuit. And there was no actual “screening” to get the 5000 kids into the case. The 5000 were basically anyone who filled out the proper forms and paid the fees. Those 5000 kids were then screened to find the best one to support the case. And guess what? The evidence they presented was atrocious. And this was the case they thought had the best evidence!
So no, I don’t see a red flag. All that proves is that 5000 autistic vaccinated kids had parents gullible enough to believe this crap and were able and willing to seek compensation for it. It proves nothing of the merits of their case, even if they all genuinely believed that the vaccination caused their children’s autism. Science has shown that it doesn’t, and the Special Master saw that and ruled accordingly.
Whether the Secretary defending the vaccine knows nothing about the children, the vaccine, or autism is completely immaterial. That’s why the called expert witnesses to testify. You even quote this exchange with one of them:
I don’t even need to go looking up evidence to support my claims. That omnibus case gives you the evidence!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Oops. That first sentence should start:
Look, the parents may not have been acting in bad faith, …
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Of course: the elephant is assclowns like you who believe a fraud like Wakefield who kick off all this autism bullshit with his study of 12 subjects_ and that only TO SELL HIS OWN BRAND OF VACCINE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
"Notably absent from that spam post is even a single child who was harmed by a vaccine."
5,000 children were harmed by a vaccine, don't you get it? That is why they filed the claims in the first place! Do you think this was all a coincidence? Duh--- Or a joke?
Ever been in a public school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
What they're doing is calling "lying" shitbag.
There are as of yet zero nonfraudulent claims linking vaccines to autism. Stuffing such fact-free claims into a lawsuit can't change that.
You're not going to convice everyone with IQs a two OM minumum above yours here otherwise. You're only wasting time giving us more ammunition with which to pity your incurable pathogenic zealous idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
"What they're doing is calling "lying" shitbag."
This is very rude and disrespectful. And your post doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
Well, that was rude and disrespectful, but I believe Toom1275 felt it was warranted.
As for the post, what about it doesn’t make sense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
I can concede it was certainly rude, but it was absolutely not disrespectful.
Respect is something that must be earned, and spamming copypasted Nurgle-cult bullshit talking points from professional disinformationalists quickly digs a very deep defecit.
Irredeemable shitheels like that get exactly the level of respect they deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
To be clear, it was disrespectful. That is not to say that they have earned any respect. They could very well deserve to be disrespected.
Like I said, I thought you believed (quite reasonably) that this AC’s comments warranted a rude and disrespectful response, and that they had not earned a polite and respectful one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
That's what you derserve and no amount of tone-trolling will change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
That bit of projection is rich coming from one who has thus far demonstrated zero capacity for logical, rational thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: CEDILLO - Autism Vaccine Court Case
In case you missed this, the case you’re citing explicitly refutes the idea that these children were actually harmed by a vaccine. Vaccines don’t cause autism.
It also says why their parents filed the claims: they were fooled by quack physicians and/or lawyers into believing that the vaccine caused their children. It wasn’t a coincidence or a joke. It was just a combination of natural biases, the fact that the vaccine happens to be administered around the same general time period that more obvious symptoms of autism tend to appear in any autistic child (even if they haven’t been vaccinated), and the greed of some lawyers (and possibly physicians).
Yes, I have. Why do you ask? How is that in any way relevant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4258038/hashi-v-secretary-of-health-and-human-service s/?q=cites%3A(629096)
DECISION AWARDING ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
HASTINGS, Special Master.
In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program..., Petitioners seek... an award for attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in attempting to obtain Program compensation. They seek a total amount of $32,063.65. After careful consideration, I have determined to grant the request in part, but to deny the greater part, because it was not reasonable for Petitioners to proceed further with this case after April of 2012...
Lack of evidence that vaccinations can cause or aggravate ASDs
In Sections IV(C)(1) and (2) of this Decision immediately above, I have explained that Petitioners’ counsel in this case continued to pursue two virtually hopeless factual scenarios that were plainly contradicted by the medical records. Further, there is another (though unnecessary to decide this case) reason to find that the continued pursuit of this case past April 2012 was not reasonable.
It should be emphasized that after this case was filed, there occurred the filing of the autism “test case” decisions described in Section II of this Decision. The six extremely lengthy special master decisions in those test cases, followed by three rulings of Judges of this Court plus two unanimous rulings of three-judge panels of the Federal Circuit, made clear in excruciating detail the complete lack of any persuasive evidence that vaccines can cause or aggravate ASDs.
As noted above, this case was filed prior to the issuance of those decisions, and thus I am willing to compensate counsel for her initial efforts in this case. But I find it very questionable whether it was reasonable for counsel to have continued to pursue this case in light of those rulings. Petitioners’ Reply filed on August 5, 2016, failed to point to any significant evidence in the record of this case to indicate that, even if their claims had been timely filed, Petitioners had any reasonable argument that any of O.H.’s vaccinations actually caused any injury to her.
Summary concerning “reasonable basis”
At the time that this case was filed, there was considerable uncertainty concerning how claims alleging that vaccines could contribute to the causation of autism would fare in this Court, so I have concluded that it was reasonable to file this case and to pursue it for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. However, as I have set forth in the sections of this Decision immediately above, both of the Petitioners’ causation theories were clearly contradicted by O.H.’s medical records. In addition, Petitioners’ counsel persisted in pursuing a claim that vaccines could contribute to the causation or aggravation of autism in the face of the “test case” decisions concluding to the contrary. Therefore, I conclude that Petitioners’ case ceased to have a reasonable basis after April 16, 2012, and I will award no fees and costs incurred after that date...
NOTATION CONCERNING “REASONABLE BASIS” IN AUTISM CASES IN GENERAL
As discussed above in Section II of this Decision, in the early 2000s controversies arose concerning whether autism spectrum disorders might be caused or affected by vaccines. Thus, thousands of Vaccine Act claims were filed during those years alleging that ASDs were vaccine-caused. These claims were certainly brought in good faith. Further, in light of the scientific uncertainty at the time, I find that the filing of those petitions was reasonable. It was also reasonable to keep such claims pending until the OAP “test cases” became final in 2010, and for some period of time thereafter, in order for counsel for each petitioner to digest the complicated science, and to consult with experts to see if a reasonable basis to go forward could be found.
However, by the end of 2010, the two major theories of vaccine-causation concerning autism had been thoroughly considered and rejected in the OAP test cases, with opinions that, among other things, found that all of the many reputable epidemiological studies had found no association between any vaccines and autism. At that point, the vast majority of the approximately 5,000 autism petitioners elected either to withdraw their claims, or to request that the special master enter a decision denying their claim on the written record. Only a small minority of the autism petitioners elected to continue to pursue their cases, seeking other causation theories and/or other expert witnesses. Since 2010, a number of such cases have gone to trial or to decisions on the record before special masters, and in the cases of this type decided thus far, all have resulted in rejection of petitioners’ claims that vaccines played a role in causing or aggravating their child’s ASD. See the cases cited above in Section II.
There is now, therefore, a serious question concerning whether it is reasonable for additional Vaccine Act petitioners to continue to pursue highly speculative theories concerning vaccinees with autism spectrum disorders. In each such case, of course, a case-specific decision must be made concerning if and when it became unreasonable, under all the circumstances of the case, to continue to go forward. In many of the cases that have been pursued to a decision since 2010, as in this case, petitioners have tried to avoid the conclusions of the test cases by alleging that a child suffered a vaccine-caused “encephalopathy” that resulted in “autistic-like features,” or that a child had an underlying “mitochondrial disorder” that somehow made the child more vulnerable to injuries by vaccines. But such cases, in essence, have amounted to attempts to prove that vaccines can cause or aggravate symptoms of ASDs. And, except for the two highly unusual Table Injury cases described at footnote 5 above, all such theories have been rejected.
Further, a review of the post-test case decisions enumerated in Section II above demonstrates that those cases typically involved expert witnesses who were quite underqualified to opine on the vaccine-causation issues at hand, and/or presented theories with no substantial scientific merit, and/or disregarded the facts contained in the medical records of the case.
Accordingly, I hereby put counsel on notice, once again, especially in autism-related cases, that if counsel continue to go forward with such extremely weak cases, I am not likely to find that there was a reasonable basis for their continued prosecution of the case.
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize that this entire wall of text actually supports that vaccines DON'T cause autism. Right?
I mean:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you had a child who was injured by a vaccine, would you be happy with this type of due process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Their happiness is immaterial. They got due process. But yeah, I’d be satisfied with the process, even if the end result was less than satisfying. But that’s an argument from emotion, and that has no place in a scientific debate.
I repeat this quote from the other comment just to show how much due process these cases got:
And by the way, these children were not, in fact, injured by a vaccine. The omnibus case you’ve been citing proves that. To further emphasize the lack of merit, this also comes from the wall of text you posted:
That is, the science came in and disproved their claims, and a vast majority of the 5000 gave up because they realized their claims had no merit.
As for the others, well…
So yeah, they definitely got due process, and they lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So yeah, they definitely got due process, and they lost."
If I had before-and-after videos of a vaccine injured little daughter, and had to deal with her diarrhea for 7 years, I would not be satisfied. Maybe that would appeal to you, but I think it would be a horrible injustice.
And why would you expect the 5,000 autistic kids to cough up the science?
Why wouldn't before-and-after videos be substantial evidence?
If I was on a jury, that would be pretty compelling evidence to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So many problems with that.
I’ll get to the before-and-after videos later.
First of all, this was a case about vaccines causing autism, not diarrhea. And I’m pretty sure “has diarrhea” is not one of the signs or symptoms of autism. You want to claim vaccines cause diarrhea? Fine. But that won’t convince me to rule in your favor if the claim is that the vaccine caused your daughter to get autism.
Second, your personal satisfaction is immaterial if you cannot definitively prove a causal link between the vaccine and your injury. Before-and-after videos are a good start, but they are insufficient on their own to prove your case. They can only prove a correlation. They do not prove causation.
The kids don’t “cough up the science”. The lawyers representing the kids call up and interview expert witnesses who “cough up the science”. The defense also calls expert witnesses, which the claimants’ lawyers can cross-examine. Why you wouldn’t expect experts to provide scientific information and evidence in a case involving medicine is beyond me.
And in this case, the claimants’ lawyers did present their own “expert witnesses”, but in each case either the so-called expert was found to not be an expert in the relevant field, or their testimony/evidence was successfully rebutted by the defense. By contrast, the claimants’ lawyers were unable to successfully disqualify or refute any of the defense’s expert testimony or evidence.
Ah, the before-and-after videos…
First, as I said, that could prove, at most, correlation. In order to prevail on their claims, the claimants must also prove causation. Before-and-after videos could be substantial evidence if the claims haven’t already been disproven, but they are insufficient evidence.
Second, if the theories for the mechanism of the cause have already been disproven, the before-and-after videos won’t help at all.
Third, as I’ve said before, the signs and symptom of autism tend to become apparent to the average person around the same age that we administer the MMR vaccine. This is true even for children who did not get the vaccine. This greatly weakens the substantiality of any before-and-after videos, because they could only possibly show what is expected: once they reached a certain age, signs of autism become more apparent to the average person.
Finally, in the cases that were tried, everyone did see the before-and-after videos. However, they were all found to not provide any evidence—substantial or otherwise—that vaccines caused their autism. Why? Well, an expert in autism saw the videos, and they were able to identify signs of autism from before the vaccines were administered. In other words, the before-and-after videos actually provided not only substantial but clear and convincing evidence that the vaccines did not, in fact, cause these kids to develop autism; in fact, these kids had autism the whole time.
So basically, before-and-after videos, on their own, could only possibly prove correlation, which is insufficient; in these cases, they are particularly weak because they could—at best—show things that are equally true for unvaccinated autistic children; and in every known case, the before-and-after videos actually proved that the kids all had autism before receiving the vaccine.
Then you are easily swayed by emotional arguments and refuse to acknowledge scientific evidence that goes against your preconceived notions.
Before-and-after videos, on their own, are insufficient evidence. If that’s the only evidence you have that could possibly be substantial, then your case should and will fail. This is one reason why we don’t put these cases before a jury of peers. Emotional arguments are not good arguments when dealing with science. Correlation is insufficient evidence to prove causation.
One last thing. You quoted me saying that “they definitely got due process, and they lost.” Even if I agreed with everything you just said in this comment, that wouldn’t contradict the fact that they did, in fact, get due process, or that they did, in fact, lose. People with good cases lose all the time, and even if it’s a “horrible injustice”, that doesn’t mean they didn’t get due process. They were able to present their cases, present evidence, call and interview witnesses, view and prepare for the other side’s evidence before trial, cross-examine the other side’s witnesses, object to improper conduct by the other side’s lawyers, and appeal an adverse judgement. Even if you think the ultimate judgement was wrong based on the evidence and the law, that has nothing to do with the question, “Did they get due process?” The fact of the matter is that they got due process, and you have provided no evidence that they did not. On the contrary, you have provided evidence that they had gotten due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, I wouldn't be happy for being fleeced by quacks who tell me it must have been the vaccines instead of searching for the real culprit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Sounds like tobacco science to me.
One Vaccine judge handpicked for each case. No panel of judges.
No jury.
The judge is not a doctor or a scientist.
The case has been binding for what, 7 years?
Binding on thousands of victims.
No other autism cases can go to court unless they are super rich.
The case is against the government, not against the drug companies.
There is no fault for the drug companies, even after billions have been paid out.
I think I will buy stock in those drug companies - it is a win-win proposition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
[The claimant provides no support for their claims]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
How is this anything like tobacco science? If I recall, the tobacco companies lost their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Because a jury has expertise to consider the validity of scientific evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
"Accordingly, I hereby put counsel on notice, once again, especially in autism-related cases, that if counsel continue to go forward with such extremely weak cases, I am not likely to find that there was a reasonable basis for their continued prosecution of the case."
Five thousand people filed autism claims and this judge is ruling on their cases before he has even heard them. He thinks 5,000 victims constitute a weak case.
How are you going to get any "evidence" if you won't even hear the 5,000 cases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Well, considering that every one of them is trying to defraud the court with facially false claims in the pursuit of profit, the judge's response is actually perfectly warranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
"defraud the court with facially false claims"
How can you know the claims are false if you have never seen the children and don't hear the evidence? Not even the before-and-after videos?
That is what happens under oppressive government regimes.
What kind of due process is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
"How do you know there isn't a unicorn orbiting exactly opposite the earth of you don't see it?"
🙄
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Well, if the claims have been disproven in, say, 4500 other cases and have never proven to be true, why would you expect case 4501 to be any different?
Furthermore, as I’ve already stated, in most autistic patients—including those who have not been vaccinated—the more obvious signs of autism tend to appear around the same time that kids are supposed to get vaccinated. The before-and-after videos would prove nothing. (Except that the kids had autism all along. See, in all the other cases, an expert was able to find signs of autism in the “before” videos that wouldn’t be apparent to the average person.)
Here’s the problem: all of the theoretical mechanisms that would link vaccines and autism have already been disproven very thoroughly by an abundance of rigorous scientific research. Additionally, they have also been tested in court many times and found to be without merit. In other words, there is an abundance of credible evidence showing that it is impossible for vaccines to cause autism, and no credible evidence suggesting such a link could exist.
You don’t need to examine each individual child to know that their autism wasn’t caused by vaccines because that is an impossibility. It would actually be less absurd at this point to claim that oxygen causes autism because, while there is no reason to believe that it does, at least there hasn’t been a ton of research and multiple cases that actually prove that it doesn’t. And even then, I don’t need to see the children to say that the claims are BS.
And stop talking about due process. Nearly all of the original 5000 cases had already gotten their due process before this ruling came out. The others could still get a shot if they want to, but if they lose, then their claims will almost certainly be found to be frivolous, which would likely mean sanctions and/or having to pay the other side’s court costs. That’s what happens when you bring a claim that has already been found meritless many times before.
This ruling does not mean what you think it does. All it says is, “You’ve tried this many times before and lost. You can no longer claim that you’re bringing these cases in good faith if you lose again because you’re already on notice that such claims have a much more likely chance of being found meritless than not based on the evidence we have seen thus far. As such, if you bring in yet another case on the same or similar claims and lose yet again, you may be subject to sanctions, and the other side will likely be able to recover their costs from you.” It does not rule on the merits of the other cases. It’s nothing more than a warning to be careful about which cases they choose to press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Servi
Thanks for taking the time and having the patience to make your curb-stomping of the troll's feeble flailinngs so comprehensovely thorough.
Readers with functioning brains appreciate it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human S
Absolutely, their dedication to countering the nurgle cultist over the course of many comprehensive comments has been quite the sight to see, providing a nice fact based counter to the dangerous garbage that might otherwise have been unchallenged, and for that they have my thanks as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Hum
My favorite part is when the facts that disprove the cultist's propagandizing comes from the cultist's own citations.
Like when they claimed that California clamping down on fraud hurt people with real exemptions, yet all they could come up with was a neglectful parent (Kerri Schwartz) screeching ignorant butthurt after their fake exemption got repealed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Hum
Why, thank you. As a person with autism and a strong interest in science, I always find these claims particularly harmful and offensive and in need of addressing, so I do my best to counter such disinformation whenever I can without letting my anger control me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hashi v. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Well, from that same decision:
Most of them gave up before any rulings had been made in any of the cases. Furthermore, when this ruling came out, many of the remaining cases had already been before a judge or special master:
So basically, very few of the original 5000 claims had yet to be ruled on or withdrawn. A number of them had gone through the whole process, and they were found to be lacking in merit. Based on all that, there was plenty of research and precedent to support the idea that further attempts to make the same claims based on the same theories would just be a waste of everyone’s time.
This judge was not ruling on all 5000 cases. Nearly all of them had either been withdrawn by the claimants or had already been ruled on. This was after most of the cases had concluded by that point. So this was not “before he has even heard them.“ Of the minority willing to continue through the process to actually get a ruling, a number had been heard by the time this ruling was made.
Also, if 5000 people make the exact same argument, that doesn’t make the argument any stronger. If they all make a weak argument, that argument is still weak. Even if 5000 people claimed “fluoride in water causes measles”, that argument would still be weak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Thousands of people couldn't be wrong/duped!'
Also, if 5000 people make the exact same argument, that doesn’t make the argument any stronger. If they all make a weak argument, that argument is still weak. Even if 5000 people claimed “fluoride in water causes measles”, that argument would still be weak.
They've been banging on the 5000 number so much even after you've shown why it's meaningless I almost have to wonder, if 5500 people sued the government claiming that it was responsible for hiding the true shape of the earth(doughnut shaped, naturally), would that be reasonable grounds to believe that the earth was not in fact (roughly) spherical, despite all the evidence/science/observations to the contrary? I mean if 5500 people believed it, then clearly they've got to be on to something, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Awareness advertising
"It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising."
So if an ad makes you aware of the side effects of vaccines from the package inserts, is that pro-vax or anti-vax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Awareness advertising
Neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Awareness advertising
On second thought, I’d like to clarify my answer.
It depends.
If the ad mentions them and also makes claims of other side effects that haven’t been proven or says “don’t get vaccinated” or something like that, it may be considered anti-vaccine.
If the ad mentions them and also encourages them to get vaccinated anyway, downplays the likelihood of any side effects, or something like that, it may be considered pro-vaccine.
If the ad mentions them and does nothing else, or if it also mentions some other neutral information on vaccines or something without specifically advocating either taking or not taking vaccines, then the ad will probably be considered neutral in the debate.
Basically, the list of side-effects of a vaccine from the package inserts is, on its own, neutral information that is neither pro- or anti-vaccine. By itself, it doesn’t really play a role in determining whether a particular ad is pro-vaccine, anti-vaccine, or neither.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s neutral towards people’s beliefs on vaccines. Even if someone is pro-vax (i.e., an average person), they’d still probably want to know if a vaccine can cause serious side effects.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Childrens Health Defense
Thanks for the link.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/americans-can-handle-an-open-discussion-on-vaccines-rf k-jr-responds-to-criticism-from-his-family/
This is a great article. What is wrong with it? Everything on there is common knowledge.
For example:
Vaccines are the only pharmaceutical or medical products that do not need to be rigorously safety tested. To win an FDA license, companies must safety test virtually every other drug for years in randomized comparisons against an inert placebo. Yet, not a single vaccine currently on the CDC’s childhood schedule was tested against an inert placebo before licensing. Without placebo testing, regulators have no capacity to assess a medicine’s risks.
...
This is verified on the package inserts.
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Childrens Health Defense
If I recall correctly, I believe that the Children’s Health Defense has been shown to be an unreliable source. Could someone (other than this AC) check me on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense
Wikipedia article on the group is... 'less than flattering' shall we say, so yeah, probably not a good group to be quoting from if you're looking for actual science rather than nurgle cultist garbage.
The final paragraph in the article contains a rather telling argument in a lawsuit they filed objecting to a mandatory measles vaccination in response to an outbreak, as well as a delightful self-own pointed out by the judge in that case.
In its ruling, Judge Lawrence Knipel indicated the arguments presented by the plaintiffs amounted to little more than "unsupported, bald faced opinion". Responding to Children's Aid Defense's claims that the City's reaction to a "garden-variety annual measles outbreak" was excessive, the judge pointed out their own documents filed as evidence demonstrated otherwise. He concluded that "the unvarnished truth is that these diagnoses represent the most significant spike in incidences of measles in the United States in many years and that the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn is at its epicenter. It has already begun to spread to remote locations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense
Maybe people are afraid of the side effects of the vaccine.
https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
If I was the manufacturer, I would want to know why so people were so afraid of the vaccine that they filed a lawsuit against being forced to accept it, wouldn't you? And if I were the government, I would order the drug companies to find out why they were causing so many side effects, such that people refused to get them, wouldn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s called “a blatantly false disinformation campaign, initially spearheaded by a quack doctor who eventually had his medical license revoked, that says ‘having a child with autism is worse than having a child die from an easily preventable disease’ even though the only ‘proof’ that vaccines cause autism is a study put out by said quack doctor that was later completely discredited and has no factual basis in reality”.
I'd be less concerned about the comparatively handful of people who have side effects from vaccinations and more concerned about the much larger number of people who could be exposed to a disease that can literally kill them if they aren’t vaccinated. I mean, yes, the side effects are shitty and we should take great care to minimize them as much as possible, but you’re not gonna get a “100% clear rate” on getting rid of side effects, and the side effects are much rarer than you’re led to believe by anti-vaxxer disinformation campaigns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the side effects are much rarer than you’re led to believe by anti-vaxxer disinformation campaigns."
This is an oxymoron.
If side effects are so rare, then why are there whole campaigns of angry people rampaging around the country trying to get something done about it, and giant companies like youtube and facebook playing whack-a-mole trying to suppress them - even techdirt is blocking links to some sites run by angry victims. Why are we having this conversation now, even?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because some know there's big money to be made in fleecing idiots like yourself
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(by way of deliberately mischaracterizing the situation)
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(Like every other "Waah Techdirt centaur ship" troll)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And we can now add "oxymoron" to the list of things you don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the record: Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence. Bring some of that instead of stories from people who have a vested interest in presenting their story in a way that makes them sympathetic, and we can have a better conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This made me go look -- and I discovered that one comment by this ignorant commenter was caught in one of our spam filters and I cleared it.
For what it's worth, I also found three comments from Toom1275 in this very thread that were also caught in the spam filter and clear those as well.
But, of course, this one commenter who has already proven that they're laughably bad at understanding statistics, evidence, and causation insists that we must have tried to "suppress" their comments.
And to you, anonymous commenter: you are wrong. You continue to post bogus science, sketchy anecdotes, and repeatedly make it clear that you are a true believer in an idiotic conspiracy theory. You are wrong and you are harming people and you should stop it.
You continue to insist that because some people assert something that is evidence that their assertions are true and you ignore any and all evidence that controverts that. You are a true believer, I see that, but you have only served to make the point I raised in the original post about what kind of a complete, dangerous idiot you are.
At the very least go the fuck away from my site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wonder if out_of_the_blue will see this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone, so it looks like they were deleted.
I have read this site every day for 6 years and I did not know how flagged posts were handled until a few weeks ago. I thought they disappeared. I had no idea they were just faded out.
And a person whose post was flagged does not know it unless they log off and log back on again. They think their post is still up because they can still see it. I don't know how it works with a phone. I am still confused about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts facts not in evidence]
(Seeing as I browse the internet almost exclusively on mobile for a couple years now, and not once have flagged comments on Techdirt been invisible in all my time here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone"
Maybe it is only the cell phones of conservatives that are being censored.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone
Make sure the browser has javascript enabled or browse through the html in a debugger if they won't how up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
that was supposed to be show up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone, so it looks like they were deleted.
This is false. Flagged posts appear exactly the same on phones and regular monitors.
I have read this site every day for 6 years and I did not know how flagged posts were handled until a few weeks ago. I thought they disappeared. I had no idea they were just faded out.
Then you haven't spent much time in the comments. We don't delete flagged posts unless they are pure spam.
And a person whose post was flagged does not know it unless they log off and log back on again.
Also false. When you reload you will see any comments that have reached the flag threshold in hte interim.
They think their post is still up because they can still see it.
The posts are still up. But if they have reached the flagged threshold, they get minimized. For everyone. Including whoever wrote the comment.
I don't know how it works with a phone. I am still confused about that.
It works exactly the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Flagged posts cannot be seen on a cell phone... I had no idea they were just faded out."
So, you contradicted yourself there. They can be seen because they're only faded out, by your own admission. The fact that you couldn't personally see them after 6 years of trying says something about your eyesight, not this website. If everybody else can see something but you can't, maybe it's not a grand conspiracy against you. Maybe it is just you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Two reasons:
First, spread of misinformation.
Second, people overreacted. People often overestimate the potential negative consequences of taking action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense
Given that the side effects are rare, what I’m most interested in is what possible side effects there could possibly be that would be considered worse than the measles, a potentially deadly disease that is prone to complications, has no known cure, and is highly contagious.
Here’s the thing: people are very bad at assessing risks. They often see a list of scary-sounding side effects and find them hard to swallow, even if most of them are actually minor, almost none—if any—are both long-lasting and either incurable or untreatable, and they are all extremely rare. By contrast, they will often dismiss the risk of measles, despite the fact that it is potentially deadly, long-lasting, incurable, and highly contagious. There are several factors in this. There’s the natural bias that makes people think, ’This is something that happens to other people. It will never happen to me.’ Then there’s the fact that, due to the vaccines working as they should, the vast majority of the population being vaccinated, and herd immunity, prior to the beginning of the modern anti-vaxxer movement, documented cases of the measles have been few and far between. In fact, it was almost eradicated. Because of this, many people underestimated the likelihood of an unvaccinated person contracting the measles.
Finally, there’s one more bias in play that ties everything together. When performing risk-assessment, when it comes to taking an action, people often tend to _over_estimate the negative possibilities and _under_estimate the positive consequences. By contrast, the possible negative consequences for _in_action tend to be underestimated.
Of course, there’s also the abundance of false information being spread, which exacerbates the issue. And on that note, I want to mention one thing on a particular piece of misinformation: as an autistic person, I find it horribly offensive that people would rather let their children get a highly contagious, potentially deadly, incurable and horrible disease that is completely preventable than risk their child getting autism. Even disregarding the fact that vaccines absolutely do not and cannot cause autism, I find it offensive and appalling that some people think that autism is somehow worse than the measles.
Again, people tend to overestimate the side effects of medication and underestimate the benefits. Furthermore, many side effects are inevitable. It is simply impossible to create any sort of medication that doesn’t have side effects. And the number of possible side effects is often given too much importance. What’s important is the likelihood of each side effect and the seriousness of each side effect. The fact is that serious side effects from vaccines are extremely rare and are entirely manageable, and it is unrealistic to expect a vaccine to have an absolutely 0% chance of inflicting injury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense
"it is unrealistic to expect a vaccine to have an absolutely 0% chance of inflicting injury."
Are you out of your mind?
Then why is the health department saying they are safe?
If we know they inflict injury, then why not tell the whole world on Facebook, Pinterest, Youtube, and everywhere else what the injuries are and how to deal with them. A lot of people don't even know that the diseases they have were caused by vaccines. They have to be educated on it, then a light bulb turns on, and they say - Oh crap - that is why my child cried incessantly for 5 years - and I kept shooting them up even more -- and they cried even more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because in the grand scheme of things, the risk of side effects from the vaccines are heavily outweighed by the efficacy of the vaccine and the risk of side effects of the diseases those vaccines prevent the vaccinated from contracting.
They do. Anyone who wants to know that information can find it. But the fact that a vaccine could inflict an injury doesn’t mean it will. People who vaccinate their children are more likely to know the risks of doing so, however low the probabilities are, and go ahead anyway. They do so because the possible side effects of those vaccinations are more likely to be less damaging than the diseases those vaccinations prevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense
You’re just proving my point. All I said was that all vaccines have a nonzero chance of inflicting some sort of injury. I did not specify how great that chance was or how severe the injury would be. You freaked out.
By contrast, when we have told you about the high chance of complications and/or death from the diseases that vaccines prevent, you completely ignored it.
This is what I meant about how bad people are at rationally assessing risks. You overestimated the risk from taking action while dismissing the risk from not taking action.
Look, the health department says they’re safe because, when taking every possible factor into account, the risk of the diseases they prevent are significantly worse than the risk of the side effects from getting the vaccine. Nothing is absolutely safe. Nothing has a 0% chance of inflicting some sort of injury. Every action or inaction carries some sort of risk.
As for getting the information out there, just ask your doctor. They are legally required to inform patients of any potential side effects of any medication they administer, including vaccines. It’s no big secret or anything.
By the way, this made me laugh:
I know this was meant to be a horrific scenario, but all I could think of was, ’Really? You’re surprised that a baby or toddler would cry when you stick a needle in them? What exactly were you expecting to happen?’
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, but you seem to be.
Because they are as safe as anything else we encounter in our daily lives that we consider "safe". Seriously, name anything you think is 100% safe and I will prove you wrong.
No, you moron, we know they have a CHANCE to inflict injury, not that they will 100% of the time. There is a huge difference there. The chance that they will inflict injury is MUCH lower than the chance that you will be injured or die from contracting the actual disease.
You're an idiot. They do, all the time. They hand out fact sheets every time you get a vaccine saying what the POSSIBLE (not guaranteed) side effects are and what to do if you experience them. They also list the chances of you getting those side effects. And the chances of you getting anything more than a little irritation around the injection site are one in a million or more.
Vaccines don't cause diseases. Diseases cause diseases. There is no evidence vaccines cause autism or autoimmune disorders. Stop repeating this debunked nonsense.
I guarantee you their children will cry more from not having the vaccines until they die from polio at which point, yes, they will stop crying because they will be dead. Their parents can then continue to cry for them for the rest of their lives and regret the decision to give their child a vaccine that would have saved their life.
No, they haven't been educated on it. They've been fed misinformation by quacks and nutjobs like you. There has not been a single solitary medical or scientific diagnosis of ANY child being harmed by a vaccine that was not brought on by a pre-existing condition. PROVE. ME. WRONG.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense
"Then why is the health department saying they are safe?"
Because you assclowns still haven't managed to provide evidence for your theory that vaccines cause autism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Childrens Health Defense
To be fair here, that’s not really the issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gov. owned vaccine patents
This is interesting.
From the link in the original article on this page:
Close Ties and Financial Entanglements: The CDC-Guaranteed Vaccine Market
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/close-ties-and-financial-entanglements-the-cdc-guaran teed-vaccine-market/
In fact, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) profit handsomely from their ownership or co-ownership with private sector partners of vaccine-related patents. An early 2017 analysis of Google Patents results showed that the CDC held 56 patents pertaining to various aspects of vaccine development, manufacturing, delivery and adjuvants. By May 2019, the search terms “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccines” retrieved 143 results in the Google Patents search engine, and a separate legal website displayed 10 screens worth of CDC patents, both vaccine- and non-vaccine-related.
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This negates the scientific studies — and the large body of proof known as “reality” that shows how the U.S. near-eradicated numerous diseases thanks to vaccines — that back the efficacy of vaccines…how, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gov. owned patents
Don't you think this is a conflict of interest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could be. Might be. Doesn’t change shit about whether vaccines are effective based on scientific study and real-world application.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"This negates the scientific studies "
Well, of course !
This means they are not going to do studies that would interfere with their profits - duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Id they were really so "profit above all" as you pretend, then they'd never make a single vaccine.
How about you acknowledge instead the millions of dollars behind the shady websites and frauds you deceptively quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're just another mindless cog in their big-money lie factory.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gov. owned vaccine patents
In addition to not disproving the efficacy of vaccines and not proving a link between vaccines and autism, this largely comes from a source that is not credible. I simply don’t believe claims coming from the Children’s Health Defense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Gov. owned vaccine patents
The Children's Health Defense is just telling the search results they found in this quote - and if you don't believe that claim, they give you the link so you can see for yourself -- Duh.
https://patents.justia.com/assignee/centers-for-disease-control-and-prevention
This particular article does not attempt to disprove the "efficacy of vaccines" nor prove a "link between vaccines and autism."
Stay with the program---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Safety Studies
Aaahhh - the famous 5 day safety study for a vaccine given to newborns:
Rubber Stamping—The FDA and Vaccines—Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/rubber-stamping-the-fda-and-vaccines-conflicts-of-int erest-undermine-childrens-health-part-iv/
The majority of prelicensing clinical trials have an absurdly brief period of observation (sometimes as short as a few days or weeks), which makes it impossible to evaluate longer-term outcomes such as autoimmune illness or cancer. For example, the clinical trials for Merck’s Recombivax hepatitis B vaccine (approved for administration on the first day of life) monitored fewer than 150 infants and children for five days after each dose. Buried in the vaccine’s package insert is the information that autoimmune diseases and “an apparent hypersensitivity syndrome…of delayed onset [have] been reported days to weeks after vaccination” [emphasis added].
https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/r/recombivax_hb/recombivax_pi.pdf
6.1 Clinical Trials Experience
...
In three clinical studies, 434 doses of RECOMBIVAX HB, 5 mcg, were administered to 147 healthy infants and children (up to 10 years of age) who were monitored for 5 days after each dose.
Injection site reactions and systemic adverse reactions were reported following 0.2% and 10.4% of the injections, respectively.
The most frequently reported systemic adverse reactions (>1% injections), in decreasing order of frequency, were irritability, fever (101°F oral equivalent), diarrhea, fatigue/weakness, diminished appetite, and rhinitis.
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Safety Studies
First, I don’t trust anything coming from the Children’s Health Defense. They are not credible.
Second, you’ve just shown that adverse reactions were rare, and the most common adverse reactions were fairly minor and short-lived. You haven’t actually proven anything significantly bad about vaccines themselves.
Third, the autoimmune diseases and hypersensitivity are pretty much unavoidable possible side effects when it comes to any medication—vaccines or otherwise—that boost your immune system. It’s rare for it to happen, but given what vaccines and immune boosters are meant to do, it makes perfect sense that they may cause autoimmune diseases and hypersensitivity in some people somewhere along the line. It’s to be expected, really, and I don’t really think it’s possible to completely eliminate that risk.
Fourth, you just said that the package insert gives you this information. The FDA saw that information before approving the vaccine for general use, as did the CDC. Just because one clinical trial included in a submission to the FDA did not test for that particular side effect does not mean that the FDA wasn’t fully aware of that possibility.
Finally, no one here was talking about that study, and none of what you said disproves what we have said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety Studies
"First, I don’t trust anything coming from the Children’s Health Defense. They are not credible."
That is why the link is given on their website to the drug company whose safety study only lasted 5 days --- duh.
The Children's Health Defense is commenting on this.
What is your own comment? Do you think 5 days constitutes a good safety study?
For newborns?
For a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety Studies
I am not sufficiently informed on the subject to comment on whether 5 days is sufficient, so I cannot comment on that. Also, am I to understand that you are saying that this is the only safety study performed? If so, then I have no idea where those other side effects on the list came from.
And, IIRC, I believe that, for this specific disease, the consensus is that the vaccine is more effective if it is administered many years before the first exposure to the real thing, or something to that effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety Studies
"it makes perfect sense that they may cause autoimmune diseases and hypersensitivity in some people somewhere along the line. It’s to be expected, really"
It makes sense that vaccines cause autoimmune diseases, and it is to be expected ?
REALLY!!!
Are you insane!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety Studies
Any drug that is specifically designed to provoke a response from the immune system carries the inherent risk of causing an autoimmune disease.
To be sure, it is rare for it to actually happen, but it’s an inevitable risk given the nature of the drug. And this doesn’t necessarily mean the risk actually goes down if you don’t get vaccinated (other things can cause autoimmune diseases, including diseases that vaccines prevent). I’m just saying that it’s perfectly logical for vaccines to do so, and that there is no way to completely eliminate that risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety Studies
I think you mean exacerbating a pre-existing condition. The autoimmune disorder would have to already exist for the vaccine to create a reaction. For example, the vaccine doesn't cause inherited genetic abnormalities it just triggers a bad response in affected patients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety Studies
You’re right. I should have been much clearer. A general immune booster might trigger a temporary autoimmune response, but not a chronic autoimmune disease.
So let me clarify: it’s plausible that a vaccine may trigger temporary autoimmune response in some individuals who have a certain genetic disposition or other existing condition. They do not cause chronic autoimmune diseases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety Studies
"The FDA saw that information before approving the vaccine for general use, as did the CDC. Just because one clinical trial included in a submission to the FDA did not test for that particular side effect does not mean that the FDA wasn’t fully aware of that possibility."
And you don't see a problem with this? OMG
So the government is approving vaccines where the best safety trial Merck could pick out of the whole batch was for only 5 days, with a bunch of side effects, for a newborn infant who isn't going to be having sex for at leas 12 years or so? And you think this is OK?
Are you nuts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety Studies
I’m afraid I don’t see the problem.
Among other things, this doesn’t prove that this was the only information the FDA received, I don’t see anything that says this was the best safety trial, and the number of potential side effects doesn’t matter if they’re rare and/or nonserious. And that’s just off the top of my head.
As for the scheduling, well, as I recall, it significantly improves the efficacy even for later in life, and eliminates rape as a potential vector. (There are some sick people out there.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Safety Studies
"none of what you said disproves what we have said."
What have you said, and who is "we" ?
What is it that you - plural - have proved?
This doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety Studies
Well, my point was that, in the context of everything that I and everyone else in the comments have said in this comment section, this post doesn’t actually contradict anything that any of us have said. In other words, I questioned the relevance of your claim.
As for what we’ve been proving, the basics would be:
Vaccines don’t cause autism
The side effects of vaccines are pretty rare and not so bad that it’s worth getting polio or the measles to avoid
And other things specifically to refute your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"adverse reactions were rare, and the most common adverse reactions were fairly minor and short-lived."
How would you know if the reactions are rare or not, when the safety study submitted was done for only five days? Duh--
The more severe adverse reactions are not posted here --- look on the Merck link.
How would you know that the side effects were short-lived if the safety study was only 5 days --- Duh---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’ll concede the “short-lived” part as unsupported by that specific study.
As for “minor”, all the listed side-effects were what I consider “minor”. I’ll admit that that’s subjective. But do you consider “irritability” to be major?
For “rare”, well…
I consider that to be fairly rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
Come on people we can settle this. Do a large scale true vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated study and look to see who is healthier. You can use the VSD system, vaccine safety data link.
Smaller studies have shown that the unvaccinated are healthier. Unvaccinated get more diseases but they are still healthier..
Unvaccinated woman who get chicken pox can pass protection to their babies (passive immunity). Vaccinated mothers who never had natural chicken pox can't really protect their babies with passive immunity.
You guys can check out the study that Peter Aaby was involved in.. Vaccines are showing to do more harm than good....
you cannot say that vaccinating is better than Unvaccinating until you look at vaccinated vs FULLY Unvaccinated.....
Show me that study and I will shut up.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/
https://oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study -on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(Seeing as how that particular sham has already been debunked
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
What are you talking about? Please cite your source on how it's been debunked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
Try following the link provided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay. Let’s ask the parent of an unvaccinated child who contracted measles whether their child is healther and better off without the measles vaccine.
Assuming the child isn’t dead, anyway.
Because measles is more likely to kill a child who contracts it than the measles vaccine is to kill a child who receives it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could you please cite your source?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
History. You should try reading it.
In it you will find accounts and records of hundreds of thousands of children who died from measles, polio, and the like before vaccines to prevent them were invented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are so dramatic.... do you even know what the death rate was in the us before the vaccine????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From measles? Far less than it is after the vaccine, that’s for goddamn sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, that should read "far more", not "far less". Yeesh, I need to pay attention more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey, getting a single "wrong" comment still puts you ahead of the trolls who haven't gotten a single thing right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please cite the facts that are being ignored.
Show data.
Show studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ok: https://time.com/5090112/infant-mortality-rate-usa/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Based upon an article(quoted below) and a separate presentation I just ran across with a little searching measles accounted for an estimated 6,000 deaths yearly in the US from 1912-1922ish, with several hundred deaths each year in the 1950's, before a vaccine was developed.
Contrast that to modern times, where while there have been several recent outbreaks(for reasons which are completely unrelated to nurgle cultists pushing their garbage I'm sure), the last recorded death in the US was in 2015.
To say the difference between the pre-vaccine numbers and the post-vaccine numbers are 'significant' would be a serious understatement. The nurgle cultist above was banging on and on about '5000 kids harmed by vaccines', but (ignoring for a moment that the 'argument's been shot so full of holes you couldn't even use it for a net at this point) even if they were 100% correct that number wouldn't even match the fatalities that measles caused before vaccinations and modern medicine, and it would be a small fraction of those that were hospitalized even with more modern medicine before a vaccine was developed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for the info.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please cite your source.... you are making an assumption.
How many deaths and injuries from the measles vaccine??
How many deaths and injuries from measles??
Show me the data!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I’m fine with asking for the source, but what assumption is being made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Read this comment for some answers and sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quick DDG search for 'measles historical statistics' had this as the first hit, on an article hosted by the dastardly CDC.
'In 1912, measles became a nationally notifiable disease in the United States, requiring U.S. healthcare providers and laboratories to report all diagnosed cases. In the first decade of reporting, an average of 6,000 measles-related deaths were reported each year.'
'In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good job!
You found the death rate and injuries from measles before the vaccine came out in the US.
Now, tell me the death rate and injuries from the measless vaccine in the first year that the vaccine came out and the years that followed...???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever it is, it’s likely lower than the death rate from measles itself. Which, y’know, is the entire fucking point of the vaccine, you pitiful pile of blathering blatherskite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are making an assumption.... what does the data say???
How many people die in the US from the measles vaccine every year?
How many people are injured from the measles vaccine in the US every year???
What are the injuries from the vaccine? And what are the chances of getting the injuries???
Show me the data!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
According to the WHO, the measles vaccine reduced the number of measles cases by 80% from 2000 to 2017. According to this site, since 2012, there have been around 122,000 deaths from measles per year, mostly in low-income countries.
According to this site, there have been no deaths caused by the measles vaccine in normal people, and in the few cases the vaccine did kill someone, the victim was immuno-compromised, which is why such people aren’t supposed to be vaccinated.
I don’t have exact numbers for the number of injuries caused by the vaccine, but side effects include sore arm (from the shot), fever, mild rash, temporary pain/stiffness in the joints, and, in rare cases, febrile seizures or allergic reaction. Most of those are minor and short-lived. The ones that are less so are rare. Only the allergic reaction is potentially long-lasting and in possible need of immediate treatment, but again, this is rare.
P.S. I have since found on Wikipedia rates for some adverse side effects, specifically in children. 10% develop fever, malaise, and a rash 5-21 days after the first injection; 3% develop joint pain lasting 18 days on average. Again, except for allergic reactions—which are rare—and infections in immuno-compromised individuals, adverse effects are virtually never serious and are short-lived.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now prepare for Antivaxous Coward to proclaim that those numbers don’t mean shit because people are still getting injured and the vaccine needs to be 100% safe to everyone before it should ever be used again and hey maybe kids getting measles isn’t so bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given 'there used to be hundreds dying yearly from this disease shortly before vaccination efforts, and after we introduced the vaccine now there are even more dying' would be an insanely quick way to halt vaccination efforts, and that didn't happen, I'd say that's a pretty safe assumption.
Even assuming a wild, 'what if?' hypothetical where the vaccine was even remotely as harmful/lethal in some cases as the disease it's very clearly vastly less lethal than said disease, such that even in that case it would still be the better choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where is the data?
You must have the number and types of vaccine injuries.
See everyone just assumes that the vaccine are the better way to go but you must have data.
To say that the vaccinated are better off you must compare the health outcomes of vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated.... anything else is just an assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the alternative is measles? Yes, “vaccination against a potentially deadly disease” is generally the better way to go in that regard.
I get what you’re trying to do here — you’re trying to make an appeal from emotion, to make us think with our hearts about all the people hurt by the vaccine. But it’s not that I don’t feel bad for people who were injured or even killed as a side effect of the vaccine. I do. I also know that the risk of such injuries, including the fatal ones, is far lower than the risk associated with exposure to the disease which that vaccination would prevent.
You want to whine about offers of proof about the injury rates of the vaccine compared to injury rates of the disease. How about you produce those numbers? You seem so confident that the numbers will back up your asinine anti-vax beliefs, so cough ’em up and let’s see if they say what you want them to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.mortality.org/
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To say that the vaccinated are better off you must compare the health outcomes of vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated.... anything else is just an assumption.
People were dying in the thousands on a yearly basis a century ago from a single disease(measles), and in the hundreds(again, yearly) half a century ago in the decade before the vaccine was invented and rolled out.
Now they aren't, and the last recorded death from the disease in the US was in 2015.
No assumptions needed, there were massive amounts of deaths before vaccines, and post-vaccines that amount has effectively been reduced to zero in the US at least where vaccination efforts had been effective at almost eliminating it before nurgle cultists popped up and opened the door to the disease again due to their gross ignorance/stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To summarize:
Measles deaths: Thousands to ~0
Deaths attritutable specifically to the Measles vaccine: ~0
(Autism cases from the measles vaccine=0)
Thousands saved with effectively no cost looks pretty good to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How very scientific...
You need data. You can't just say "likely".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.mortality.org
Also this
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, I do. And it is publicly available for anyone to look up. (TIL there is a thing called the human mortality database.) In 1990, the mortality rate per year for children under 5 was 13 million. By 2008 it had decreased to 9 million.
Here's a graph of child mortality in the US since 1960.
That graph is from this Time Article. They got their data from the Human Mortality Database.
I would say that's a fairly dramatic drop in death rate AFTER the vaccines were developed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
So why was this article on the increase in child mortality after vaccines flagged and blacked out?
It is from a government website.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/
Published online 2018 Mar 19
Evidence of Increase in Mortality After the Introduction of Diphtheria–Tetanus–Pertussis Vaccine to Children Aged 6–35 Months in Guinea-Bissau: A Time for Reflection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
And it was flagged for being deliberately misleading trolling posted by a piece of trash spammer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
It is from a government website!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and?
There were several problems with that study. It only looked 700 children in a poor, underdeveloped area where the children are regularly malnourished and have poor living conditions. There is no comparison to the US. It was also noted in that and follow up studies that some of the children died from other diseases and conditions NOT related to vaccines. It also concluded that PROPERLY administering the vaccine saw a huge increase on survival rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated stu
It is from a government website!
This, like nearly everything you've been saying here, is hellishly misleading.
It is from a medical journal, Frontiers in Public Health. It is republished on the NIH website due to a republishing agreement with the NIH (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/2277/ "Articles from Frontiers in Public Health are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA" ) NIH republishes tons of journals (see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/ ). Not of that makes any info appearing in those journals information from the government, as you incorrectly imply.
As for Frontiers In Public Health, they have been widely criticized over the years as an open access journal that will more or less publish anything by anyone who pays the entrance fee. For these reasons, they've been placed on the most recognized list of sketchy publishers whose research is not to be trusted: https://www.nature.com/news/backlash-after-frontiers-journals-added-to-list-of-questionable-publishe rs-1.18639 In particular, Frontiers has been called out in the past for... publishing anti-vax quackery. https://forbetterscience.com/2018/12/20/frontiers-a-danger-for-public-health/
So, no, sorry. Nice try but you are still wrong. And you should feel bad. And go the fuck away. You are polluting what could have been an interesting discussion with nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated
Plus, if we apply Betteridge's law of headlines, the answer to the question posed - A Time for Reflection? - is "no".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated
Thank you for letting me know..
So it would be very important to do a legitimate large-scale vaccinated vs. Fully unvaccinated study???? Don't you think the government could use the vaccine safety datalink to do this?
Just look at the health. who is healthier vaccinated children or unvaccinated children?
you don't have to withhold vaccines from anyone just look at the children who's already been vaccinated and who have chosen to remain fully on vaccinating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccina
Where the hell did you get that from?
Why can’t you?
All the evidence we have seen suggests that vaccinated children are healthier. You have yet to successfully refute that.
The problem with that is that unvaccinated children are often protected by herd immunity. If a sufficient portion of the population has been vaccinated, unvaccinated people and people for whom the vaccine is ineffective are also protected from the disease. That’s why we don’t simply compare unvaccinated individuals to vaccinated individuals. We compare populations of people based on health and the percentage of them that have been vaccinated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated
Thanks for the information on the publication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hope you don’t need reminding, but correlation does not equal causation. A rise in infant mortality may have coincided with the introduction of the vaccine, but until a scientific study proves the vaccine is the direct, unequivocal, inarguable cause of those deaths, all you have is an appeal to emotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do a large scale vaccinated vs unvaccinated study
"Show me that study and I will shut up."
Keep blabbing on, we can flag you easily. You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow! Over 300 posts? That’s pretty rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, yes. I remember a time when 300 comments seemed absurdly high… before it ballooned to over 5 times that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For a laugh, here's a representative example of antivaxxers' mathematical ability (courtesy of professional idiot Sharyl Atkisson)
The lie: "Of 124 measles cases in Washington 93 were fully vaccinated."
The math:
An outbreak in NY had 124 victims at the time
Another outbreak in WA had 31 unvaccinated victims
124-31= 93/124 people in must therefore be vaccinated victims 🤦
Even if her 93/124 number wasn't fake:
There are 91,745 children in Rockland County.
They have a 92.5% vaccination rate on average.
So that works out to 84,873 vaccinated kids, 6,881 unvaccinated.
93/84,873 is 0.11%
31/6,881 is 0.45%
So even in Sheryl's 93/124 fantasyland, you're still 4x more likely to get measles unvaccinated unlike what she claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To the fervent anti-vaccine advocates, here's a tip for you to let your voices be heard: the next time there's a measles outbreak in the US, and medical facilities get swarmed with parents buying measles vaccines for their children, because those kids are now at risk of infection after listening to your advice... Put your money where your mouth is and dig deeper. Blockade the clinics, the pharmacies, and tell thousands of concerned parents that their kids getting infected is a good thing. You versus the other parents. I, for one, would like to see you go up against hordes of angry parents after they believed in your junk advice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok, just prodding them to commit that crime could be a serious crime. That is actually pushing first amendment protections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why would it be?
They'd just be stopping parents from making a consumer choice. Less people getting vaccinated is their end goal, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Show me the proof!" Screeches the idiot/antivaxxer while conspicuously ignoring every fact already sitting in front of him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What facts are you referring too????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The ones listed above. Cannot follow the links? Tough luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated
I agree with the previous post... do a large scale vaccinated vs completely unaccinated study so we can all move on with our lives...
So far the data shows that the unaccinated are better off..
The vaccine manufacturers should have done long term double blind inert placebo studies to begin with..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated
They did.
At any rate, why don’t you show us the data that shows that the unvaccinated are better off. The data we have (which I describe in another comment) says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated
Psst - hey spammer:
You do realize that we can all see that "the previous post," the one linking to that fake "vaccines make us sicker" study, was posted by you, right.
But since you're almost alone there on the side of evil and greed, pretending to be multiple people is one of the few troll tactics you have available to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do the study
Come on people we can settle this. Do a large scale true vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated study and look to see who is healthier. You can use the VSD system, vaccine safety data link.
Smaller studies have shown that the unvaccinated are healthier. Unvaccinated get more diseases but they are still healthier..
Unvaccinated woman who get chicken pox can pass protection to their babies (passive immunity). Vaccinated mothers who never had natural chicken pox can't really protect their babies with passive immunity.
You guys can check out the study that Peter Aaby was involved in.. Vaccines are showing to do more harm than good....
you cannot say that vaccinating is better than Unvaccinating until you look at vaccinated vs FULLY Unvaccinated.....
Show me that study and I will shut up.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868131/
https://oatext.com/Pilot-comparative-study -on-the-health-of-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-6-to-12-year-old-U-S-children.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the study
Repeat malicious spam flagged as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Plaintiff repeats previously debunked claims in the hopes that they’ll be treated seriously this time]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Purposely trying to evade the antispam system by spamming even more is a bad look.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the study
Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and
unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children
Journal of Translational Science
Conclusions
Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on
morbidity and mortality has been limited. In this pilot study of
vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of
chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated,
as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many
other physician-diagnosed conditions.
Although the cross-sectional
design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and
consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship
between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and
the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support
the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program
could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity.
Vaccination
also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for
other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk
factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for
the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition,
preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent
synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination
alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with
caution.
First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings
in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second,
subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with
the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and
underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential
in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do the study
Some methods those frauds used to arrive at those prebaked conclusions:
Published to a predatory journal without proper peer review
Chose a sample population not representative of the US as a whole, and heavily biased toward irrational mistrust of doctors.
collected only subjective claims from the respondants - zero hard evidence or verification
Neither controlled for sample bias nor measured response rate
Created a custom definition of NDD to inflate the 9/666 number of children who actually had autism to 47/666
Don't show that they properly controlled for premature birth, which unlike vaccination does lead to NDD (though they falsely state otherwise)
Did not state a hypothesis for the study beforehand, making it easier to twist their shoddy data and claim a conclusion out of it after the fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do the study
tl:dr version:
The rule: "Antivaxxers have zero nonfraudilent backing for their claims" remains comfortably inviolate, as Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and
unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children contains zero actual science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Put thousands of children at risk and I'll shut up, promise!'
Can't tell if you're just trolling or if you're really that deluded, spamming the same crap that's been rebutted multiple times, in either case looks like it's auto-flag time.
Show me that study and I will shut up.
Now there's a violation of the first rule of lying if I've ever seen one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do the study
"Do a large scale true vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated study and look to see who is healthier."
Because you crazy f*cks believe in quacks that fleece you we're suddenly going to lower ethical standards and leave subjects unvaccinated to prove you wrong yet again?
Yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do the study
You are mistaken. Use the vaccine safety datalink system..
Let me know if you still dont understand and need someone to explain how it would all work...
It's pretty simple you use the VSD and look at the health of the vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated and see who is healthier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do the study
"It's pretty simple you use the VSD and look at the health of the vaccinated vs completely unvaccinated and see who is healthier."
So, the work is already being down without having to risk the health of more people? Cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Do the study
Don't make me laugh by trying to get on a high horse. After all it's you shitheads who don't believe in herd immunity while profiting off of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cedillo case - Dr. Andrew Zimmerman
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman said that vaccines don't cause autism -
End of Discussion.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf
THE RESA CEDILLO v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
(Filed: February 12, 2009) To be published
DECISION HASTINGS, Special Master.
Another pediatric neurologist with extensive experience with autism, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, also filed an expert report for respondent. Dr. Zimmerman stated the opinion that the evidence does not support the proposition that the MMR vaccine can cause autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cedillo case - Dr. Andrew Zimmerman
Well, there was also a lot of other evidence and testimony in that case alone that disproves a link between vaccines and autism, and every proposed theory of causation has also been disproven. Plus, every known case where someone claims their child got autism from vaccines has, when under closer examination, proven to be cases where the child showed signs of autism before getting vaccinated. On top of that, there’s a lot of other evidence against such a link that was not discussed in that particular case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Medical Exemption - Ameer Hamideh
"Ameer Hamideh" is another case involving medical exemptions and seizures.
Other people responded that they have the same problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Medical Exemption - Ameer Hamideh
[Pathologenic liar asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reminder: When a Nurgle cultist refers to someone as a doctor or medical expert, they mean people like Suzanne Humphries, the homeopath and "energy doctor."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule
So, Mike Masnick,
Are you up to date on your vaccines?
Please list the vaccines you have received which comply with this schedule.
Otherwise, we are going to assume that you, too, are anti-vax.
And please let us know whether you were informed of the side effects "before" they were given to you.
It would also be interesting to know whether you experienced any side effects.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/adult/adult-combined-schedule.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule
What an arrogant little shitstain you are to demand someone's medical information on threat of making more baseless assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That isn’t even remotely anyone else’s business but Mike’s and his doctor’s, you piece of shit.
“I’m going to argue from emotion in bad faith and force you to play on our level instead of arguing actual facts by calling you one of us. I say ‘we’, but I’m really just one dumb schmuck trying to pass myself off as multiple people so I can look like the numbers are on my side. Bad faith, remember?” — your horrid little monkey ass, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aside to the non-asshole commenters: Notice how this jackoff starts a new comment thread after he gets out-argued in a different thread, thinking he’ll be able to “win” the new one? It’s a pitiful tactic, and it’s one that’ll eventually run out of steam when he runs out of arguments for us to demolish.
Sad, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It was funny wuen they changed their IP after I pointed out their pretend-to-be-a-separate-person ploy was betrayed by their gravatar.
Yet they disingenuously play at not being able to see any of the replies that thoroughly debunk their drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And their distinctively vacuous writing style remains as constant "tell" behind their feeble facade no matter how many times they try to switch masks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Are you up to date on your vaccines?
That isn’t even remotely anyone else’s business "
Well, yes it is everybody's business if they come in physical contact with you.
If you are not adequately immunized, then you pose a danger to everyone else.
Unless anti-vax just refers to "belief" but not actual practice?
Mike said in the original article:
"anti-vax nonsense is killing people"
So your vaccination status presents a deadly risk to other people, you might kill somebody by not being up to date on your vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which is why everyone who can should be vaccinated. Then we don't have to ask. And the few who can't be vaccinated will be protected by the fact that they are surrounded by people who are. Problem solved.
Well, you are the anti-vax person here, not us, so yes, anti-vax refers to your false belief that vaccines cause autism and other untold horrors. Actual vaccination practice and medical science shows that they are safe and does not cause autism. I mean, that is what everyone has been blasting you for in this entire thread.
There's a thing called HIPAA, you may have heard of it. It says a person's medical status is nobody else's business but their own and their doctor's. There's also federal and state requirements that people be vaccinated if possible, so nobody should even have to ask. I'm quite confident that Mike is up on his vaccinations, given that he went to college and that's generally a requirement if not a strong recommendation.
So, turn about is fair play. Are you up on your vaccinations? I'd say you're probably missing your rabies shot at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A functioning brain is the best vaccine against antivaxxism.
Sadly, not everyone has that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Only to those who aren’t adequately immunized themselves. In places with high rates of immunization, “herd immunity” helps keep those diseases at bay from the unvaccinated.
It refers to a group of ignorant fools who believe vaccines are more harmful than the diseases they prevent — sometimes to the point of believing that vaccines cause autism despite a lack of proof. They believe their children should remain at risk of contracting a disease that could kill those children because of the scientifically-proven low risk of side effects from vaccines. They put their beliefs into action by refusing to have their children vaccinated. That act reduces the overall vaccination rates and thus the immunity of the “herd”. Anti-vaxxersputs more people at risk of contracting potentially lethal diseases as a consequence of their decision — a decision based on emotional appeals and pseudoscience bullshit.
In that case, children who can receive the vaccines should receive them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule
Actually, given that the rate of vaccination among U.S. residents is somewhere around 85%, was actually closer to 90% not that long ago, and there are legal requirements imposing certain vaccinations in many areas, the logical presumption would be that a given individual from the U.S. has been vaccinated unless they say otherwise or the assumption has been successfully rebutted with specific evidence. Furthermore, Mike has asserted he is pro-vaccine, which strengthens that presumption. You would have to provide proof otherwise.
Also, whatever advice or information Mike’s doctor may or may not have given falls under doctor-patient confidentiality, and it really is none of your business. Same goes for any side-effects he may or may not have experienced. If his doctor did not inform Mike of the side-effects beforehand, then that doctor is breaking the law, but whether or not that has happened is immaterial to this discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anyone have a checklist of logical fallies handy?
I'm curious if there are any of them left that this cuiltist scum hasn't already tried here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hannah Poling Case
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/CAMPBELL-SMITH.POLING041008.pdf
On November 9, 2007, respondent filed a Rule 4 Report conceding that petitioner should be awarded compensation in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).
Respondent stated that, based on a review of the petition, medical records and affidavits, the “facts of this case meet the statutory criteria for demonstrating that the vaccination Hannah received on July 19, 2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism and manifested as a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hannah Poling Case
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/CAMPBELL-SMITH.POLING012811.pdf
The undersigned awards a total of $155,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs and petitioners’ costs. In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the clerk of the court SHALL ENTER JUDGEMENT in petitioners’ favor in the amount of $140,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and attorneys’ costs and $15,000.00 in petitioners’ costs.5 The judgment shall reflect that Shoemaker and Associates may collect $140,000.00 from petitioners. Petitioners may retain $15,000.00 for costs borne by petitioners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hannah Poling Case
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536523/
Jon S. Poling, MD
A 19-month-old girl ...
Several immunizations were delayed owing to frequent bouts of otitis media with fever.
Within 48 hours after immunizations to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis; Haemophilus influenzae B; measles, mumps, and rubella; polio; and varicella (Varivax), the patient developed a fever to 38.9°C, inconsolable crying, irritability, and lethargy and refused to walk...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hannah Poling Case
Yes, there's always individual cases. But, the plural of anecdote is not data. We have stories of the victims of the diseases you're attempting to propagate as well, we just have the stats to show that they're more likely than the things you're scared of.
But, if you want some emotional stories of the victims of the diseases you support, I'm sure someone can supply those. There will be many more real stories than you have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hannah Poling Case
A fever, inconsolable crying, irritability, and lethargy aren’t what I would consider severe adverse reactions to a vaccine. And it sounds like appropriate measures were taken when adverse reactions occurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh hey look, your citation proves you wrong. Vaccines didn't cause her condition, she already had it.
Any other cases proving you wrong you want to cite here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Follow up to that, this is a perfect example of a valid medical exemption. Wherein a person has a pre-existing condition that would preclude them from getting a vaccination. These are allowed under the law. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, that did not happen in this case. Perhaps they were unaware of her condition prior to the vaccination, I don't know. But regardless, if they were aware and had sought a medical exemption, it would have been granted under current law and she would have been exempt from receiving further vaccinations.
No one here is saying she should have been forced to get a vaccination anyway. We are quite aware that there are people with other diseases and disorders that can't get vaccinated. That doesn't mean vaccines cause disease and harm in normally healthy people. And it's even more of an argument that everyone else SHOULD get vaccinated because then they can protect the people who can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you should look at the CDC contradiction because "they" want almost everyone to be vaccinated.... I was shocked!!!
I got nerve damage on half of my body from a flu vaccine and if I went to school in CA I would not qualify for a medical exemption.
Read the manufacturer insert for IPV polio. They say that all kinds of people with autoimmune disorders should be vaccinated.
Go research what type of person should not be vaccinated according to the officials because that number is very small..
My husband and father who had stage 4 cancer who was doing chemotherapy was told they needed to take a flu vaccine.... So who are the mythical immune compromised people that were all vaccinating for because they are too sick??????
Read the data!!!!
I got damaged getting a flu vaccine because my job told me I had to for the little old lady I was taking care off (who got a flu vaccine by the way)... Why was her health more important than mine??
Why should I vaccinate for this mythical immune suppress child? Why is their health more important than mine or my child's health???
Vaccines do kill and injure so shouldn't we have a choice where there is risk?
I think we should Stop forced and coerced vaccines. I believe this goes against the Nuremberg code.
Shouldn't we have bodily autonomy??
Why don't we figure out why a small amount of people die from say the measles as a pose to mass medicating..
Think about it... Approx 1% of people get hurt by polio... Let's figure out what is going on with the 1% instead of medicating 99% of healthy people.
Tell me what percent of collateral damage is acceptable from a vaccine and how is that data being tracked ?? Do you guys really have the risk vs benifits data?. Look it up for yourself.
Ask yourself this. Is there only one way to lose weight? No, you can have surgery, diet, drugs, ECT. There is more than one way to deal with disease; health does not have to come through a needle.. Many of us tried the vaccine route and developed autoimmune disorders.. Surprise, surprise we took a drug to alter our immune systems and now we have autoimmune disorders and so much more.....
When the vaccines stop making us sick we will start taking them again until them we will achieve health another way,
Last, many vaccines are not made to protect others just the person that got vaccinated so the theory of "vaccine induced heard immunity" does not apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone else can address the rest of your bullshit, Ex-Laxxer, but I do wanna hit on one thing:
You obviously don’t understand the concept of herd immunity, so I’mma do you an explain.
A disease such as measles passes from person to person if those people aren’t vaccinated against the disease. Some people can’t get the vaccinations because of other medical conditions. But when the unvaccinated go out in public, they're surrounded by people who could and did get them (i.e., the “herd”). The unvaccinated are generally protected from catching the disease because the vaccinated can't spread it to the unvaccinated (i.e., the “herd” immunizes the unvaccinated by default). So long as vaccination rates remain high, the vaccinated can better protect the unvaccinated. But as we’ve seen from recent measles outbreaks in the U.S., lower vaccination rates can lead to those diseases entering a localized populace and really fucking up people’s lives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you shocked? Everyone who can SHOULD be vaccinated. Or are you saying you WANT to get polio, the measles, rubella, diphtheria, yellow fever, pertussis, rabies, tetanus, etc...? I'm shocked you want people to be vulnerable to and suffer from a completely preventable disease. (Actually, no, I'm not that shocked. You're a moron.)
Liar.
Because you don't have a valid medical reason to be exempt. If you do, then you would qualify.
Yes they do. Did you know that the IPV polio vaccine is inactivated? Meaning, it's not a live virus, it's dead. Therefore you can't actually get sick from it so there is no harm in giving it to people who have certain types of immune disorders.
The insert also states (below that section) that the person's medical history should be taken into account prior to vaccination and it should NOT be given if there is evidence that they may have an adverse reaction to it. Try not to cherry pick your examples next time.
As it should be, because vaccines are safe and they save lives and improve people's quality of life by preventing them from getting horrible diseases.
Yes, because they are safe and they have an inactive version that won't harm anyone with immune deficiency.
Infants under a certain age; people over certain ages; people with health issues, like this kid, or this one. You might also try looking at this CDC link to see who else shouldn't be vaccinated.
I did. You obviously, did not.
Liar.
Well then perhaps you chose the wrong profession. Your employer has a responsibility under the law to take all necessary precautions to protect the health of their wards. Allowing their employees to not be vaccinated puts the health of their wards at risk.
It wasn't. You're just an idiot and a liar. Vaccines save lives and prevent people from suffering from horrible diseases. If they are so harmful, why isn't 90+% of the population either dead or seriously disabled then?
See links above for the non-mythical children.
It's not. Again, you're just an idiot and a liar.
Because they DON'T kill and injure unless there is a pre-existing condition. Again, if they are so harmful, why is 90+% of the population not dead yet? Also, risk is a scale. Your risk of dying in a car crash is far greater than your risk of being even remotely affected by a vaccine. So, are you going to avoid cars now?
You do. You are within your rights to refuse any and all vaccines. That doesn't mean you have the right to then go around and expose everyone else to whatever disease you may contract because of it.
You lost me there. People die from the measles because it's a disease that can kill you. It's what it does. Hence, disease. All a vaccine does is train your immune system to fight it off before it infects you.
It's polio, it's what it does you moron. The only reason to prevent people from dying from it is to prevent them from getting it in the first place.
If it's less than the damage caused by the actual disease then it's acceptable. Think of it this way: you have a choice between getting the disease and having a 50% chance of surviving it with little to side effects, or taking a vaccine that will prevent that disease but has a less than 1% chance of moderate side effects. What's the better option here?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html You're welcome.
Yes, everyone does as it's handed out before you get your vaccine and is publicly available online. Apparently some people are too stupid to figure that out.
Already did. You should as well, since you obviously haven't.
Yes. Calories in < calories out.
Only used in rare, medically needed situations. It is NOT available for the average person.
Otherwise known as calories in < calories out.
Helps control how much you eat which again is calories in < calories out.
Alters their body chemistry so that they either don't eat as much or it increases their metabolism. Again, calories in < calories out.
Yes, but the BEST way to deal with it is to never get it in the first place. Hence, vaccines.
In the case of diseases that are preventable, yes, yes it does.
Such as? Because I've yet to hear of ONE person who did. I have, however, heard of hundreds of people suffering from vaccine preventable diseases.
Again, who are these people you are talking about? Not one single person has had their autoimmune disorders linked to a vaccine. And vaccines don't "alter" your immune system. Obviously you don't know how they work. Let me explain. Vaccines are just dead or weakened versions of the actual disease. That's all. Because they are dead or weakened, you don't actually get the disease but it allows your immune system to recognize the disease and develop antibodies to fight it off in the future. Do try educating yourself once in a while.
I have good news for you then, vaccines today are as safe as taking aspirin or ibuprofen and don't make people sick.
As Stephen already explained, you don't know how herd immunity works. Read his post to educate yourself. Or look it up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
From your stories, it sounds like you and everybody you know are extremely unlucky and get the worst end of the stick at every stage from vaccines, cancer and anything else you come across. Just know that your experiences described here are not the experiences of most people.Or, we realise you're making most of this up and you need to tone it down when talking to people outside the anti-vaxx moron community. They tend not to work when dealing with people who understand things like science and statistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You were shocked that the CDC, the Center of Disease Control, want almost everyone to be vaccinated, which is the most effective way to control a disease? Why shouldn’t the majority of the population be vaccinated, given how severe adverse reactions are restricted to a small subset of the population who have preexisting conditions? I fail to see any contradiction or anything shocking here.
I highly doubt that.
Since you did not go to school in CA, on what basis do you assert this? If you have a legitimate medical reason for not being vaccinated, why wouldn’t you qualify for a medical exemption?
First, if you want someone online to read something, provide a link to it! What’s so hard about that?
Second, as noted by another AC, the specifics of an IPV polio vaccine mean that most individuals with autoimmune disorders are not any more prone to adverse effects from the vaccine than the rest of the population. As such, there is no medical reason for them not to receive that particular vaccine. Also, note that the insert goes on to say that those who have shown a likelihood of an adverse reaction to the vaccine in their medical history should not receive the vaccine.
That’s because the types of people who have a possibility of experiencing a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine are very few.
Also, we aren’t going to do your research for you. Provide a link or citation. You have the burden of proof here.
That’s because the flu vaccine they would be given is not particularly dangerous to people with stage 4 cancer and doing chemotherapy.
The AC provides several examples, including this and this. They also tell you to look here for more information.
Note that they provide links, rather than just tell you to Google or research it.
Be more specific!!!! Provide links to data!!!!
Again, we find this doubtful.
That’s because your job is to take care of her, not get her sick. Even if you have a valid medical reason not to get vaccinated, you should not risk her health. In that’s the case, you shouldn’t be taking care of her.
Because your job was to take care of her health. If that’s a problem for you, you’re in the wrong line of work.
There’s nothing “mythical” about them. By not being vaccinated when you have no valid medical reason to do so, you’re reducing the herd immunity that protects people (not just children) with conditions that prevent them from being vaccinated or for whom the vaccine is ineffective.
It’s not that their health is more important than yours or your child’s. It’s that the risks for them if you don’t get vaccinated are higher than the risks you take if you get vaccinated. Again, if you or your child have a valid medical reason not to get vaccinated, then don’t get vaccinated. In that case, you’re one of the ones dependent on herd immunity.
Everything has risk. Nothing is absolutely safe. Significant injuries and deaths from vaccines are very rare and are limited to certain persons with certain preexisting medical conditions. The key reasons why vaccines are required for those who are able to take them is because 1) for the majority of the population, vaccines are pretty safe, with potential side effects being pretty minor; 2) the risks from not being vaccinated for these people are substantially higher; and 3) the choice for whether or not to get vaccinated affects the population, not just you or your family.
However, you have failed to provide persuasive arguments as to why.
Then you clearly know nothing about the Nuremberg code. Would it be too much to ask how?
I addressed this earlier. Your bodily autonomy ends where it impacts others’ health.
Because the measles is a disease. That’s what it does. Explain how this information would actually change anything.
Approximately 1% of people got polio. As such, they got hurt by polio, because polio is a disease. There really isn’t anything more to it. Again, how would this information change anything? And how is this an either-or scenario? Why can’t we do both?
I’m not doing your research for you. You’re the one claiming that vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. The burden of proof is on you. You look it up.
At any rate, we’ve already provided links to that data several times. Maybe you should address them before asking for more data.
That’s completely irrelevant.
Explain these alternatives, specifically with regards to diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent. You must also explain why it’s a superior method.
[Plaintiff provides no evidence to support their claims]
What other way? For all the yapping about vaccines, you have not given any alternatives at all.
Look, nothing is without risk. Every medicine or treatment has some nonzero chance of causing some sort of adverse reaction. You have not demonstrated that the risk of being vaccinated is higher than the alternative.
…Are you serious?
No vaccine is made to protect anyone but the person vaccinated. That doesn’t mean that they don’t protect anyone else, or that vaccine-based herd immunity doesn’t apply. Herd immunity is a natural consequence of having the vast majority of a population vaccinated against a certain disease; it is merely a side-benefit of vaccines, not the purpose for which they were designed. It’s an important benefit, however, and it applies equally to all vaccines.
Stephen does a great job of explaining herd immunity further.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Herd immunity is a natural consequence of having the vast majority of a population vaccinated against a certain disease; it is merely a side-benefit of vaccines"
More to the point - herd immunity is a benefit of a population being immune to a disease. This can be achieved through other means, such as deliberately exposing and infecting people in groups ("chickenpox parties") or with hereditary immunity for some diseases. However, these are slow, precision-less and dangerous - a not insignificant proportion of people deliberately infected with chickenpox at parties will suffer complications both at the time and later in life (shingles as adults). Vaccines are a way to quickly achieve herd immunity in a less dangerous way, protecting both those who are vaccinated and those who cannot be.
Herd immunity itself is a natural phenomenon. Vaccines are the best way we know to get there with as little risk and suffering as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. This also brings up another point.
This AC has repeatedly said that there must be other ways to get the benefits of vaccines. And there probably are, at least in some cases. However, these other methods have not been shown to be safer, as consistent, or more effective than vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-vaxx fucknugget proclaims his desire for children to get measles, then gets confused why people are angry with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The fact that you use character assassination as a tactic shows how ignorant you are... If you understood vaccines then you would use science to make your point....
Go read a vaccine package insert, the CDC pink book, the standly plockin deposition, and the CDC expedient sheet..
Read the studies. Try reading the study done by Warfell, for it was the FDA that helped fund that one.
You also must understand how important it is to do long-term double blind inert Placebo study.... when they study vaccines for 48 hours or 4 days you are going to miss side effects..
Again, at least read a package insert.
Nobody wants to be sick... The problem with vaccines is too many of us are getting injured... My neighbors, family, and friends are all vaccine injured... We are not rare snowflakes we are all around you... If the vaccines didn't damage us so badly then we would be in favor of vaccines but the fact of the matter is that the majority of us vaccinated and got hurt.
We are not anti-vaxxers we are EX-VAXXERS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The problem with vaccines is too many of us are getting injured... My neighbors, family, and friends are all vaccine injured...
No they're not. This is the problem. You insist they are, but they are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And even if they are, the likelihood of their injuries being worse than those of the injuries that could be caused by the diseases prevented those vaccines is exceptionally low. Besides, if it were the case that those vaccine injuries are worse than the injuries from those diseases, and they happened in the kinds of numbers that Antivax Coward is implying, I'm pretty sure even the government couldn't cover that shit up…well, not forever, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with you that the government can't hide if forever... So many are making noise about their injuries...thats why their is so much censoring going on now... they don't want people like you and me to think for ourselves and talk about this issue..
Nobody would care about vaccines if it was an injuring so many of us.
We all have been fed the line vaccines are safe and effective and the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks of the vaccine.. The problem is that they can't prove that.. some of these vaccines the safety studie is only 48 hours...
In order to know if the vaccine is doing more good than bad you must look at a vaccinated versus fully vaccinated group of people.. small studies of vaccinated vs. Fully unvaccinated study show that the unvaccinated are healthier but we need a large-scale study looking at vaccinated vs. Fully unvaccinated an order to finally put this issue to rest..
There are few doctors that are keeping track of their patients that are fully vaccinated partially vaccinated and fully unvaccinated and they're finding that the unvaccinated are much healthier... these are major signals that need to be investigated to see if it's correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you provide a number, backed by actual data, that proves how many people who say they were injured by vaccines suffered those injuries explicitly because of vaccines? And if you can do that: What percent of the population does that number represent in comparison to the number of people who receive vaccines without suffering subsequent injuries?
I'd say the fact that measles deaths/injuries in the U.S. dropped practically to zero after the measles vaccine was developed and put into use without a corresponding rise in equal (or greater) numbers of deaths/injuries caused by the vaccine proves that assertion well enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shouldn't we investigate vaccine injury claims as a pose to dismissing them?
If I walked into my house and saw my husband dead on the floor and I see his fiend Bob running out the back door we don't throw are hands up in the air and say correlation is not equal to causation and never ask questions or investigate..
We have hundreds of thousands of people claiming to be injured. Shouldn't we investigate????
Doctors say that vaccines didn't cause the injury but they never investe. It was only after I was injured by multiple times that the doctor said holy cow these things are making you sick and now I have doctors backing me.... I can't prove that my friend was injured by a vaccine and neither can he because his doctor never investigated his claims..
When you never investigate, it looks like you have a perfectly safe product.
If a woman is assaulted do the cops tell her prove it or do they do an investigation????
Most doctors refuse to investigate because they are afraid of what they might find no matter how big or small it might be.
The Ex-vaxxers are the vaccine injured and since the government is not listing to us when we are injured we resort to talking about it on websites like this..... We want safe vaccines, true informed consent, and the choice to say no.. We want medical freedom...
Even if you don't believe us don't you think we should have medical freedom because once you force the public to take vaccines as a condition of school who's is to say how many and how often. What if they force you to take say the new HIV vaccine thats coming out soon? Would you be ok if they said you must take it as a condition of school or work??? How would you feel??... Don't you guys want to make your own choice of what goes into your body... Especially since we have seen the mistakes the pharmaceutical companies have made in the past... Once you get injected its too late and then years later they say whoops my bad that vaccine caused XYZ problems but it took us so long to see the problem because we never invested hundreds of thousands of claims worldwide.
I mean really when had the pharmaceutical companies messed up on a drug in the past?
There is a ROKU channel called PEEPS TV if you want to hear people talking about their vaccine injuries and you can decide for yourself if their stories should be dismissed..
I have medical records to prove mine. I have my neighbors to tell me the details of their vaccine injuries... Many say they would never have believe it if it didn't happen to them... Its a bad feeling knowing that you gave your baby a vaccine that caused seizures for the rest of their lives.... The last thing we want to believe is that we did this to ourselves and our children.... We would all be getting vaccines if we didn't get injured... Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course we should; you already know that. But if a certain amount of tests of that group determine that vaccines are not the cause of their injuries, it stands to reason that the chance of all those injuries being caused by the vaccines are exceptionally low. The scientific approach would be to catalog all the initial reports of what are believed to be vaccine-related injuries, cross-reference those reports with the medical histories of those reporting them and the known side effects of vaccines, and figure out which cases are the most likely to have vaccines as the root of the injuries. If 100,000 people report injuries from vaccines, the chances that all of those cases were caused by vaccines is astonishingly low.
…out of seven billion people is not the kind of number you think it is in that context. You'd need approximately 700,000 claims just to reach even 1% of 1% of the total global population. To put it another way: When the 1% of 1% number is applied to the approximate population of the United States, it doesn't even hit 100,000.
Yes, reports of vaccine injuries should be investigated. But by and large, vaccines are safe enough for the majority of people that such reports are comparatively rare to the rates of vaccinations.
Also: Calling yourself an “ex-vaxxer” is a bad move. Make one wrong hit on a keyboard and whoops, now you’re a scat fetishist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree with you... Lol on the EX-Vaxxer thing... We call ourselves that because we vaccinated...
So, I don't know if you know this but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't use the gold standard for vaccines like they do for regular drugs so the safety studies are pretty much s***.
Then the government says don't worry we will use the VAERS system to track vaccine injuries... That system is flawed. Its a passive surveillance system so anyone can report and HHS says thats only 1% of the people report. I think one year it was around 60,000 reports. So do a theoretical probability and it winds up being about 6 million injuries.... You can't do science this way but it certainly should raise some red flags...
My point is that we assumed that legitimate safety studies were done on the vaccines and there was a legitimate monitoring of vaccine injuries...
The point of the vaccine is to have a better health outcome than if you never vaccinated correct???
So far the majority of the data is showing that you're better off not vaccinating... a great example of this is a study done and New Guinea bissau with Peter Aaby..
Our government could do a large-scale vaccinated vs. Fully Unvaccinated study using the vaccine safety data link but they refuse...
I wear shirts in the grocery store all the time talking about vaccines. everytime strangers come up to me to tell me how their vaccine injured or their babies been vaccine injured..
I've done talks in classrooms and asked the class to raise their hand if they think they've been injured by a vaccine or if they know someone who's injured by vaccine and the MAJORITY of the class raised their hands...
And yet we're supposed to be quiet and say we're all just confused???? If I wanted to talk about my experience with chemotherapy I wouldn't be told I was confused why does it happen with a vaccine?
Do you know the story about thalidomide, vioxx, or hormone replacement therapy???
After I got vaccine injured I thought my chances of that happening was so rare and then I opened up the manufacture slip and saw that I had over fifty percent chance of being injured???
Read thr page inserts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, you can’t un-vaccinate yourselves, so calling yourselves “ex-vaxxers” like people who leave the Catholic Church call themselves “ex-Catholics” or “ex-Christians” makes no fucking sense.
…they’re soap?
[citation needed from non-anti-vaxxers, who have a vested interest in spreading disinformation to continue their grifting gullible assholes]
And I have a girlfriend in Canada who’s totally gonna blow me tomorrow, just you wait~.
One, bullshit. Two, even if it’s true, I have to wonder exactly how leading your question is to get that kind of result.
Well, it would be nice if you idiots would shut up, or least present hard data to back up your emotional appeals, instead of acting like saying a bunch of things designed to elicit a specific emotional response (sadness) makes your argument better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
READ A PACKAGE INSERT!!!!! There's your data!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If all you can do is yell and overuse exclamation points as if that makes your point any stronger, get your shit together in a backpack and fuck off back to your anti-vaxxer circlejerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Read a package insert. There you will find the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m happy to see you acknowledge your ignorance. Your further contributions will be read accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have. Nowhere does it say vaccines cause the kind of harm and injury you keep babbling on about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I’m going to ignore a lot of that wall of text as irrelevant or already refuted here many times. I’m only going to address a few parts here.
You have failed to offer sufficient evidence to rebut this assumption.
That study was done by a known anti-vaxxer. As such, I have no reason to believe it.
Assertions—by you or by strangers in the grocery store—without evidence are disregarded.
The same thing I said about assertions applies here, but even if we assume everyone involved is being truthful, that’s still not good evidence. The question was just way too broad.
First, you asked if they “think” they’ve been injured. Belief is simply insufficient.
Second, these are children, and you haven’t defined “injury”. We have no idea how severe the injury was. Was it aches and pains that went away within days? Was it a mild fever that lasted less than a day? Hell, maybe the kids were just talking about the “injury” of being poked with a needle and slightly bleeding for a few minutes. We simply don’t know.
Third, you also asked if they knew someone who’s been injured. Let me explain the problem with that by describing a scenario. One kid at a school gets a vaccine and has a severe allergic reaction (which is certainly a vaccine-related injury to be at least somewhat concerned about). The majority of kids in a particular class know this kid and have heard about this. You come into this class and ask them that question. A majority of the kids will raise their hands, even though there was only one injury, simply because a majority of the kids knew this one victim. And this scenario is actually pretty likely given the information you gave us.
What story? No, seriously. I have no idea what story could possibly involve hormone replacement therapy and vaccines. Even if it’s complete nonsense or proves nothing, I’m very curious.
Prove it. You haven’t even given us sufficient information to research this ourselves even if we were inclined to do so. You haven’t told us the nature or severity of the alleged injury or the vaccine that allegedly injured you. Nor have you given verifiable evidence to prove the fifty-percent figure.
Why won’t you just show us the goddamned inserts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh? Now that's interesting, got a citation for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
SMH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anecdotal claims from a proven liar (that's you) =/= proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No no, I can totally believe that, after all vaccination requires a needle, needles cause a tiny pin-prick of pain and 'injury'(that heals in a day or two), ergo 'vaccine injured'.
I mean, it's either that or they're lying out of their ass again, but when have nurgle cultists ever done that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have. None of the listed adverse reactions are both sufficiently severe and sufficiently common enough to overcome the benefits of the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I beg to differ.. But each is their own.
Do you think people should have to get the chicken pox vaccine as a condition of going to school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you think people should have to get chicken pox as a condition of going to school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No... How about u?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So... you don;'t think that kids should be forced to risk chickenpox in order to go to school and you're vehemently opposed to the thing we know that prevents it.
What is your magical solution to this riddle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think what you meant to say was “to each their own”.
As for the chicken pox vaccine, I don’t have a definitive answer on that, but I’m leaning towards “yes” since my younger brother nearly died from chicken pox-related complications. It can be very severe. The only reason I don’t have a definitive answer is because I don’t know the exact statistics of complications from chicken pox.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now now, you’re not allowed to use anecdotal experience in place of empirical evidence unless that experience involves injuries from vaccines instead of diseases~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are within your rights to be delusional and deny truth and reality.
Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Considering the fact that receiving Varicella from the vaccine as opposed to infection is showing to reduce one's chance at developing Shingles later in life by 79-80% - absolutely yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note: The fear the UK had, that vaccinating kids would cause older people to have more Shingles due to lack of poxy kids, was debunked by studying shingles in America, finding that Shingles cases rose before the Varicella vaccine was released, and did not increase after.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The fact that you are against vaccines shows how ignorant YOU are.
Lots of other people (including myself) have used science to explain this multiple times in this comment section already. The original poster is just underscoring the fact that you and the other anti-vaxxers here don't understand what you're talking about, albeit in a very blunt way. If you don't like it, try educating yourself.
I have. Am I supposed to have some sort of revelation by doing so? Seems pretty standard stuff to me.
I have. You, obviously, have not.
You mean this one? The one that said vaccines against pertussis were effective in either preventing the disease or reducing severity of symptoms, but had a faster than expected waning protection? What about it? Seems to suggest vaccines work to me.
You mean like this one?
Agreed, but these vaccines have been studied for decades. Your argument is invalid.
Apparently you do.
No, they aren't. There is not one credible case of someone being harmed by a vaccine that was not due to an already underlying disorder.
Liar. That many people would have made news.
Yeah, you are.
Unfortunately.
Liar.
No, you're a bunch of uneducated idiots and morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Dude, you literally said:
So your options are get the vaccine and not get measles, or - in your preferred scenario - NOT get the vaccine, and then get measles. How is that misrepresentation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do you guys feel the need to block the comment "Read the package insert?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It’s trollish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because if it really supported your argument, as you claim, you could link to it or paste the text into a comment. You make the unreasonable, outlandish claim, then it's on you to provide the proof.
That aside, I took one for the team and read a few. I see nothing in those inserts that suggest vaccines are unsafe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
COLTEN SNYDER Case
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Vowell.Snyder.pdf
At trial, Mrs. Snyder’s recollection of the same period was that, following the MMR vaccination, Colten “no longer slept. He would scream all night long.”
According to Mrs. Snyder, Colten was fussy, inconsolable, suffering from fevers, no longer making eye contact, and that “he was just, he wasn’t really there.”
He had profuse diarrhea after his MMR vaccination that never abated.
This change in behavior was what caused her to repeatedly bring Colten in to see the doctor.
She also testified that the main reasons she took him to the doctor or the emergency room during this period were because of his extremely high fever and her inability to console him.
Mrs. Noonan described Colten as a “different child” between his MMR vaccination and his hospitalization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: COLTEN SNYDER Case - Other Autism Decisions
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism-decisions-and-background-information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And every single one of those cases DENIED the family right to payout on the grounds that they could provide any sufficient evidence proving their child's condition was caused by vaccines.
Any other links you want to provide that prove you wrong?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other Autism Decisions - WILLIAM YATES Case
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Campbell-Smith_Hazlehurst_Decision.p df
Members of Yates’ family testified during the hearing that one month after Yates had received the MMR vaccination, he became “wild,” “very hyperactive,” and “out of control.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did the court rule that correlation equaled causation in this case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the court ruled that the vaccine did not cause autism and they were ineligible for payout.
Want to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other Autism Decisions - WILLIAM YATES Case
Correlation does not equal causation. In case you hadn’t noticed, Yates lost that case as they were unable to prove causation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Other Autism Decisions - COLIN DWYER Case
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Vowell.Dwyer.FINAL.pdf
Mr. Dwyer testified that in “the fall [of 2000] or early in 2001," Colin began to exhibit obsessive-compulsive behaviors, hand flapping, and loss of engagement with others.
Mrs. Dwyer further testified that she suspected a link between Colin’s autism and vaccines “[a]fter Colin had his last round of vaccinations... and that “he started his gradual regression shortly thereafter.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Her suspicions do not equal a provable fact. And vaccines do not cause autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Other Autism Decisions - COLIN DWYER Case
Suspicions are not facts. Correlation is not causation.
Again, Colin, along with everyone else who sought compensation for vaccines allegedly causing autism, lost their cases and did not receive compensation. They failed to prove their suspicions to be true and could not prove that the children’s autism was caused by the MMR vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Other Autism Decisions - COLIN DWYER Case
Why, it's almost as if once you look at full documented facts rather than cherry-picked fragments, you come to a different conclusion to those fed half the story by grifters!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: COLTEN SNYDER Case - Other Autism Decisions
You might want to, I dunno, read the whole thing rather than just the allegations and the testimony provided by the petitioners’ witnesses. They all lost their claims that vaccines caused anyone’s autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dude, stop posting links to things that PROVE YOU WRONG.
From the court's decision:
Case closed. Colten was not harmed by a vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: COLTEN SNYDER Case
Had the alleged injuries been a fever, insomnia, or diarrhea (none of which have anything to do with autism whatsoever), that’d be one thing. In particular, I believe that the MMR vaccine includes information that possible side effects include fever and possibly diarrhea.
However, the alleged injury was autism. As the case later shows, the allegation that the MMR vaccine caused Colten’s autism was simply false, and Colten did not receive compensation for that injury.
Remember: an allegation is not a proven fact, an anecdote is not data, and correlation is not causation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Medical Exemptions - California
Here is a doctor in California who says she gives medical exemptions.
"If you choose to fully or partially vaccinate your child, you need to understand the symptoms that can follow vaccination and immediately contact a doctor. Symptoms can occur immediately, hours, days or weeks after a vaccine. Make sure that every problem is entered into the permanent medical record and written copies should be kept..."
https://drveronicatilden.com/services/childhood-vaccinations/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Medical Exemptions - California
There is a question going on about whether doctor in California are legally required to give a medical exemption to anybody at all.
Still looking, but here is evidence that the issue was brought up in the legislative hearings.
I saw videos of some of the hearings, but can't find them now.
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/health/story/2019-10-22/vaccination-exemption-writing -doctor-charged-by-state-medical-board
In hearings before the Legislature, many parents said the new law would make physicians much more reluctant to sign off on exemptions because they would do so under penalty of perjury.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Medical Exemptions - California
Once again:
That's a nonissue for non-quacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Medical Exemptions - California
If they aren’t fudging any of the facts, then the penalty of perjury will be a non-issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only to idiots such as yourself. The law is quite clear that they are still required to give medical exemptions for valid medical reasons. Personal beliefs based on fear and quack science are not valid medical reasons.
Ok, so where is it? And evidence of what exactly?
Too bad so sad. If you can't provide evidence then you have none. I can claim to have a million dollars. That doesn't mean I actually do.
That link has nothing to do with the hearings before the Legislature. It deals with a quack doctor accused of negligence who was giving out false medical exemptions.
Parents. Yes. Medical and legal experts? No. Nor did they provide any factual data to back up their claims. It was just their opinion based in fear and false belief that vaccines are harmful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Medical Exemptions - California
I mean, that’s just common sense. That doesn’t say anything about the frequency or severity of the symptoms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sorry, can you say that again? Because I could have sworn you just said you found a doctor IN CALIFORNIA that gives medical exemptions. This after you just spent multiple days and comments saying that you CAN'T get medical exemptions in California under the new laws.
So, we now have concrete evidence you are either A) ignorant and have no idea what you're talking about, or B) a liar. Take your pick.
Do you understand the meaning of the word "can" in this sentence? Pro-tip it does not mean symptoms have a 100% guaranteed chance of occurring. It means the chances of the occurring are above 0%. In the case of vaccines, that's typically less than 1%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There’s also the word “follow”, which doesn’t necessarily mean that the symptoms were caused by the vaccine; they merely have been known to have occurred after the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
There is a whole drama surrounding Dr. Zimmerman and the Cedillo and Poling cases.
Google --- vaccines zimmerman cedillo poling ---
Dr. Zimmerman signed a sworn affidavit regarding the Cedillo case.
I haven't found a transcription on the internet, so took the liberty of transcribing a few sentences from it, and providing an article which shows the link to the image of the affidavit.
Zimmerman was also involved in the Poling case, and maybe another one of the test cases.
Zimmerman was an expert witness for the government, but was dismissed during the Cedillo case.
The Poling case was supposed to be a test case, but it was settled.
The whole drama is too complicated for me to do justice in trying to summarize it, and I only learned about all the connections a few days ago. I will let the readers do that for themselves.
Here is the link to the statement:
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/425061-how-a-pro-vaccine-doctor-reopened-debate-ab out-link-to-autism
“My opinion as to Michelle Cedillo was case specific. I was only referring to the medical evidence that I had reviewed regarding her. My opinion regarding Michelle Cedillo was not intended to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science.”
“...there were exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism”
“...it was highly misleading for the Department of Justice to continue to use my original expert written opinion, as to Michelle Cedillo, as evidence against the remaining petitioners in the O. A. P...
“... omitting the caveat regarding exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccines do not cause autism. No proper scientific study (and if you even think of pulling Wakefield out of your ass, don’t bother) has yet found a direct causal link between vaccinations and autism. If and when one shows up, we can have a chat about that. Until then: Anecdotal experience, even one with a doctor’s supposed stamp of approval, is not empirical evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
I love your links to random quacks, opinion pieces and unverifiable anecdotes.
Do you have any evidence, though?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
Looks like you got your names mixed up.
Your links definitively show that it's Tara Zandvliet that's corrupt, not Dr. Zimmerman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
Huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
That doesn’t really prove anything. It has already been addressed here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
The link you gave regarding Dr. Andrew Zimmerman and the Cedillo case is titled: “Did the Government Censor an Expert Witness Who Changed His View on Vaccines?”
That article has a link within the sentence beginning with: “Zimmerman, a pediatric neurologist who studies autism spectrum disorders, initially submitted testimony”
That links to Autism Watch and shows an image of the report which is not converted to text so I can't copy it. I transcribed a quote from it.
A search for Zimmerman on Autism Watch gives: “Expert Reports from the Omnibus Autism Proceeding.”
The last sentence in Dr. Zimmerman's report on Michelle Cedillo is: "there is a genetic basis for autism in this child".
A google search for Dr. Zimmerman's final statement on Cedillo --- that "there is a genetic basis for autism in this child" gives 9 search results with articles relating to vaccines and autism.
None of those search results are government websites.
An additional note--- The Vaccine Court's Cedillo Ruling has the following statement:
"Dr. Zimmerman stated the opinion that the evidence does not support the proposition that the MMR vaccine can cause autism."
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf
A google search of that statement yields 3 results. One of those three search results is Techdirt.
The other two search results are not government links.
Conclusion:
It would be nice if the Government made this type of vaccine information directly available on their own websites instead of having to read it on non-government websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
Huh? I have no idea what point you think you’re making. I don’t even understand whether you agree, disagree, or are neutral towards me.
I will say this. You said that the statement, “Dr. Zimmerman stated the opinion that the evidence does not support the proposition that the MMR vaccine can cause autism,” cannot be found on a government website. However, the .pdf file you pulled that quote from comes from a government website. It just doesn’t seem to appear in Google Search results for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not really.
Uh, so are you saying that you were present at the time he made that affidavit and have a physical copy of it then? Because if you can't find a copy of it on the internet than that is the only way I see you having it. Either that or you are lying and got it off a news article that includes additional clarification that shows you are wrong, yet again, and so you don't want to link to it. Or you just suck at internet searches.
Dr. Zimmerman declared vaccines don't cause autism but in a follow up affidavit said that it was plausible vaccines could aggravate underlying conditions in a very select few (based on no actual studies) but were still safe for the vast majority. The government questionably decided to fire him over this and anti-vaxxers distorted this to mean he was saying vaccines cause autism, which he never said. I'd say that about sums it up. So why couldn't you do that?
That said, none of it proves you right and actually proves you wrong. Again.
That is contradictory to his statement in that case. In the Cedillo case, he stated that there was categorically no scientific evidence to support a link between vaccines and autism. So he is either confused or a liar and a quack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
Dr. Zimmerman was originally scheduled to testify in person in the Cedillo case. (Wed. June 13)
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/200706 13_cedillo_pps576-858.pdf
On Friday, June 15, one of the witnesses for Cedillo evidently had done some investigating on Zimmerman and brought up some research which Zimmerman's group had done on autism. Zimmerman was supposed to be a witness for the government, but Cedillo's team was trying to turn it around and use Zimmerman's background, and his evaluation of Michelle, to support the case for vaccines causing her autism.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/20070615_ cedillo_pps1024-1213.pdf
On Monday, June 18, it was announced in court that Zimmerman would not be testifying after all. Zimmerman's affidavit states that he was dismissed from the case, after he had given notice to HHS that he thought there were some cases in which vaccines could cause autism.
To try to salvage the situation, Cedillo's team questioned another Government witness about Zimmerman's written evaluation of Michelle which was supposed to have been entered into the record. The other state witness is clueless about Zimmerman's report, but at least the existence of Zimmerman's report has to be entered into the transcript now, because the hearing is on a live feed to outsiders.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/autism/OmnibusTrialsTranscripts/cedillo/20070618_ cedillo_pps1214-1557.pdf
Because the existence of Zimmerman's report is now on the record, the court has to cover its back, so distorts his report and twists it around to use as evidence not only against Cedillo, but applies it to everybody else in the future.
The following link shows the Court's interpretation of Zimmerman's evaluation of Michelle Cedillo's specific case.
The Ruling omitted that Zimmerman's evaluation had a caveat - there were exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism. He just wasn't going to attribute causation to the Cedillo case in particular.
The Ruling omitted the part of Zimmerman's statement which said there were exceptions to Michelle's case in which vaccinations could cause autism.
The wording of the Ruling implied Zimmerman's opinion regarding Michelle Cedillo was intended to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science.
The Department of Justice continued to use Zimmerman's original expert written opinion, as to Michelle Cedillo's specific case, (after deleting his opinion that vaccinations could autism in other cases besides Cedillo's case), as evidence against the remaining 5,000 petitioners who Zimmerman did not evaluate.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vaccine_files/Hastings-Cedillo.pdf
THE RESA CEDILLO v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
(Filed: February 12, 2009) To be published
DECISION HASTINGS, Special Master.
Another pediatric neurologist with extensive experience with autism, Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, also filed an expert report for respondent. Dr. Zimmerman stated the opinion that the evidence does not support the proposition that the MMR vaccine can cause autism.
After some length of time, and for various reasons, in 2018, Dr. Zimmerman signed an affidavit correcting the statements attributed to him in the Vaccine Court ruling of 2007. He said it was highly misleading.
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/425061-how-a-pro-vaccine-doctor-reopened-debate-about-link-t o-autism
“My opinion as to Michelle Cedillo was case specific. I was only referring to the medical evidence that I had reviewed regarding her. My opinion regarding Michelle Cedillo was not intended to be a blanket statement as to all children and all medical science.”
“...there were exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism”
“...it was highly misleading for the Department of Justice to continue to use my original expert written opinion, as to Michelle Cedillo, as evidence against the remaining petitioners in the O. A. P...
“... omitting the caveat regarding exceptions in which vaccinations could cause autism.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
'Sup liar.
Why you still here, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connection
What lie are you talking about?
This information is from the U. S. Government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connecti
You're joking, right?
Try every single post you have made to this thread. (Including "This information is from the U.S. Government!")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Zimmerman - Cedillo - Poling connecti
As I’ve already pointed out, you’re mischaracterizing that information. And The Hill is not a government source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I mean, you just claimed the government lied about Dr. Zimmerman. So, can you explain why the information should only be trusted when it supports your argument but not ours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting Pharma, Protecting Children
Looks good to me.
S.371 - A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to ensure an adequate supply of vaccines.108th Congress (2003-2004)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/03/27/2019-05618/national-vaccine-injury -compensation-program-statement-of-reasons-for-not-conducting-rulemaking
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: Statement of Reasons for Not Conducting Rulemaking Proceedings
A Proposed Rule by the Health and Human Services Department on 03/27/2019
In accordance with the Public Health Service Act, notice is hereby given concerning the reasons for not conducting rulemaking proceedings to add autism, asthma, and tics as injuries associated with vaccines to the Vaccine Injury Table (Table)...
Furthermore, a number of professional and international organizations have reviewed the evidence and also concluded that there is no association with vaccines and autism. These organizations include: the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, Canadian National Advisory Committee on Immunization, and the Department of Health of the United Kingdom. In summary, current scientific evidence does not support a causal association between vaccinations and autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wh…why would you post something that rips apart your own case?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'again' you mean?
Given the number of times people have pointed out that the very sources they are quoting/pointing to contradicts/disproves their claims I think it's pretty clear by now that they aren't actually reading any of their own sources in their entirety(if at all), they're just latching on to a handful of keywords and going from there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Protecting Pharma, Protecting Children
…and your point is…?
I mean, it says right there that there is no evidence supporting a causal association between vaccines and autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Protecting Pharma, Protecting Children
You do know that autism has been listed as a post -approval side effect in the Tripedia vaccine insert...
And, they are not allowed to put that side effect in there unless it is reasonable to think that it is a legit side effect.
Look at the federal law if you want to understand how a post-approval side effects get on a package inserts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the scientific study that proves the Tripedia vaccine causes autism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They never did one. Autism is just listed during post-approval along the SIDS. They did do a study showing the deaths of SIDS. the results are on tripedia manufacturers slip.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah so not only is there no proof that it causes autism, there isn't even any evidence of it. Why are we still here?
Yes. As things that happened after receiving the vaccine, not BECAUSE they received the vaccine. They technically could include car crashes and bad grades at school on that list and it would mean about as much.
Woopty freaking do. They also said it wasn't necessarily because of the vaccine. Just that it was "by chance".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think you need to take a moment and go look at the federal law that explains the rules of post marketing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As the one making the claim, that would be up to you. Especially since you haven’t really given us much to work from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually I think YOU need to review the federal law/s that explains the rules.
The majority of post-marketing surveillance is done by voluntary reporting and as such is NOT accepted as stringent medical evidence that is required to be placed in a manufacturer packet. Programs like VAERS, Medwatch, and VSD are all voluntary reporting and are great for spotting potential issues but they are not concrete records of absolute harm caused by vaccines.
If you don't believe me, then perhaps you will believe the guy that reported to VAERS that a vaccine turned him into The Incredible Hulk. Yeah, someone submitted that to VAERS and it was accepted.
So please, do tell me exactly what I'm missing in the laws regulating post-marketing of vaccines. I REALLY want to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tripedia package insert
Tripedia package insert
https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/assets/pdf/tripedia.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Woopty freaking do.
Nothing in there supports your argument that vaccines are not safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, it is NOT listed as a side effect in the insert. It is listed as an adverse event. A car crash would also be a post-approval adverse event. But I'm pretty sure no one would say vaccines have a side effect of car crashes.
That insert also lists the following immediately after that list of "adverse events":
So in other words, there is no data to suggest that the vaccine caused any of them and people could be lying or reporting falsely or have had some other event between receiving the vaccine and developing those symptoms that could have caused it.
Well, it's a good thing they don't list as a side effect then. See above.
And you should try learning reading comprehension to understand that adverse events are not the same as side effects, and that none of those adverse events are directly attributable to the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give anti-vaxxers enough time and they will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Homeopaths (antivaxxers' idiological siblings) are almost there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wait, are you sure that’s not a joke? I know homeopathy is junk science, but this is ridiculous. Even if homeopathy had some basis in fact (it does not), and even ignoring the small sample size for the “study”, neither the “active ingredient”, the alleged effect, nor the desired effect even makes sense under the terms of homeopathy. Even compared to any homeopathic remedy, this seems like quack science. Actually, it seems more like voodoo science than quack science.
At any rate, to be fair to anti-vaxxers for a moment, their fears are at least based loosely on facts. Setting aside the alleged link to autism, a lot of it just seems to be based off of an inability to rationally judge the risks involved. There are some individuals among them that stick to package inserts, statements from the FDA and CDC, and legitimate studies; they just have unrealistic expectations for vaccines and downplay the chances of catching the disease. And even with the link to autism, you have to do some actual research to see why that claim is bogus. Homeopathy is fundamentally impossible on its face without doing any additional research into the specific remedies or “experiments”.
Furthermore, the anti-vaxxer movement is primarily based off of fears and emotional arguments. It also is more against a particular remedy. Homeopathy is junk science too, but it is less against any particular remedy and more of a proposal for an alternative remedy. It’s also marginally less inherently harmful, as the only danger from homeopathy is if it is done to the exclusion of fact-based medicine, and it really only affects the true believers. Generally, homeopathic remedies in and of themselves are completely harmless and no worse than a placebo. The dangers of not getting vaccinated are much worse and affect more than just those within the movement.
I’d say they’re more like cousins than siblings. Both are complete garbage and at least partially based on distrust of at least some science-based medicines, but those are pretty much the only similarities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"as the only danger from homeopathy is if it is done to the exclusion of fact-based medicine"
Well, yes and no. On its fact, homeopathy is harmless nonsense where if people wanted to take what's essentially a placebo on top of regular medicine there would be no problem. The placebo effect alone could actually help the real medicine work faster.
Unfortunately, like all quacks, they don't want their "medicine" examined as such. So, while they fight for it to be recognised as an actual type of medicine, they also fight against it being regulated as a medicine. The results of them being successful? Occasionally a bad batch will get through that's not been diluted enough and contains a decent amount of the supposed active ingredient. Great when the ingredient is a reasonably beneficial source of nutrients or natural actual medicine. Not so great when it's arsenic or deadly nightshade extract.
As stupid as homeopathy is, when done wrong it has actually killed people. Not as many as the anti-vaxxers will, but it's not a number of zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. I forgot about that. I should clarify. If done right and taken in addition to evidence-based medicine, there is nothing inherently harmful about homeopathy in itself, as stupid as it is. It’s basically just a placebo. It’s the other stuff that is not part of the core principles of homeopathy (lack of regulation or scientific rigor; bad batches; telling them to avoid real doctors) that is dangerous.
By contrast, just within the core tenets of the anti-vaccine movement, the proposed actions are inherently dangerous. Even disregarding the more extreme views within the movement, just the moderate parts are still dangerous.
Plus, as you noted, anti-vaxxers have a higher death toll than homeopaths.
But yeah, there is definitely a darker side to homeopathy. And even the moderates are mostly if not entirely quacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you even read your stuff before you post it? As others have noted, this doesn't support you, it proves you wrong. It's right there in the text you copied and pasted:
I'll just go ahead and answer my own question. No, you don't read what you post before you post it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
147 papers
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link?fbclid=I wAR0NThADAnqfFAbIyAs-VVoFxsfQU_jUqpycsOlo6BJeoTrpeGxJE_AOVo0&campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1x x&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate
This might interest this group.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It does not. And most of those either don't support your argument or have serious flaws and/or questionable researchers doing the studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correct title is 157 research papers
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link?fbclid=I wAR0NThADAnqfFAbIyAs-VVoFxsfQU_jUqpycsOlo6BJeoTrpeGxJE_AOVo0&campaign=VigLink&ad_group=xxc1x x&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate
This might interest you....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
I didn't go through all of them, but they seem to be about thimerosol (ethyl mercury), which has been or is being removed from vaccines. There seems to be enough evidence of the possibility of harm to take at least that step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
I agree.
Did you know when they took most of the thimerosal out of the routine child vaccinations they soon added the flu vaccine to the childhood schedule starting at 6 months and those do have thimerosal in them to this day.
They give the flu vaccine to pregnant women and there's never been any study saying that safe. ( flu vaccines still have thimerosal)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
Sorry for the grammar. I am typing on a small phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, they don't:
It's pretty much only in multi-dose vials because it's necessary and the vast majority are single dose, which are thimerasol free.
Because A) there are flu vaccines that don't contain it, and B) thimerasol was never proven to be harmful, they just removed it to appease the anti-vaxx crowd. Congratulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copy pasted the wrong link for the link on what the flu vaccine supply will be for this season. Below is the correct link:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaxsupply.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that’s the exact same link, dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, they are both this link: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/thimerosal.htm
The second one (about the vast majority are single dose) was supposed to be this one: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaxsupply.htm
Same primary site (cdc.gov) but different sections with different information. The first link doesn't give any information on what the breakdown in flu vaccine supply (thimerosal free or not) is going to be this year. The second one does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
No. There was zero merit to claims against Thimerosal; it was removed solely to humor the cultists, who instead moved on to the next ingredient in the list as their boogeyman.
In doing so, this harmed those who needed the vaccines, as thimerosal helped make multi-dose vials safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
I definitely disagree with your findings.
What study was done showing that thimerosal is safe to inject in humans??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
Try chemistry and biology 101.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
Dude, thimerosal is a neurotoxin even in small doses.
Here are a few studies.. There are tons more out there.
http://thinktwice.com/studies_mercury.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
I mean, besides the whole linking-to-yet-another-fraud-based-website with its "Thimerosal contains mercury!" intentionally-misleading fearmongering, It's just another list of debunked sham studies by quacks same as everything else you've vomited up here.
Here's just one of those fakes being ripped apart by an actual expert
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only by ingestion, inhalation, or skin contact. By injection it is metabolized and the body removes it relatively quickly, resulting in a much lower toxicity level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal
Yes, and? Some of those are not reliable.
Yes there are, most of which say it's safe for use in vaccine injections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because Thimerosal's mercury =/= mercury that accumulates in the body to cause brain damage.
In much the same way table salt doesn't cause you to explode and burn like its raw elemental components would.
Relevant thimerosal info from a fact based source: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%2520blood%2520%26%2520biologics/pub lished/Understanding-Thimerosal--Mercury--and-Vaccine-Safety.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiNpYDM3NTlA hWxuFkKHTzdCR4QFjABegQIChAB&usg=AOvVaw2xZlEr9yALkwK27W43icER
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s almost like the body metabolizes ions differently from pure elements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
btw the Geier guy who is doing a lot of these vaccine/autism studies had his medical license revoked. Sounds familiar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
But not surprising, considering antivaxxism is antithetical to medical expertise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are entitled to ignore well established facts and reality.
Well, I mean:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/publications.html
https://www.cdc.gov/va ccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/faq s.html
That first link has around a dozen different studies referenced. And those are just ones referenced by the CDC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
My understanding is multi-dose vials still contain thimerosol, for whatever reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which will account for around 15% of the total flu vaccine supply in the 2019-2020 season. 85% or more will be thimerosal free: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaxsupply.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
"for whatever reason"
The reason being that it's actually the best preservative available for certain types of medicine, and nobody's ever shown that it's a problem apart from scientifically ignorant anti-vaxxers who lost their shit when they saw the word "mercury" without understanding its actual makeup. It was removed from medicines that didn't actually need it, but since we've seen that they won't be appeased and will just jump on to the conspiracy theory, it's prudent to keep it where it really is still the best option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
Last I saw, the current boogeyman ingredient is aluminum adjuvants.
Like thimerosal before it, there are as yet no nonfraudulent studies claiming it to be harmful. (Perhaps when those trying to prove such claims no longer need to rely on photoshop to do so...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Correct title is 157 research papers
Actually, they just did that to shut people up.
However, it is true that, since thimerosol is no longer being used in vaccines, any potential danger it may or may not pose is a moot point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Multi-volume study on the existence of Elves
This is equally-substantial proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What vaccine package insert did you guys read?
What manufacturers insert did y'all read?
In the clinical trials how long did they monitor adverse events?
What was the placebo?
What was the chances of serious adverse events?
How many side effects were recorded in post-marketing experience and what are the chances of getting those side effects?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, anti-vaxx guy!
I give talks in schools and flyers in supermarkets, too.
Thousands of parents walk up to me, total strangers, just to tell me how grateful they are they got their kids vaccinated.
Up yours, nurgler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Okay, I’ve been seeing “nurgler” and “nurgle science” all over this thread. What the hell does it mean, and where did it come from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From here:
https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Nurgle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because the sole possible outcome (and thus, logically, the primary motivation) of antivaxxism is to wantonly cause an increase in the needless suffering of the innocent, it makes sense to point out that their faith-based movement amounts to idolatry of pestilence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's much the same with related idiologies like anti-abortion, anti-NN, anti-gun, anti-immigrant, anti-climate-science, anti-gay, and anti-Liberal: A handful of profiteers catefully cultivate a malicious ignorance in the stupid part of the population, that blossoms into irrational fear and hatred that in some cases incites attacks, sometimes violent, against a hallucinatory "enemy."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More info on harms caused by Measles: As Measles infects and ravages immune system cells, victims lose 11-73% of stored antibody types, and in some cases having their immune systems in a weakened state for up to 5 years after- leading to increased vulnerability to being harmed by secondary infections that previously would have been harmless. Which is why Measles was attributed to 50% of deaths-by-infectious-disease in children before the vaccine vame out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Remember: While forst-eotld medical care can treat your measles symptoms enough to keep you from dying it can't stop you from suffering the long-term-to-permanent damage like this that measles causes. (Whereas not getting Measles at all, something you can only guarantee with a properl-vaccinated population, can.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine Injury Attorneys
If you have been injured by a vaccine, you can google --- vaccine injury attorneys
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=5mrFXdm_MIj45gL-n6awBg&q=vaccine+injury +attorneys&oq=vaccine+injury+attorneys&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30l9.2787.7769..8063...0.0..0.8 0.1346.24......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j0i10.x8vYELVqWxE&ved=0ahUKEwjZysDT2drlAhUIvFkKHf6PCWY Q4dUDCAs&uact=5#spf=1573219055216
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccine Injury Attorneys
There's no shortage of unscupulous lawyers eager for rubes to milk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vaccine Injury Attorneys
Are you saying that if your baby was injured by a vaccine, you would try to find an unscrupulous lawyer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injury Attorneys
Are you saying that if your baby was injured by a vaccine, you would try to find an unscrupulous lawyer?
You can't be this dense. He is obviously saying that there are tons of unscrupulous lawyers willing to milk ignorant people who insist -- without evidence -- that vaccines harmed their children in fruitless efforts to try to get some form of compensation for something that clearly has nothing to do with vaccines.
I have asked you previously to stop pushing nonsense on our site. I am asking again. Stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injury Attorneys
Thanks for the explanation.
http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/GUIDELINES%20FOR%20PRACTICE%20-%208.2 2.2019.pdf
To ensure that vaccine claimants have readily available a competent bar to prosecute their claims, Congress provided for the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The Vaccine Act provides for an award of fees in a majority of cases, regardless of whether the petitioner prevails, and thus counsel may neither pursue nor accept funds from petitioner in addition to or in lieu of the fees and costs awarded under the Vaccine Program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injury Attorneys
And your point is…?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injury Attorneys
That he believes that giving aid to people is wrong and that he'd prefer people to be maimed and slaughtered by preventable diseases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
We should investigate vaccine injury claims as a pose to dismissing them.
If I walked into my house and saw my husband dead on the floor and I see his fiend Bob running out the back door we don't throw are hands up in the air and say correlation is not equal to causation and never ask questions or investigate..
We have hundreds of thousands of people claiming to be injured. Shouldn't we investigate????
Doctors say that vaccines didn't cause the injury but they never investe. It was only after I was injured multiple times that the doctor said holy cow these things are making you sick and now I have doctors backing me and circumstantial evidence.... I can't prove causation but I have lots of evidence.
When you never investigate, it looks like you have a perfectly safe product.
If a woman is assaulted do the cops tell her no prove it or do they do an investigation????
Most doctors refuse to investigate because they are afraid of what they might find no matter how big or small it might be.
How do you think companies figure out that they have a bad product on the market? It's the people using the products that tell them that something terrible is happening.... You sound like the doctors who refused to believe that Thalidomide was damaging pregnant women and their babies. Those doctors said that it was just a coincidence too.. The doctors refused to investigate.....
Babies are getting vaccines and then hours later having seizures how can you dismiss that the vaccine caused it and if it is not the vaccine than what is it?? They just keep saying everything is a coincidence but how do you know unless you do an investigation.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Mike I don't know how old you are but I would guess that you have only had a fraction of shots that kids born today get.... Until you are up to date on your shots and boosters you too are considered an ant-vaxxer..
Get the shots that the kids get and then we can talk.. Don't forget the adault boosters.
Hep B
DTaP
IPV polio
PVC pneumococcal
Rotavirus
Yearly flu shot
Chicken pox then shingrix as an adult
Meningococcal
MMR and boosters because the mumps portion wanes fast.
Gardasil now approved for men and women up to the age of 45.
Are you going to get the HIV vaccine when it comes out?
I do not believe that we should be forced or coerced into taking a medical procedure when there is risk of injury or death.. why should I be forced to take a vaccine for an immune-compromised individual (the greater good) why is there health more important than mine??? And remember thanks to vaccines mothers lack passive immunity to protect their babies but knowone wants to talk about that elephant.
What do you think? Do you want medical freadom?
If you say it's ok to be coerced into taking these vaccines for school and work then what else is it going to be and how many more vaccines are going to come?
Do you really want the government to decide what gets injected into your body?
Do you really want the state to coerce you into taking a vaccine for school or work?
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html
And last, I cannot believe that you want to stop this conversation.. Don't you think its important to understand why people are saying no to a product.. Don't YOU want medical freedom because when you say it's ok for a few shots then the doors left wide open for more.
Look into the past mistakes with the polio vaccines, MMR vaccine that caused meningitis, Anthrax vaccine, H1N1 debacle, and the problems with DPT and DTaP to name a few... They all said whoops my bad.. It happens way more than you think.. How much cancer is a result of vaccines? We don't have good data because they don't want to know the answer.
Thanks for reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
This has all been discussed and debunked somewhere in the above 700 comments. You are wrong, and you are killing people --and repeating debunked talking point over and over and over and over again does not help. Stop it and stop passing misinformation on my site. Go educate yourself -- and not on conspiracy sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
1.vaccines do kill an injury this has not been debunked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
I want you to stop spewing utter nonsense that has no scientific basis.
Vaccines save lives. There are a few, very rare, cases where they can cause injury, but those are extremely rare and not at all as common as you idiots pretend. Seriously: you are killing people. Stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
You think that vaccine injuries are rare.. How are vaccine injuries being tracked for you to say that its rare??? Where is the data??
You can't keep saying that vaccine injuries are rare but you have to have data to support that claim.
Show me the data that it's rare!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can’t keep saying vaccine injuries are common without presenting data to prove it. You haven’t done that. You’ve only made a lot of appeals to emotion with anecdotes. Show us hard, factual, empirical evidence that proves the commonality of vaccine injuries. Otherwise, fuck off back to your measles epidemics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
I’ve already provided a source for the claim that vaccine injuries are rare. If you want to convince us otherwise, it’s up to you to provide the data, not us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/health/vaccine-injury-claims.html
https://www.hrsa.gov /vaccine-compensation/data/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
Who ever hid my post is a coward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
Nah, they're just tired of countering your dangerous lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccines are failing! Look at what happend with DPT or DTaP
“This disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it,” said Christopher J. Gill, associate professor of global health and lead author of the article. “Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may made some crucial errors. This is definitely not where we thought we’d be in 2017.”
https://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/09/21/resurgence-of-whooping-cough-may-owe-to-vaccines-inabilit y-to-prevent-infections/
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article
"Most pediatric cases were vaccinated according to national recommendations, although 9% of those aged 6 months to 18 years were completely unvaccinated against pertussis."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22819634/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike Vaccines do kill and injure
“This disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it,” said Christopher J. Gill, associate professor of global health and lead author of the article. “Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may made some crucial errors. This is definitely not where we thought we’d be in 2017.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, nurgler.
Why don't you go and tell all those parents who are now scrambling over themselves to get their kids vaccinated for measles, after they listened to your advice until their kids got measles, that they should stop listening to the government and let their sick kids continue to be sick, and double down just like you have?
Ready to go all the way for your cause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If parents wants to run out and get their kids vaccinated for measles that's their choice.... What I am saying is to let everyone have a choice and stop mandating. I talked to many people about their measles experience. They said they got measles and got over it... Out of the millions of people in the US who used to get the measles very few died... three to four million people would get measles every year and about three to four hundred would die and that's before we knew how to treat it with vitamin A.. Look on the CDC.
Do you think we should have a choice of what gets injected into our bodies or should we be forced and cohorst? Because I'm pretty sure that goes against the Nuremberg code.
Why don't we figure out why a few hundred were dying of the measles instead of vaccinating a few million... you are medicating the masses to save a few and dismissing the deaths and injuries from the vaccines.
The data is showing that we are trading temporary disease for long-term chronic illness..
We keep giving more more vaccines to her children but their health keeps declining..
We are watching our children's health decline after each vaccine and told that its normal... It's not normal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If parents wants to run out and get their kids vaccinated for measles that's their choice"
Not if their choice causes someone else who can't be vaccinated to be injured or killed by a preventable disease, which is guaranteed if enough of you morons believe in junk science.
The rest if your comment suggests you're not knowledgeable about actual science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why should I put my child at risk for vaccine injury because someone else's child is sick... Why is their health more important than my kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should someone’s unable-to-be-vaccinated child be put at risk for a potentially fatal disease because your child has it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Why should I put my child at risk for vaccine injury because someone else's child is sick."
Probably because your unvaccinate kid is the disease carrier who introduced it in the first place.
"Why is their health more important than my kids?"
Why is the health of other peoples' kids who can get vaccinated for genuine reasons less important than your kids' rights to carry disease?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If your kids are vaccinated, assuming for the sake of argument that the vaccines don’t do absolutely nothing, the worst case scenario is that only your kids are injured by the vaccine.
If your kids are not vaccinated, the worst case scenario means that your kids and anyone unable to be vaccinated who comes near your kids or anywhere they’ve been are all injured by the disease that the vaccine protects against.
It’s not that your kids’ health is less important than anyone else’s. It’s that your unsubstantiated fears about what the risks may be are less important than the very real, proven risks that not being vaccinated (other than for valid medical reasons known beforehand) poses to not only your children but to others around them.
Again, if there is a valid medical reason to believe that the vaccine poses a substantially larger than average risk of causing a major injury to your children, you can get a valid medical exemption from receiving one or more vaccines (depending on the reason) for your children. Otherwise, there is no good reason to believe that being vaccinated poses a greater risk to your kids than the disease would pose to both your kids and others if they do not get vaccinated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How many people are out there that "can't get a vaccine" because my husband had stage 4 brain cancer and was doing chemotherapy and radiation and they STILL wanted him to get a flu vaccine....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know exactly, but I know it’s substantially more than 0.
As we’ve already said, stage 4 brain cancer, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy don’t increase the risk of injury from the particular flu vaccine they would be administering. They’d only be using dead viruses, which have no chance of causing the disease even in a weakened immune system, which in turn is the reason why your husband would be exempt from many other vaccines (the ones that contain live but weakened viruses). The only significant adverse reaction that could be caused by the flu vaccine in question would be an allergic reaction, and neither cancer nor the treatments for cancer would increase that particular risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gotta love those own-goals
From a comment above, which itself was quoting a CDC article on the disease in question:
'In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles.'
No, they're actually kinda right that time though they're off by roughly a hundred, skipping right past that the number of people hospitalized were in the tens of thousands, and ignoring the fact that the fatalities used to be in the thousands in the early 1900's when the numbers were first tracked, but yet again they've presented an argument that really doesn't help them.
The fact that 'several hundred people died on a yearly basis before vaccines were rolled out' is dismissed as 'very few' is really not the argument to make if they want to garner sympathy for their position, especially as they've been trying to do so by pointing to individuals who were claimed to have been injured, rather than killed, by vaccines and measles respectively.
Kinda hard(read: impossible) to take seriously claims/arguments that your objections to vaccines is based upon the concern for the welfare of people who might be 'injured' via vaccines when you brush off literally hundreds of deaths on a yearly basis as 'not very many'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you'd rather yell on the Internet than take concrete action. Why not tell all the parents that measles isn't worth worrying about? Why not tell them their kids will get better? Why not tell them that getting the vaccine will doom their sick kids to permanent injury? Ah, right. Because you're a bully who would rather scream at the "unwoke" faceless on the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's best to look at the vital statistics
" It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles."
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And how many people die each year from the measles vaccine? I suspect the number won’t be in the hundreds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Funny how none of the advocates of natural methods aren't all volunteering themselves to get measles, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is true. That’s still more than the number of people who’ve died from or been injured by vaccines (any vaccine) in a year. At the very least, you haven’t proven that the latter quantity is greater than the number of deaths and injuries from the disease. Again, that’s up to you to prove.
Furthermore, the risk of injury from a vaccine is a lot more manageable (via medical exemptions) than the risk of injury or death from the measles. In many cases, it’s pretty easy to predict which individuals could plausibly be severely injured or killed by a given vaccine, and we have full control over whether these at-risk individuals are exposed to the vaccines. That is decidedly not the case for the diseases they prevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We’ve already explained to you over and over and over again why that’s a bad idea, which I can summarize as herd immunity and relative risks.
First of all, it’s “coerced”, not “cohorst”.
Second, as we’ve already told you over and over and over again, we strongly feel that the latter is the better option. We’ve also provided our reasoning for that over and over and over again.
Third, as I’ve already asked, please explain exactly what part of the Nuremberg Code would prohibit this.
I’ve asked you several times to explain exactly how that information would be useful. You still haven’t answered.
I’m not “dismissing the deaths and injuries from the vaccines”. I’m just saying that you haven’t demonstrated that they outnumber the deaths and injuries from the diseases they prevent, which is what would be needed to change my mind about mandating vaccines.
[citation needed]
[The plaintiff provides no support for these allegations, and so they must be dismissed.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We do have a choice. No one is forcing you to get a vaccine. We just all think you're an idiot for it.
No, the Nuremberg code deals with human experimentation. It has nothing to do with a vaccine that has already gone through medical trials and been approved by the FDA.
Uh, according to the data, kids are healthier and more likely to survive into adulthood than they were 70-100 years ago, before vaccines.
What's not normal is that you think children are getting sicker and sicker as time goes on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go get the HPV shot and get back to me.
You men should definitely get the HPV vaccine called Gardicil and new Hep B shot because you never know what could happen. I had a male friend who was attacked and contracted Hep B... Even if you are 45 you should still get it. No reason to take a chance.. I mean ALL vaccines are Safe and Effective right?
Don't forget the adault boosters.
Hep B
DTaP
IPV polio
PVC pneumococcal
Rotavirus
Yearly flu shot
Chicken pox then shingrix as an adult
Meningococcal
MMR and boosters because the mumps portion wanes fast.
Gardasil now approved for men and women up to the age of 45.
Are y'all up to date on your Hep - A? You never know when there could be a problem.
https://www.nj.com/news/2019/11/hundreds-wait-in-long-lines-for-vaccines-during-hepatitis-a -scare.html
Heck let's make everyone get vaccines as a condition of driving and flying like they did in Argentina because that type of mandate can't ever go wrong.
How many vaccines are ok to coerce as a condition of school and work?
What is the accepted collateral damage to vaccines?
What is the percentage of people that you are okay to die for the greater good because they took a vaccine?
How many vaccine injuries are you guys okay with?
How are vaccine injuries and deaths tracked?
Do you think we should have a choice to say yes or no to vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go get the HPV shot and get back to me.
Other than the question of whether we should have a choice (to which the answer is no, like we’ve already said dozens of times), I have no particular need to address any of your questions individually. They all come down to, “What is the highest level of acceptable risk for vaccines?”
Essentially, it’s whatever the plausible risk from the diseases they prevent would be if vaccines aren’t administered.
Since you haven’t provided any data for an exact number of deaths or injuries from vaccines, I’m just going to go by what the CDC says, which is that they are rare. If you have a problem with that, provide data to refute that. It’s not my job to prove your point.
As for how they are tracked, that’s, again, your problem, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Did you just assume the gender of everyone in this comment thread? Bold of you.
I'm currently scheduled to. I'll let you know afterward if I turn into a blithering idiot or not.
Yep!
I've received all of those except Hep A/B and as stated I am scheduled to get them. The reason why I'm only getting them now instead of much earlier is because my parents were quasi-anti-vaxxers. They had me get some but not all of them. I got lucky I never got chicken pox until I managed to get vaccinated.
As many as are applicable and sensible given your field of work. Do you work in a hospital? Yeah, you get all of them.
Anything less than what is caused by the disease itself.
Anything less than the number that would have died without the vaccine.
Anything less than the injuries caused by the actual disease.
Yes, and you do. However you should NOT have a choice to put someone else's health at risk because you are a moron. This is why it is illegal to drink and drive. You are putting other people at risk because of your stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
10 People Hospitalized After They Were Accidentally Injected Wit
Mistakes made when it comes to vaccines so shouldn't we have the choice to say no? Stop forcing and mandating vaccines as a condition of work and school.
10 People Hospitalized After They Were Accidentally Injected With Insulin Instead of Flu Vaccine
https://time.com/5722438/pharmacist-accidentally-injects-insulin-flu-shot/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You shouldn’t have that choice when it risks the health and well-being of other people. If you’re smoking a cigarette near co-workers, you’re making their situation worse. Why should you have the right to force them into breathing secondhand smoke?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You have this false belief that an unvaccinated person is automatically dangerous...
A person that just got vaccinated can spread the measles.
A vaccinated person can spread Measles by being an asymptomatic carrier of the disease.
An adult who got the MMR shot as a child can get and spread the disease because the vaccine wanes.
An unvaccinated person who has an active infectious should be careful of who they are around because they too can spread the disease...
I can tell you that vaccinated people don't give a $#!++ about spreading their diseases.. I have an autoimmune disorder that occurred from a vaccine and now I cannot ever be vaccinated and I tell people all the time let me know if you are sick so I don't go around you.... They don't care... I am always getting sick from the vaccinated... The unvaccinated in the other hand a rarely sick and if they do have the sniffles for two days they let me know..... The vaccinated are way sicker than the unvaccinated.
Take a look at whats happening with the DTaP vaccine.. Fully vaccinated groups are testing positive.. They are silent carriers of the disease....
With measles y'all think just because you don't see spots that the vaccinated are not spreading disease. You are mistaken look at the documents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence. Again.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An unvaccinated person risks their health every time they go out in public. They also risk the health of other people by being a potential carrier of diseases such as measles. They could be the Patient Zero of an epidemic and not even know it. Herd immunity could’ve protected them from measles all their lives — until they went outside the herd, that is.
Some people cannot receive vaccinations for medical reasons. Such people should not have vaccines forced upon them. But anyone who can get vaccines should get them. Someone who can be vaccinated but chooses to remain unvaccinated, or chooses to keep their kids unvaccinated, should learn to deal with the social consequences of their choice. They brought those consequences upon themselves.
Also:
Two things.
Prove that statement with empirical evidence. Otherwise…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unvaccinated kids tend to catch the disease and have life long immunity we are good.
Chicken pox - no problem
Whooping cough - no problem
Mumps - good there
Measles - life long immunity and passed protection on to my baby through passive immunity so again all good.
But, I did get a flu vaccine because it was required for work and now I have permanent nerve damage and autoimmune disorders. Now I am so immune compromised that I can never get a vaccine again... so now everybody is getting a vaccine because I can't.. Come on this is madness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Madness?
This.
Is.
SPARTA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Unvaccinated kids tend to catch the disease and have life long immunity we are good.
Assuming they don't die and/or you're fine watching them suffer for potentially months at a time rather than have to suffer the terrible fate of a momentary prick of pain and an almost minuscule chance for an adverse reaction that will at it's worst likely not come close to how bad the disease is...
From a quick search of the CDC's site, some information you could have found with trivial effort if you actually wanted to be informed:
Chicken Pox
'Chickenpox is a highly contagious disease caused by the varicella-zoster virus (VZV). It can cause an itchy, blister-like rash. The rash first appears on the chest, back, and face, and then spreads over the entire body, causing between 250 and 500 itchy blisters. Chickenpox can be serious, especially in babies, adolescents, adults, pregnant women, and people with a weakened immune system. The best way to prevent chickenpox is to get the chickenpox vaccine.
Chickenpox used to be very common in the United States. In the early 1990s, an average of 4 million people got chickenpox, 10,500 to 13,000 were hospitalized, and 100 to 150 died each year.
Chickenpox vaccine became available in the United States in 1995. Each year, more than 3.5 million cases of chickenpox, 9,000 hospitalizations, and 100 deaths are prevented by chickenpox vaccination in the United States.
Serious complications from chickenpox include:
-Bacterial infections of the skin and soft tissues in children, including Group A streptococcal infections
-Infection of the lungs (pneumonia)
-Infection or inflammation of the brain (encephalitis, cerebellar ataxia)
-Bleeding problems (hemorrhagic complications)
-Bloodstream infections (sepsis)
-Dehydration
Some people with serious complications from chickenpox can become so sick that they need to be hospitalized. Chickenpox can also cause death.
Deaths are very rare now due to the vaccine program. However, some deaths from chickenpox continue to occur in healthy, unvaccinated children and adults. In the past, many of the healthy adults who died from chickenpox contracted the disease from their unvaccinated children.'
Whooping cough
'-Coughing fits due to pertussis infection can last for up to 10 weeks or more; some people know this disease as the “100 day cough.”
-Pertussis can cause serious illness in people of all ages and can even be life-threatening, especially in babies.
-Approximately half of babies less than 1 year old who get pertussis need treatment in the hospital.
-Worldwide, there are an estimated 24.1 million cases of pertussis and about 160,700 deaths per year, according to a recent publication modeling these data.'
Mumps
'Mumps is best known for the puffy cheeks and tender, swollen jaw that it causes. This is a result of swollen salivary glands under the ears on one or both sides, often referred to as parotitis.
Other symptoms that might begin a few days before parotitis include:
-Fever
-Headache
-Muscle aches
-Tiredness
-Loss of appetite
Some people who get mumps have very mild symptoms (like a cold), or no symptoms at all and may not know they have the disease.
In rare cases, mumps can cause more severe complications.'
What are those complications you might ask?
'Mumps can occasionally cause complications, especially in adults.
Complications can include:
-inflammation of the testicles (orchitis) in males who have reached puberty; this may lead to a decrease in testicular size (testicular atrophy)
-inflammation of the ovaries (oophoritis) and/or breast tissue (mastitis)
-inflammation in the pancreas (pancreatitis)
-inflammation of the brain (encephalitis)
-inflammation of the tissue covering the brain and spinal cord (meningitis)
-deafness'
Measles
This one's been covered to death over a number of comments(including the significant number of deaths it's caused historically), so I'll just copy over what they have on the complications page, one of which is very noteworthy given the 'vaccine causes autism' crap that's been thrown out(I'll let you figure out which it is).
Common Complications
-Ear infections occur in about one out of every 10 children with measles and can result in permanent hearing loss.
-Diarrhea is reported in less than one out of 10 people with measles.
Severe Complications in Children and Adults
Some people may suffer from severe complications, such as pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and encephalitis (swelling of the brain). They may need to be hospitalized and could die.
-About 1 in 5 unvaccinated people in the U.S. who get measles hospitalized.
-About 1 child out of every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis (swelling of the brain) that can lead to convulsions and can leave the child deaf or with intellectual disability.
-Nearly 1 to 3 of every 1,000 children who become infected with measles will die from respiratory and neurologic complications.
-Measles may cause pregnant women who have not had the MMR vaccine to give birth prematurely, or have a low-birth-weight baby.
Long-term Complications
Subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) is a very rare, but fatal disease of the central nervous system that results from a measles virus infection acquired earlier in life.
-SSPE generally develops 7 to 10 years after a person has measles, even though the person seems to have fully recovered from the illness.
-Since measles was eliminated in 2000, SSPE is rarely reported in the United States.
-Among people who contracted measles during the resurgence in the United States in 1989 to 1991, 4 to 11 out of every 100,000 were estimated to be at risk for developing SSPE.
-The risk of developing SSPE may be higher for a person who gets measles before they are 2 years of age.
If you can read the above and still think that the diseases you listed are 'no big deal' and something kids can just suffer through as opposed to getting vaccinated against you are either a troll or a seriously warped and disturbed individual with absolutely insane standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Damn, you were just a little bit quicker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A bit, though your unvaccinated/vaccinated comparison was a good one, and it's not like there's such a thing as too much information to counter insanely stupid and dangerous ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the nonfictional world:
Varicella/VZV:
Pertussis:
Mumps:
Measles:
Flu:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Unvaccinated kids tend to catch the disease and have life long immunity we are good."
Classic logical fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Lots of kids also got those diseases and didn't come out OK, especially before vaccines were invented. But they're not here to tell you how stupid and wrong you are.
What's also interesting is what's missing from your list - no mention of polio and smallpox? Why? Perhaps because those diseases have been almost completely eradicated by vaccines, so not even your own spawn has to deal with the consequences of you inviting preventable diseases into their life?
"But, I did get a flu vaccine because it was required for work and now I have permanent nerve damage and autoimmune disorders"
Either a) utter bullshit or b) you haven't truly understood statistics and are just bitter because you got unusually unlucky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Either a) utter bullshit or b) you haven't truly understood statistics and are just bitter because you got unusually unlucky.
Honestly you'd think that whoever these nurglers are they'd have a treasure trove of citations and doctors' notices to say that yes, they're now irreparably fucked over by vaccines. But nah, screaming at Internet randos is one thing, but having to prove what you're saying is just too hard!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've seen at least three of them now trot out the "I/my kid was harmed by vaccines!" talking point after long enough of their disinformation campaigning failing to gain any traction. Two of them even tried to tell identical stories of their little plague rat being disinvited from a birthday by a "rude" nonabusive parent.
Such base "you're attacking me" emotional attacks might work in Facebook groups, but just comes across as disgustingly disingenuous in groups with higher standards like us here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“No problem”?
Did you forget that catching chicken pox increases the risk of getting shingles—a much more dangerous condition—latter in life?
Also, the immunity passed down to children is often temporary.
As for your alleged injury, you haven’t proven a causal link. You haven’t even provided a possible theory of causation. There is no known reason that a vaccine could cause nerve damage or autoimmune disease.
I suppose that maybe it could be possible that a vaccine might have some chance of potentially causing nerve damage if it is administered improperly or you had some preexisting autoimmune disease or immune deficiency, but that’s about it. They absolutely cannot cause an autoimmune disease or immune deficiency; they can expose a previously unknown one.
Also, maybe I’m just confused, but how can you have autoimmune disorders and be so immune compromised you can’t have any vaccines? Autoimmune disorders are where your immune system is attacking things it shouldn’t.
Plus, if you’re immune compromised, your measles immunity is no longer functional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, it’s almost as if they’re saying a bunch of contradictory bullshit and hoping people won’t notice it’s all contradictory bullshit~. Imagine that~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's what happens when one is fed talking points by morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah. The other thing that perplexed me was that she seems to be both complaining that she or her family shouldn’t need to be vaccinated while also complaining that she can’t get vaccinated.
And admittedly, I suppose it’s not completely impossible to have both some sort of autoimmune disorder (e.g. allergies) and an immune deficiency of some level. However, I find it incredible that a) they would be caused by the exact same event and b) that one could have both several autoimmune disorders and an immune deficiency so severe that you cannot even take the vaccines with only dead viruses.
It was honestly bugging me for a while. I just didn’t say anything because, admittedly, my knowledge on the full range of autoimmune disorders and causes of immune deficiencies is incomplete, so I considered it possible that I was just missing something. But after seeing this exact claim repeated so many time here, I just had to ask just to make sure I wasn’t crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you got chicken pox, your chance to get shingles is 1 in 3. The only method of reducing that risk is through vaccination.
And tetanus, it's impossible to get immune by catching it, as the level of toxin needed to sufficiently train the immune system is far above the amount that locks up your muscles. Once again the only working preventative method is vaccination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BULL. SHIT.
Wait, so you're saying it's madness that everyone else should be vaccinated just so you can stay healthy and alive? So I take it you have a death wish then? Because if no one else is vaccinated and you have NO immune system, then you are pretty much 100% guaranteed to get a vaccine preventable disease and die from it. The only madness I see here is your logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, yes. An unvaccinated person can spread disease. A properly vaccinated person can't (with some rare exceptions).
Well, yes, because their immune system hasn't had time to process the vaccine and make them immune.
Only in .01 percent of cases. The measles vaccine is considered to be 99.99% effective. But that isn't 100%. So there is a .01% chance the vaccine may not protect someone and they could still get it. But if everyone around them is vaccinated as well, then they would never be introduced to the disease in the first place. Herd immunity. Look it up.
Not the measles portion.
Uh, yes? The same goes for anyone who has a cold. What's your point here?
BULL. SHIT. Some may not but most do. And people who have been vaccinated don't carry the disease.
Liar.
Then get better friends.
There is no vaccine for the common cold you moron.
BULL. SHIT. The common cold doesn't care if you are vaccinated or not and there a million other viruses that people who are unvaccinated get all the time.
Bully for them. Your claim about vaccinated people not caring is still BS. Getting vaccinated doesn't make you a snob. I regularly let my friends know if I'm sick and back out of get-togethers if I'm feeling under the weather so I don't get them sick.
You got some data to back up that obviously false claim there, Pinocchio?
Stop lying. Some vaccines are more effective than others and some have faster waning effectiveness than others. The measles vaccine is 99.99% effective and protects you for life. Every vaccine and disease is different, so of course some are going to be more effective than others. Just because one is not as effective as the other means absolutely nothing. It's still better than getting the actual disease. Stop lying and cherry picking your data and examples.
No, we think the vaccinated aren't spreading the disease because it's been proven that they don't.
Obviously you have not. Try it and then get back to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Minor correction - the measles vaccine is about 97% effective. Which is why 93-95% immunization rate is absolutely necessary for herd immunity to function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What vaccines should you have a choice with?
What vaccines should you have no choice with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You shouldn’t be forced to get any vaccines at all. But you should figure out how you’ll deal with the social consequences of the decision to stay unvaccinated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you are ok with blackmailing someone into getting the shots?
You know there is an HIV vaccine coming out soon... If your work or school says get the shot or your fired are you going to be ok with that?
Some schools say you must get the HPV vaccine to go to school... How are you ok with saying these kids and parents should suffer the "social consequences" when I would bet money that YOU have never received a HPV shot.
Have you gotten your Hep A shot yet that these kids must get now?
How about your Hen B shot??
You go get the amount of shots that are required now and tell me how you feel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. If a job could result in exposure to HIV (e.g., an EMT), getting the vaccine would be the right move.
One hundred motherfucking percent okay with it.
Would still be okay with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Go get the Gardicil vaccine, Hep A shot, and the new Hep B vaccine and then get back to me...
You are unvaccinated and are a danger to Society until you get your shots...
You amaze me... You don't think that this way of thinking goes against the Nuremberg code?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Never has, never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I beg to differ... Have you read the Nuremberg code recently?
You know there vaccines have never been tested against an inert placebo?
Every year the flu vaccine is experimented upon millions of people. They don't know what's going to happen to you when they give you the drug.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fairness, nobody knows for certain what will happen to them when they take a drug. Humans are walking biological mysteries like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
''They don't know what's going to happen to you when they give you the drug'' is really an excellent example of a deepity, in that to the extent it's true it's meaningless/trivial, and to the extent that it's false it's really bad.
To the degree that the statement is correct any drug has the potential for complications and/or unexpected side-effects to crop up, given how wonky the human body can be, but then again the same can be said for any number of things. Peanut butter for example can cause serious harm to those that have a peanut allergy, even if the majority of people can eat it just fine, so one could just as easily and accurately say that someone giving you a PB&J sandwich 'doesn't know what's going to happen'.
To the degree that the statement is false doctors very much do know what a flu shot is meant to do, that being providing the one getting the shot immunity to the flu and reduce/eliminate their chance of getting it for a while. Barring an extreme outlier they've also got a pretty good idea as to what the potential side-effects might be, making the claim that they're just stabbing people with needles and no idea what might happen groundless on both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair points. 👍
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What are you talking about... states say that their kid can't go to school unless they get shots is blackmail. Some hospitals told their employees that they must get flu vaccine otherwise they'll be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again you're talking out of your ass.
Blackmail
the action, treated as a criminal offense, of demanding payment or another benefit from someone in return for not revealing compromising or damaging information about them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your root problem here is you've proven yourself to be incapable of speaking or understanding anything even remotely truthful.
It'd be better for everyone of you just stop lying. Then there'd be no more spam to have to flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technically, that would count as extortion, buuuuuuut…
…it’s more along the lines of “if you’re going to be around this many people, you need vaccines so you don’t get sick and help make other people sick”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(Most of) humanity learned that Typhoid Marys aren't something to encourage and cultivate.
Shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Technically, that would count as extortion"
I don't see how saying "we need your kid to meet these criteria in order to attend our classes" is extortion. There will be numerous other requirements, this one doesn't suddenly become unacceptable because a conspiracy theorist dislikes it.
"…it’s more along the lines of “if you’re going to be around this many people, you need vaccines so you don’t get sick and help make other people sick”."
Also, it's because by definition you're going to be surrounded by a greater number of both sick people and vulnerable people at a hospital.
There's an easy fix for this - if medical requirements working at a hospital are too onerous for you, work somewhere else. Whatever blogs you read are not more valid than the opinions of the actual doctors who work around you at the hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You’re not wrong, but I think the point Toom was trying to make is that, at best, one might consider it to be extortion. At the very least, it’s a better fit than “blackmail”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Clearly you have no idea what blackmail actually is. It isn’t imposing some prerequisite for admission that you don’t like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait, it isn't? You mean to tell me the teller at the movie theater wasn't engaging in blackmail when they demanded I pay in order to watch a movie, along with the totally unreasonable demand to 'take all that candy out of your pockets, bringing in outside food violates our rules'?
Learn something new every day...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If your work or school says get the shot or your fired are you going to be ok with that?"
Yes. The right of those around you no to put up with the risks presented by your family of Typhoid Mary clones trumps your right to be employed or educated in communities that insist on staying safe. Especially if your job includes dealing with people at greater risk if they get a preventable disease.
"You go get the amount of shots that are required now and tell me how you feel."
I feel that all of those shots are far preferable to catching the diseases that they prevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, and? This has absolutely NOTHING to do with vaccines. They could have been in there to get a chemo treatment and been injected with insulin too. This is a story about negligence and/or incompetence of the medical staff administering whatever it was they were administering.
The answer here is better training. Unless you're saying that we should just not have nurses and doctors anymore because one of them "might" inject somebody with the wrong thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DTaP shots do not prevent the spread of disease.
Not all vaccines prevent the spread of disease.
“This disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it,” said Christopher J. Gill, associate professor of global health and lead author of the article. “Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may made some crucial errors. This is definitely not where we thought we’d be in 2017.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Y’know, every time you start a new discussion thread like this, it proves you got your ass kicked in all the others and you can’t do anything else but deflect and continue your appeals to emotion in an attempt to hide the fact that you got your ass kicked.
Do you plan on signing your kid(s) up to get measles? Or do you think everyone else’s kids should get measles and “deal with it”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't be signing everyone's kids up for the measles if the vaccines worked, remember.. My kids would be a danger to the rare child that can't get a vaccine.... Babies would be protected if their moms had measles because of passive immunity... My mom was able to protect me as a baby because she had the measles and could therefore pass protective antibodies on to me... Old people WERE protected because they had lifelong immunity but now that the vaccine is waning we are seeing adults getting measles despite the fact that they had their MMR shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words: “Yes, I would sign up every kid I could for measles, and if they’re someone else’s kids, they’ll have to deal with it.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What I am saying is that health does not have to come through a needle... I am saying let us choose and stop the coercion of saying get the injection or get out of school...
Saying that there is only way to deal with measles (a vaccine) is as ridiculous as saying that there's only one way to lose weight.
I am not telling you not to get vaccinated for HPV or the Measles what I am saying is I don't want to be vaccinated and I shouldn't be banned from school if I don't.. I am more than happy to quarantine my child IF they get the measles I have no problem with that..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, you can choose to let your kid(s) get measles. But you don’t, and shouldn’t, have the right to decide whether other people’s kids get vaccines. If your kid can get the vaccine and you choose to keep them unvaccinated, a school should have every right to make the health and welfare of the many a priority over the desires of even one single idiot who wants to put everyone else at risk. You don’t get to decide whether everyone else gets sick because you want your kid to be the Patient Zero of another measles outbreak.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoops, made an oopsie there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Saying that there is only way to deal with measles (a vaccine) is as ridiculous as saying that there's only one way to lose weight.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I am more than happy to quarantine my child IF they get the measles I have no problem with that"
Again, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the issue here. It's not about your kid, it's about everybody else's kid. Your little disease monkey will potentially infect other peoples' kids, and the school agrees they should not be at risk due to your selfishness. So, you are given a simple choice - vaccinate or choose a different educational venue for them. You don't get to spread disease to others just because you don't understand medicine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Passive immunity is temporary. Also, my grandmother didn’t get the chicken pox until after I did, so your reasoning on old people being protected is fallacious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Y’know, every time you start a new discussion thread like this, it proves you got your ass kicked in all the others and you can’t do anything else but deflect and continue your appeals to emotion in an attempt to hide the fact that you got your ass kicked.
That's what put them on the auto-flag list for me at least, the repeated demonstration that they aren't actually interested in an honest discussion and are merely here to spam/troll/preach the word of father nurgle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccinated people get the disease and spread the disease.
"Most pediatric cases were vaccinated according to national recommendations, although 9% of those aged 6 months to 18 years were completely unvaccinated against pertussis."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDC Citations
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PubMed citation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22819634/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
School of Public Health
Resurgence of Whooping Cough May Owe to Vaccine’s Inability to Prevent Infections
POSTED ON: September 21, 2017
TOPICS: research integrity, vaccines
thumbnail-vaccine-bottleThe startling global resurgence of pertussis, or whooping cough, in recent years can largely be attributed to the immunological failures of acellular vaccines, School of Public Health researchers argue in a new journal article.
The article, published in F1000 Research, points to the differences in mucosal immunity between whole-cell pertussis (wP) vaccines and the newer acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines, first introduced in the 1990s, as playing a pivotal role in the resurgence of the disease.
“This disease is back because we didn’t really understand how our immune defenses against whooping cough worked, and did not understand how the vaccines needed to work to prevent it,” said Christopher J. Gill, associate professor of global health and lead author of the article. “Instead we layered assumptions upon assumptions, and now find ourselves in the uncomfortable position of admitting that we may made some crucial errors. This is definitely not where we thought we’d be in 2017.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go get the HPV, Hep A, Hep B shot, ECT then get back to me
You guys are hypocrites because you want these children to get all these vaccines but you guys haven't gotten them.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html
Go get your HPV shot if you are 45 and under its better to be safe than sorry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go get the HPV, Hep A, Hep B shot, ECT then get back to me
Translation:
Add "hypocrites" to the list of words you don't understand, along with "extortion," "blackmail," "safe," "fact."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Possibly also “vaccines”, “science”, and “words”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And "passive immunity" and "risk."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go get the HPV, Hep A, Hep B shot, ECT then get back to me
You’re assuming without evidence that we haven’t been getting these vaccines. Not that it’s any of your business, but I’ve been getting every vaccine my doctor has recommended (not just those that are required).
Regardless, unless you have specific reason to believe we haven’t been getting all the vaccines we’re supposed to be getting, you shouldn’t be assuming that we aren’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did. What's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go get the HPV, Hep A, Hep B shot, ECT then get back to me
"you guys haven't gotten them"
I love the way you're now inventing peoples' background because they telling you that you're delusional.
What evidence do you have for this claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the safe side
"Typhoid fever is a serious disease spread by contaminated food and water. Symptoms of typhoid include lasting high fevers, weakness, stomach pains, headache, and loss of appetite. Some patients have constipation, and some have a rash. Internal bleeding and death can occur but are rare."
Sure its rare that it's could happen in the US but why take the risk when the vaccine is so safe.
CDC says it's rare that you would get it in the US by why risk it when the vaccines are so safe...
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/diseases/typhoid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gee, it’s almost as if it isn’t rare in other parts of the world and the vaccine is meant for people traveling outside of the country, as is implied in the part of the URL that says “travel”~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yea, but you should get the shot just in case you get exposed here in the US... I mean the vaccine is so safe so why not just get it.
Go the HPV shot while you are at it.
And the Hep A shot
And the Hep B shot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you’re gonna pay my medical bills for that, sure. Otherwise, fuck off back to your anti-vax circlejerk, because you’re not winning anything here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't want to pay my medical bills when I got my vaccines nor do you want to pay for my vaccine injury.... You just want to tell everyone else to get vaccines so THEY don't spread disease but YOU don't want to get vaccines so YOU don't spread disease... You don't see how thats a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You want to tell everyone else to not get vaccines so YOU can feel smug and superior to THEM but YOU don’t want to get vaccines so YOU can play the victim despite your claims of “I’m autoimmune compromised to the point where I can’t get vaccines” and “vaccines gave me nerve damage” being either implausible, unproven, or straight-up bullshit.
If you/your kid(s) can get the vaccines, get them ASAP. If you/your kid(s) can get the vaccines but you choose not to, don’t act surprised when people shun you and your kid(s) for being potential Typhoid Marys. Your decision to stay unvaccinated shouldn’t put other people at risk for exposure to diseases you apparently want you and your kid(s) to catch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look, I got chicken pox already so how can I still be spreading the disease? And when I got chicken pox I stayed home. ( quarantined) did you ever get chicken pox? What are you so scared about? And I can protect my infants through passive immunity... Now many women cannot pass protection on to their babies because they got the vaccine and not the natural disease., we put more are risk because of vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Look, I got chicken pox already so how can I still be spreading the disease? "
Wow, you really don't understand this stuff! Look up Typhoid Mary - she didn't get that nickname because she was ill with the disease herself...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptomatic_carrier
You really should just accept that you are ignorant of the basic arguments here, and arguing from ignorance is not a good thing. You're an anti-vaxxer because you have chosen to remain ignorant of medical science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We aren’t asking you to get any vaccines that we haven’t, assuming we had the opportunity. MMR vaccine? Yes. Chicken pox vaccine? Well, I actually got the chicken pox before the vaccine existed, so that’s moot for me. I’d give my kids the vaccine, though, so I have no qualms asking you to get it if you’re not already immune. Typhoid vaccine? Well, I’m not going to get it unless I travel, so I won’t ask you to if you don’t travel.
Here’s the thing: not every vaccine is equal. Some vaccines are generally necessary. Others are dependent on circumstances. I won’t ask you to get any vaccine that I didn’t get or wouldn’t get for my children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I did, except for Hep A and B which I am scheduled to get shortly.
Your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How about the HPV vaccine? Did you get that one yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. Your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are unvaccinated against those diseases and unvaccinated get labeled the name anti-vax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
A flat out lie and downright pathetic strawman, but not like that's anything new for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, people who refuse to get vaccinated are labeled as anti-vaxxers. I am making sure I get vaccinated. As stated above, I am fully vaccinated aside from Hep A/B and those are scheduled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now we can add “anti-vax” to the list of words you don’t understand.
No, that AC hasn’t gotten those two specific vaccines yet, but they will shortly (and are already scheduled to do so) and they’ve gotten all the other vaccines they need. How is that in any way opposing vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the safe side
Look, we aren’t talking about those vaccines. We’re specifically addressing those vaccines mandate by law, schools, or employers and those specifically recommended by the CDC according to its schedule. The risks and rewards for those vaccines have been weighed and it’s been determined that the rewards of getting those specific vaccines greatly exceed the risks. For work-related requirements, these are often dependent on the requirements and environment of that particular job. For other vaccines, there isn’t enough benefit and possibly too much risk for the average person in the U.S. (or in that particular job). I’m not going to personally weigh all the risks and rewards of every single vaccine under the sun to address the specific issue of whether certain vaccines should be required—based on the recommendations and research of experts and professionals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the safe side
"The risks and rewards for those vaccines have been weighed and it’s been determined that the rewards of getting those specific vaccines."
What data are you looking at that talks about this risk of the vaccine? How are the risk of vaccines being measured?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would imagine it has to do with comparing the probabilities/side effects associated with vaccinations to the probabilities/side effects associated with the diseases those vaccinations prevent.
Like, if the amount of people who die from vaccinations every year is far lower than the number of people who died from measles before the vaccine, and the side effects of measles are more common and more dangerous than the side effects of vaccinations, I’d say getting the vaccine is a less risky venture than getting measles. Just a hunch there, son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I completely agree with you that is how things should be done. The problem is that is not happening... We ALL assumed that is how the risks are assessed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We had thousands of people dying from measles before the advent of the measles vaccine. Now we have virtually no cases of measles fatalities each year. We also have, at worst, an exceptionally low number of people dying from the vaccine each year. I’d say that proves the safety of the vaccine in a scientific way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd love for this guy to cite his own claims. We have facts on our side, no matter where you look. For example:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles
In other words, over 100,000 people worldwide still died of measles in 2017, mainly in places that did not get widespread vaccinations. But, that's a drop in the bucket compared to the millions who routinely died before the vaccine was available.
I'd love to see this guy cite a factual basis for the idea that more than 100,000 people have any kind of complication from the vaccine, let alone fatal reactions. Or, at least, see what he'll come up with as an excuse not to believe what the evidence shows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where is the data that says how many people get injured and die from vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Already answered for you multiple times here, if you had the intellectual honesty to actually acknowledge it and stop with the "it's being covered up" false narrative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Publicly available for anyone to see. I've already provided this before, so you continuing to ask for it like it doesn't exist is just plain dishonesty. But I will continue to provide any time you ask so that no one else gets taken in by your lies and refusal to accept reality.
Here are just two:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/health/vaccine-injury-claims.html
https://www.hrsa.gov/vacci ne-compensation/data/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the safe si
I’m looking at the CDC’s website. They base their claims on clinical trials and such, which have earlier or since gone through peer review.
Do I know the details? No. But I’m not an expert in medicine or statistics, so I’m not going to pretend to know better than actual experts on the subject without a very good, evidence-based reason.
As a general rule, after passing through FDA approval, the logical presumption is that a given adverse reaction is either rare or not caused by the medication in question. You have to rebut that presumption with data or other hard evidence. Like I said, I’m not going to do your research for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The innumerable scientific studies done on vaccines for the last 70-80 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the safe side
"The risks and rewards for those vaccines have been weighed and it’s been determined that the rewards of getting those specific vaccines greatly exceed the risks."
Where is the data to support your claim?
You must have the data on vaccine injuries and deaths in order to make the claim... Where is the data on vaccine injuries and deaths? Let's compair it to the death and injury of the disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s been cited. Your willful ignorance is no longer an excuse for people to do the legwork for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the safe si
This reminds me of flat earthers claiming to be "critical thinkers" and "scientifically minded". Pretty obnoxious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the saf
The difference is that while both groups are blindingly stupid flat-earthers are at least mostly harmless fanatics(other than face-palms and the related headaches), whereas nurgle cultists very much are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Go get the typhoid vaccine just to be on the safe si
I already explained that that’s your job; not mine. If you don’t know where to look, then quite frankly that’s not my problem.
As I’ve already explained, I’m not an expert in medical science and statistics (though I do know a bit), so I don’t feel qualified to actually do the research myself, so I rely on the conclusions of those who have the necessary expertise to do so. Among those people who have looked into the issue, they’ve been pretty clear that the vaccines recommended by the CDC are extremely unlikely to cause serious or long-lasting injury. The CDC has collected all the data and weighed the relative risks and made recommendations accordingly. Since I don’t feel all that qualified to judge for myself readily, and I honestly have more fun and/or useful ways to spend my time, that’s enough for me unless someone comes up with something to rebut that conclusion.
Also, I’ve only said that “it’s been determined”. I’m not saying I looked at the full data myself and drew conclusions accordingly. I’ve looked at some data, which I’ve already shared, and the information and conclusions given by the CDC, which I’ve also already provided. They made the determination I’m referring to, and I have no reason to disagree with it. Strictly speaking, my claim was that experts have determined that mandating these specific vaccines is better for the population as a whole than not do so. Are you saying that they aren’t saying that? Because I already provide the CDC website that says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Manufacturers fund the Vaccine Compensation Program
The vaccine manufacturers fund the compensation program for vaccine injuries in exchange for avoiding litigation and jury verdicts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manufacturers fund the Vaccine Compensation Program
Bzzzzzzt
That propaganda point was already brought up. Do try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Manufacturers fund the Vaccine Compensation Program
Vaccine manufacturers have sovereign immunity, collect taxes on each vaccine, pay for vaccine injury court, pay for the judges, pay gov. lawyers to do their bidding for them, pay for expert witnesses, pay for the injured victim's own lawyer and witnesses --- and you don't see a problem with that?
Don't you think this is corrupt? And unconstitutional, with no due process?
And why should people even have to choose between communicable diseases or vaccine injuries in the first place?
In science, you have diseases as an independent variable and vaccines as an dependent variable.
With vaccine injuries, you have vaccines as an independent variable and vaccine injuries as a dependent variable.
Moving on, we now have communicable diseases as an independent variable and vaccine injuries as a dependent variable. In what kind of an insane system do people have to be faced with that kind of question in the first place? Which is better and which is worse? Why should anybody have to choose at all? Why are we having this conversation in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We call it “reality”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Why are we having this conversation in the first place?
You chose to drag it on, nurgler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, they don't. Sovereign immunity only applies to countries. Not corporations.
Wut? No, they really don't. They sell the vaccine. That's not a tax.
Yes, and?
No, they don't. Evidence please or you are full of it.
So does every single other business in the USA. It's called lobbying. Your point?
So does every single other business in the USA. It's called lobbying. Your point?
Wut? No, they don't, unless the "victim" gets a judgment in their favor.
Considering that you have mischaracterized every single point there, the only problem I see is that you have to stoop to such low levels of lies and dishonesty to try and make your case.
Since your description of events is not accurate, no, I find how things REALLY work to be more or less fine.
You have stated nothing that is based in fact or reality that is unconstitutional or lacking in due process. By your own admission there is even a "vaccine court" whereby the supposed "vaccine injured" can get recompense and compensation. That doesn't sound lacking in due process to me.
They don't. Because vaccine injuries are so rare/non-existent that it's barely even worth talking about. Hundreds of thousands (if not more) people used to die every year from diseases we now have vaccines for. How many people have died from getting a vaccine this year? Or last year? Or the last ten years?
No, diseases are not an independent variable because you can't change them or give them to people just to see what happens. Vaccines are independent because they can be changed.
No, diseases cannot be changed, therefore, by definition, they are not an independent variable. You change a vaccine to see how a disease will respond.
Good thing then that's not how it works. Try actually learning science.
Well, since you can't change diseases, it really only works one way, but not the way you describe.
They don't, because it doesn't work the way you describe. But, I mean, people can choose between dying a horrible death from disease, or they can take a vaccine and live a long, healthy, happy life.
That's an excellent question, I mean, the science on vaccines is proven beyond any shadow of doubt. Why people continue to question it is beyond me. Oh, you meant why are we having this conversation about ethical scientific practices that you obviously don't understand. That's easy. You're an idiot and a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Manufacturers fund the Vaccine Compensation Program
Nope. In particular, “due process” for civil and administrative cases is really quite broad.
I don’t know. It really should’ve ended a long time ago, but you just won’t shut up, and we have this habit of pointing out what’s wrong with your arguments. And since you started the conversation, why don’t you tell us why we’re having it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Manufacturers fund the Vaccine Compensation Program
The vaccine manufacturers fund the compensation program for vaccine injuries in exchange for avoiding litigation and jury verdicts.
"That propaganda point was already brought up."
Are you saying that Chief Justice Scalia was spouting propaganda in BRUESEWITZ v. WYETH ?
"The vaccine manufacturers fund an informal, efficient compensation program for vaccine injuries in exchange for avoiding costly tort litigation and the occasional disproportionate jury verdict. Taxing their product to fund the compensation program, while leaving their liability for design defect virtually unaltered, would hardly coax them back into the market."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"The biggest side effect of vaccines is fewer dead children." - Kurzgesagt, 2019
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Amen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the data showing that vaccine injuries are rare?
We all assume that vaccine injuries and deaths are rare but where is the data? We must have data to assert that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You claim vaccine injuries (including deaths) are common. You need to provide the proof. Until you can do that, nurgler, kindly fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I take it that you found out that there is no data showing that vaccine injuries and death are rare like you assumed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You made the claim. It's your responsibility to prove it, not mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would be more than happy to explain the process. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would like it noted that it was you that said, "I would imagine it has to do with comparing the probabilities/side effects associated with vaccinations to the probabilities/side effects associated with the diseases those vaccinations prevent."
And I asked you to prove your assumption...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok ex-laxxer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Name calling is not how serious issues get resolved... You have poor methods of communication and problem solving... Do you think bullying is a way to win an argument? Bullies think they are smart but truly it's just that we don't want to deal with the aggression so it gives you this false belief that you made a valid point when in reality it's just that you are an asshole that no one wants to deal with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I dunno, do you think offering fact-challenged appeals to emotion through anecdotes that either don’t say what you think they say or challenge all logic and facts is a way to win an argument? (It’s not.)
Projection, thy name is Ex-Laxxer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An assumption is implicitly unproven. In this case, it’s based on his understanding of how the medical community and science work. You have rebutted neither his assumption nor the logic behind it. He doesn’t have to prove what he explicitly refers to as an assumption. You haven’t given us any reason to look any further into the matter; just insisted that we must dig even deeper than we already have for additional information to prove or disprove claims made by anti-vaxxers like you or by experts in the relevant field without providing any data of your own that supports your claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Only a cognitively-impaired moron could take it that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's right here moron:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/health/vaccine-injury-claims.html
https://www.hrsa.gov/vac cine-compensation/data/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok. So this is what we have so far.. Allow me to provide you with some background information.
Most of us thought the same as you do when you said, "I would imagine it has to do with comparing the probabilities/side effects associated with vaccinations to the probabilities/side effects associated with the diseases those vaccinations prevent."We thought this was happening before the vaccine ever gets put on the market, its not. Vaccines are categorized as biologics so they get to play by a different set of rules. Vaccines do not have to go through the gold standard, a long-term double-blind inert Placebo study.. For example, the Hep B vaccine was never compared to anything. " subjects were monitored for solicited Adverse Events for four days following each vaccination". With the Gardicil vaccine they compaired the drug to a type of aluminum salt.. Many vaccines are compaired to another vaccine such as the IPV polio shot. They only watched them for 48 hours. ( download the package insert)... The " authorities" say that vaccines are so valuable and that is why they rush through the safety part.. They spend years making the drugs but days monitoring Adverse Events. For the Hep b, after the last shot they watched them for 30 days and found that 3.8% of diabetes and 1.6% of regular people(control) had a SAE. (Note: with drugs they compair the drug to a true placebo in different groups of people).What kind of autoimmune disorders happen to the people given the Hep B vaccine a year later? Nobody knows. So the " authorities" say don't worry we will put the vaccines on the market and watch them close to see what happens and that's when the post-marketing experience comes into play... There is a massive amount of SAE reported but they say that they cannot confirm causality or how often it happens and nobody bothers to figure it out.. But have no fear the government says VAERS is here! They say this is how we will keep in eye on things.. But we all know that this is a passive surveillance system and HHS says that the Harvard Study says that less than 1% of injuries gets reported so we can't trust that system verry well. But what about the VSD system? Now this is a pretty good system because it tracks the vaccines given and the Adverse Events within 30 days after the vaccine. And what did they find? 1 in 39 people have an adverse event. But our government did not like that people were able to really see the side effects so now they do not let anyone but them use the data in the VSD... So now what are we left with to know if the vaccines are safe? Word of mouth. Mothers talk and when they give there first two kids a vaccine and their second two kids are vaccine free and they see how sick their vaccinated kids compaired to their fully unvaccinated they share that information... Now, are personal stories proof? No, but its all we have when they don't do real studies looking at vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. And they close of the VSD to us.... If you and the government really want to know if our stories are real than listen to us and investigate. Do a large scale vaccinated versus unvaccinated study using the vsd. But they won't... HHS said that they will never look at the health outcomes of the two groups. Well, WE ARE LOOKING at the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. the unvaccinated are so healthy and smart.... Look, I am just giving you the info, you go look and decide for yourself. Start by looking at the Hep B package insert giving to newborns and the Gardicil vaccine... No placebo for hep b and and an active placebo such as a type of aluminum for Gardicil... This is not how things should be done.
There are many studies looking at the health outcome of vaccinated vs. completely unvaccinated. People are not satisfied with those so we say ok go bigger and use the VSD and do the study.
I have provided a link below that I thought did a really good job of explaining the Harvard Study that HHS funded.
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrad ing-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
How about you instead find a fact-based website to cite for a change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That would require Ex-Laxxer to travel outside of their anti-vax circlejerk, and we all know they're not gonna do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I told you that you can download the PDF of the study. Its free on line... You could probably find it on .gov too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what exactly did that study say? Hm? Did it say vaccines dangerous? No, no it did not.
In fact, what it was meant to do was just see if it was possible to track adverse events (not side effects or reactions) in real time. Not determine the actual safety of vaccines themselves.
And just to remind everybody of what an adverse event is, it's just something negative that happened in the time period following receiving the vaccine, not BECAUSE they received a vaccine. So a bad grade on your math test, getting rejected by your crush, and a car crash are all adverse events that could occur and be included on that list of adverse events after receiving a vaccine. It says absolutely NOTHING about the actual safety of vaccines.
There are more car crashes per year than "adverse events" that occurred after receiving a vaccine. Maybe you should shift your priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And in this "book" you have written, you have provided not ONE. SINGLE. SHRED of actual evidence to support your claim. There are no references, no names of peer reviewed studies, no news articles, nothing. Just one link to a conspiracy theory site that also makes a bunch of nonsense claims with no links or primary sources to back it up. Seriously, they claim the CDC "ghosted" Harvard but they don't provide any links or cite any sources to back up that claim. For all we know they made the whole damn thing up.
And every single one of them have concluded that it is better to be vaccinated than unvaccinated.
Really? Because I thought the actual report did a much better job of explaining what the study was about, it's methods, and it's findings. Especially since it does not incorrectly conflate "POSSIBLE adverse events" that may or may not have been caused by the vaccine with "ACTUAL side effects and negative reactions" that were proven to be caused by the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's been provided several times now. Continuing to ask for it like it doesn't exist is just dishonest. Have fun:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/health/vaccine-injury-claims.html
https://www.hrsa.gov/vacci ne-compensation/data/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You provided the data on the Financial claims that people have made not the total number of vaccine injuries...
Not everyone who is injured by a vaccine tries to get compensation... Most don't even know that it's possible. And there are many who would like to get compensated but the statue of limitations has run out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And all you have provided are: paid quacks positing fabricated links between vaccines and injuries, scammers trying to dupe courts, to cultists stuffing VAERS with sham claims (but zero facts).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol... All we want is for people to know that we trusted the vaccines and got hurt.. We want full true and informed consent and we want the choice to say NO to a medical procedure... I don't that is too much to ask.... Most of my data comes from your beloved CDC and as far as the courts go we would like to file our claims in a regular court and not the Court of federal claims.. Remove "immunity" from vaccine makers.
If vaccines are so safe then why did they need to pass a law in 1986 making vaccines nearly immune from liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that vaccines caused your injuries
Can you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that your injuries were much more severe than the injuries you could have received from the disease against which you were vaccinated?
You have it. What you don't have is the right to keep everyone else from calling you an idiot if you can get the vaccine but choose not to, you nurgler.
Because of greedy grifting assholes like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No you don't and no you didn't.
You have it. All the data is publicly available and handed out prior to receiving a vaccine.
You do. No one is forcing you to get vaccinated. You are within your Constitutionally protected rights to have full control over your body and what goes in it. That is not being violated.
Then you must be borderline illiterate because of none of that data supports your assertions.
Tough shit. You made your bed, now lie in it.
Not until you give up this nonsense that vaccines are dangerous.
Because idiots like you kept bringing false lawsuits for injuries NOT caused by vaccines and that weren't supported by science. This was causing such a financial burden on the manufacturers that non-idiots were afraid they might shut down and NO vaccines would be made, thereby throwing us back into the dark ages and increasing the suffering of the human race. It was done to save you from your own stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a bad person and you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Projection. Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see you’ve given up on the pretense of attempting to argue facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow. Great comeback. Not even a shred of data to prove anything I said wrong. Not surprising since there isn't any to provide. You've got nothing left so now you just resort to childish declarations of "no you're wrong!".
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whoops, how could I forget to add "baseless 'they're hiding vaccine data' conspiracy theories" to the list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's the same data moron. Part of the testing process for vaccines includes testing for harm to the individual. It has to clear a certain safety threshold before being approved by the FDA for use. VAERS and other tracking agencies are responsible for looking at any reports of harm reported by people getting the vaccine after approval.
Well then they are a bunch of idiots and morons. If they were injured they should at least report it to VAERS, even if they don't seek compensation. If they didn't then they only have themselves to blame. Vaccines are rigorously tested before FDA approval. There is no reason to believe they cause mass harm.
Again, their problem.
Again, their problem.
Look, millions of vaccines are given EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Billions of vaccines have been given in the last few decades. Show me the data where millions or billions of the earth's population is now autistic or immuno-compromised. I don't even care if it's been linked to vaccines. If they are truly harmful, you should be able to point to millions or billions of examples of people having their brains melted and or dying. Can you do that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Criteria for safety
" It has to clear a certain safety threshold before being approved by the FDA for use. "
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf
FDA has never even spelled out in regulations the criteria it uses to decide whether a vaccine is safe and effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Criteria for safety
Well, again, that’s not our problem. Even if we don’t know exactly what that threshold was, that doesn’t mean that the threshold is nonexistent. You have to prove that it’s insufficient first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just because you don't know how to do proper research, doesn't mean they haven't or that it doesn't exist:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/part-600
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl e/pii/S1877282X11000282
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cb er/vaccine-product-approval-process
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html
https://ww w.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber
https://www.vaccines.gov/basics /safety
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/conversations/downloads/vacsafe-ensuring-color-office.pdf
h ttps://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulati on
That enough criteria spelled out in regulations for you? Or do you have any more stupid, ignorant statements or questions you want me to shred with publicly available information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am curious as to why they checked Supreme Court decisions for info on FDA regulations and such but not the FDA website. I mean, wouldn’t that be the first place you’d look?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HHS hired Harvard to look at the safety of vaccines
You guys can read the article or download the PDF on the Harvard Pilgrim study.
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgradi ng-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-Vaccine Japan has great health
Anti-Vaccine Japan Has World’s Lowest Child Death Rate & Highest Life Expectany
https://healingoracle.ch/2018/08/08/anti-vaccine-japan-highest-life-expectancy/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
54% of American children have a chronic condition
According to a research paper published in Academic Pediatrics in 2011, at least 54% of American children have a diagnosed chronic condition.
https://epidemicanswers.org/about-the-epidemic/the-startling-statistics/
CDC has a lot of this data too....
CDC has the rate of autism over the years. Its super high and yes they are using the same methodology to diagnose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove a causal relationship between those chronic conditions/autism and vaccines or fuck off with this bullshit.
Also, it's entirely possible that autism rates are rising because we better understand and can thus more accurately diagnose autism these days. What we call "autism" now was probably what we call "little Johnny ain't right in the head" in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look... All I am saying is that the more we vaccinated the sicker our kids are so let's investigate..
We give vaccines to alter our immune systems and now we have the highest rate of autoimmune disorders so shouldn't we look at the one the designed to alter our immune systems? Come on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And yet you have zero evidence such a phenomenon even exists much less proof of a cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
All I am saying is that the more we vaccinated the sicker our kids are so let's investigate..
If you think this hasn't been investigated, you're not paying attention. In fact, you're actively and repeatedly pushing away from anyone highlighting just how much these issues have been studied AND the fact that exactly NONE of the research has drawn any connection to vaccination.
And that's why everyone here keeps pointing out that you're full of shit. And that's even before your ridiculous claims about what vaccines personally did to you which goes against basically all evidence of any adverse reactions to vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now now, Mike, we should absolutely accept “nuh-uh to your uh-huh” as empirical evidence~. It’s only fair~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There are tons of studies out there... I have read over 1,000 including the 28 studies that the CDC uses to say that there is no link. Here is one place that has peer reviewed studies... I use pubmed but the point is that there are tons of studies showing that there are problems with the vaccines..
https://www.learntherisk.org/studies/
I don't want to be told I must take Gardicil to go to school.. Gardasil Placebo was an aluminum salt... Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Link to one reputable one that provides conclusive evidence that vaccines are dangerous.
Liar.
Link?
Then link to the pubmed study. Otherwise: Liar.
Again, name and link to one from a reputable site rather than a site that has this as the first sentence in its about section:
Based on that, I can now safely assume that everything that site says is either a lie or quack science. Find a different site to get your facts from.
Too bad, so sad, cry me a river. And as far as I know, it's not currently required so you have nothing to worry about.
Wait, are you saying gardisil doesn't actually protect you against anything? Or are you complaining that the placebo in testing used was just aluminum salt? Either, please clarify what your beef with gardisil is so I can shred that too. You've been going on about it for the last couple days now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That website isn’t peer-reviewed. It’s just a bunch of quacks. You still haven’t responded to the evidence we provided either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I have read over 1,000 including the 28 studies that the CDC uses... I use pubmed"
Strange how you're so knowledgeable about the studies from primary sources, yet not only refuse to link to any of them, but seem woefully wrong about what they actually contain. Almost as if they don't say what you claim and you're getting your information from con artists instead...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Mike are you 45 or younger because there is still time for you to get that Gardicil shot... You never know the boogie man could atta
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Look Mike you can keep saying that vaccines are safe and effective in some sort of religious belief or you can look at the data...
The polio vaccine caused paralytic polio. Look at the Cutter Incident as well as the other manufacturers.
Look at the problems with DTP.. There was a good tv report called DPT roulette that talked about the problems... Look at the package insert that compared DPT to DTaP that really highlights a lot of the problems.
Look what happened with the older MMR vaccine that caused meningitis... The vaccine got passed around from country to Country.
Look what has happend with the HPV vaccines.. countries have banned it because it damaged so many of their own people.
Look at what happened with the Dengue vaccine.. I lost track of how many suffered from that one.... They denied that there was any problems with that one until so many people died. Now they are making a new vaccine..
They have had to play whack a mole with the pneumococcal vaccine by continuously adding more more strains to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look Ex-Laxxer you can keep saying that vaccines are dangerous and lifethreatening in some sort of religious belief or you can look at the data...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only one not looking at the data here is literally you. Again, there are more car crashes than people actually harmed by vaccines every year. And more serious harm too. Should we stop driving cars?
No, it didn't. Not in the way you are trying to frame it at least. And it was only an issue with the oral version of the polio vaccine. The US doesn't use that kind anymore so there is nothing to worry about.
Really? I mean, REALLY? Yes, let's look at the "Cutter Incident":
First off, 1955. This happened in 1955. You don't think that in the 70+ years since then medical technology might just have improved just a little bit? To the point where we understand how that happened and how to prevent it?
Second is this:
So it wasn't the fact that the vaccine was inherently bad, it was that the process to create it was defective/broken/not being followed, and once that was corrected then it wasn't a problem anymore.
So yes, the Cutter Incident. A fine example of early vaccine development that we have since learned from and fixed. Moron.
Such as....?
From 1982. FROM 1982! Do you possibly have anything more recent to suggest that there is a CURRENT issue with the vaccine?
Such as....?
You mean like how it's not been fixed and/or has a new version that doesn't cause meningitis anymore?
Got links? Also, I notice that Gardisil is not used in the US anymore. It has been replaced by Gardisil 9 and the adverse events reported for that are virtually non-existent.
You mean this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengvaxia_controversy
That vaccine that still has no confirmed deaths or issues from its administration? That one? Come on man, this is pathetic.
Yes, that is how diseases work sometimes. What's your point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Guillain-Barré Syndrome is on the Vaccine Table of Injuries for Seasonal influenza vaccines. It applies to Petitions for Compensation Filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I alteady covered that upthread, but to repeat:
Correlation says a 1/1000000 chance of elevated GBS risk from the flu vaccine.
No causative link between the flu vaccine and GBS has been established
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plaintiff argues that “the more we vaccinated[,] the sicker our kids are”. But Plaintiff offers no facts in their Complaint to support this proposition. Their case is summarily dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are assuming this has not yet been studied (it has) and that kids truly are getting sicker (they aren't). So, got some data to back up that load of crap?
This blatantly false and misleading at best. Vaccines do not alter your immune system. Your immune system reacts in the same way before and after getting a vaccine. It just has a larger dataset to work off. It's quite literally like traditional antivirus for computers. The base antivirus is ok, but it's much more effective if it has an updated database so it knows about new threats.
Do you have data to prove that? And can you say with absolutely certainty that it's not just because we know what it is and what to look for so it gets diagnosed properly now? I mean, there's plenty of examples of diseases and/or disorders that were missed/misdiagnosed throughout history until we figured it out.
First, it doesn't alter our immune systems and second, we have and there has been nothing to suggest a link.
You keep asking "shouldn't we at least look at it?", stop it. Stop it right now. You've been told over and over that this has already been studied and we've linked to multiple studies done on the subject that have come back and said there is no link. You have yet to link to ONE study that says the opposite. So until you can...SHUT UP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I responded to your question in the section above.... It's the one that looks like a book. Lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 54% of American children have a chronic condition
I’m still insulted by the insinuation that risking a preventable, potentially serious or even deadly disease is preferable to risking autism, especially given the fact that the former is much more supported by history and science than the latter.
Also, American Pediatrics, as I recall, is not a reliable source and is a known propaganda outlet. I don’t trust their claims to be accurate, nor do I trust their methodology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine Injury Table
Here is the Vaccine Injury Table used for Vaccine Court.
Anaphylaxis and Encephalopathy, for example, apply to multiple vaccines.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Y’know, saying “so-and-so is a side effect of vaccines” doesn’t add anything to the conversation. How common are those side effects, especially when compared to the side effects of whatever diseases are prevented by those vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HHS had Harvard use the Vaccine Safety Datalink and they found that adverse events happen 1 in 39.... Look at the Harvard Pilgrim Study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How severe are these events? How do they compare to the rates and severity of “adverse events” associated with diseases from which vaccines protect us, especially when talking about pre-vaccine cases of those diseases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is a very good question.... This information was in the Harvard Study. I can only find the Grant report now.. Maybe you can find the data that was used in the study..... I can't find it anymore.
I want to know the same stuff as you.... What are the adverse events and side effects and how often do they occur with each vaccine.
This is the best I can find right now.
In the link. Click on the top right where it says, "project final report PDF."
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-a dverse-event-reporting-system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, let us know if you find anything else. Just remember: the difference between a side-effect and an adverse reaction is that the latter has not been proven to be caused by the treatment itself (assuming the treatment was administered properly rather than being botched).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's actually not what that study says at all. But thanks for proving you have no qualms lying to people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
HHS hired Harvard to look at the safety of vaccines
You guys can read the article or download the PDF on the Harvard Pilgrim study.
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgradi ng-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I did. What does this have to do with anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine Safety Datalink
The Vaccine Safety Datalink was established in (CDC) to study the adverse effects of vaccines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Safety_Datalink
Four large health maintenance organizations, including Kaiser Permanente, were initially recruited to provide the CDC with medical data on vaccination histories, health outcomes, and subject characteristics...
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), the VSD, and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network are tools by which the CDC and FDA measure vaccine safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine Court screening criteria
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/resources/about-vaccine-injury-co mpensation-program-booklet.pdf
What You Need to Know About the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)
In addition, to be eligible to file a claim, the effects of the person’s injury must have:
1) lasted for more than 6 months after the vaccine was given; or
2) resulted in a hospital stay and surgery; or
3) resulted in death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Table of vaccine injuries for "vaccine court"
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
Look at this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine injuries happen that is why there is a table of injuries
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
What is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?. Vaccines save lives by preventing disease in the people who receive them.
84521booklet.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccine injuries happen that is why there is a table of inju
Okay, seriously. Are you just googling “vaccine injuries” and posting links to every result you find? Are you even bothering to read these things? Most of what you’re posting now actually disproves many of your points.
Also, no one was saying vaccine injuries are nonexistent. We’re just saying all the major ones are rare. This doesn’t disprove that claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nurgle cultist wants a scenario where dead children are more likely and can't figure out why everyone else is annoyed, news at fucking 11.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just know that health does not have to come through and needle..... You vaccinate your kid and leave mine alone. I am not risking anymore side effects from a vaccine for the "immune comprised" kid.... We are immune comprised because of a vaccine.... Your health is not more important than mine neither are the "immune comprised kids".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just so long as you keep your little Typhoid Mary away from everyone else’s unvaccinated children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You keep bringing up typhoid. Did you get your Typhoid vaccine yet????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Google 'typhoid mary', dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right, so you SHOULD definitely get a typhoid vaccine because you never know which one of us is going to be a asymptomatic killer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
https://www.cdc.gov/typhoid-fever/typhoid-vaccination.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It could happen in the US. So you should get it to be on the safe side... Because all vaccines are safe and effective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Literally no one had said that every single vaccine that had ever existed is safe and effective. We’ve only said, at most, that the ones recommended by the CDC are safe and effective enough compared to the risks of the diseases they prevent that we have no issues with them being mandated, particularly for schools or certain work environments.
Also, compared to HPV, measles, chicken pox, hepatitis A or B, or polio, for example, the chances of getting typhoid fever in the U.S. is so remote, even if no one in the U.S. is vaccinated against it, that it’s just not worth the money or the (also incredibly small) risk of injury from the vaccine. That’s why the CDC only recommends getting the typhoid vaccine if you’re going traveling.
Again, the weighing of risks and rewards isn’t the same for every vaccine in every environment. Stop putting up this strawman of us and actually address the substance of what we are saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Incurable diseases say hi and that you're an idiot who doesn't understand medical science. Also they would like to infect your unvaccinated self.
Fine. That's your choice. But your kid will not be allowed around my kid unless you do vaccinate yours. And that is MY choice.
Good news then, the chance of any side effects more serious than a temporary rash/mild temperature is less than 1%! Your kid is more likely to die in a car crash on the way to school than they are to suffer any kind of serious, permanent damage from a vaccine.
There is exactly ZERO evidence to support that claim. NO scientific study has linked vaccines to that. Ever. Stop repeating it like it's an actual fact. Even YOU can't come up with a link to ONE study supporting that assertion. All you have are a bunch of baseless conspiracy theories based on your incorrect understanding of how science and the human body works.
Come back when you actually have something of substance/value to add to this conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Good news then, the chance of any side effects more serious than a temporary rash/mild temperature is less than 1%! "
Where are you pulling this data from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is publicly available online, and I've already linked to several of them. How have you NOT seen it? I mean, you claim to get your info from the CDC and it's all over their site. Have you not been reading the links I've been posting? I've read yours.
Here, have some more fun fact resources:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vi s/index.html
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-side-effects-and-adverse-eve nts
https://www.livescience.com/57488-vaccine-safety-numbers.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18 /health/vaccine-injury-claims.html
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html
https:/ /www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/bob-sears/what-cdc-statistics-say-about-vaccin e-illnesses-in/
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html
https://www.who.int/vaccin e_safety/initiative/tools/vaccinfosheets/en/
That last link is especially good as you can click on the PDFs for all the different vaccines and get the exact rates of side effects for each vaccine and specific side effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is more than 1%...
This comes from your CDC bible....
Side effects from MMR
Mild Problems
• Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
• Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
• Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1
person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 6-14 days
after the shot. They occur less often after the second
dose.
Moderate Problems
• Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1
out of 3,000 doses)
• Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in
teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
• Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a
bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
There are WAY MORE SIDE EFFECTS if you read the package insert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well I guess we can add reading comprehension to the list of things you are bad at then.
What I originally said:
Just in case you still don't understand, I will spell it out. I'm saying that the chance of you becoming SERIOUSLY and/or PERMANENTLY damaged by a vaccine is less than 1%. I didn't say there was less than 1% chance of ANY side effects. But those more common side effects are no different than if you got a really bad cold, or the common side effects of taking OTC painkillers.
NO. THERE. ARE. NOT.
I've been over this before. The package insert lists reported ADVERSE EVENTS. Those are not side effects. Those are bad things that happened in a certain window of time after receiving the vaccine and may or may not have been caused by the vaccine.
Stop lying, ignoring what everyone has been writing, and generally being an idiot and a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is from one of your websits... I would say that based on this side effects are MORE than one in a million.
Smallpox (Vaccinia) Vaccine Side Effects
Mild to Moderate Problems
Mild rash, lasting 2-4 days.
Swelling and tenderness of lymph nodes, lasting 2-4 weeks after the blister has healed.
Fever of over 100°F (about 70% of children, 17% of adults) or over 102°F (about 15%-20% of children, under 2% of adults).
Secondary blister elsewhere on the body (about 1 per 1,900).
Moderate to Severe Problems
Serious eye infection, or loss of vision, due to spread of vaccine virus to the eye.
Rash on entire body (as many as 1 per 4,000).
Severe rash on people with eczema (as many as 1 per 26,000).
Encephalitis (severe brain reaction), which can lead to permanent brain damage (as many as 1 per 83,000).
Severe infection beginning at the vaccination site (as many as 1 per 667,000, mostly in people with weakened immune systems).
Death (1-2 per million, mostly in people with weakened immune systems).
For every million people vaccinated for smallpox, between 14 and 52 could have a life-threatening reaction to smallpox vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey moron, try learning some reading comprehension. To repeat myself, what I said was:
Just in case you still don't understand, I will spell it out. I'm saying that the chance of you becoming SERIOUSLY and/or PERMANENTLY damaged by a vaccine is less than 1%. I didn't say there was less than 1% chance of ANY side effects. But those more common side effects are no different than if you got a really bad cold, or the common side effects of taking OTC painkillers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are referring to anaphylactic shock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
When they say that injuries are one in a million they're referring to anaphylactic shock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said they were one in a million. And I'm also not referring to anaphylactic shock, as stated below.
(Stop astroturfing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why are you talking to yourself? (Or is this a poor attempt at astroturfing?)
Also, no, I'm not referring to anaphylactic shock. I'm referring to any side effects that are classified as serious and/or permanently damaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hook, line and sinker.
In the event you and your little smallpox carriers ever get bitten by rabid dogs, I think it'd be justified to avoid giving you the vaccine on moral grounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'They're my kids' only goes so far in excusing potential harm
On the contrary, it's one thing for someone to give themselves a Darwin Award/Honorable mention through their sheer stupidity, but the kid(s) shouldn't be added to the 'easily avoidable deaths' list just to spite the parent(s), such that in that case I'd argue that the 'moral responsibility' would be to give them the needed medicine regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'They're my kids' only goes so far in excusing potential har
What happens when you give the child of an anti-vaxxer the rabies vaccine after the child is bitten by a rabid animal?
Normal people would become an advocate of vaccines.
Anti-vaxxers? Going by the demonstrations here I have a strong hunch they'd scream about the injuries caused by rabies and claim that the rabies vaccine was responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'They're my kids' only goes so far in excusing potential
There was that pair of abusive parents whose antivax negligence caused their 6-year-old to require over $800k in emergency treatment for tetanus.
47 days in the ICU sedated, intubated, on artificial ventilation through tracheostomy, needing antibiotics and drugs to keep his heart rate and fever down while his entore body spasmed constantly. Afterward, he needed almost a month of physical therapy to re-learn how to walk, and twice that long to resume normal activities.
All for the sole reason this happened being because his "parents" refused to protect him with safe, inexpensive vaccines.
Even after all that, they still refuse to allow the child to have any vaccine, including tetanus. They want their innocent child to suffer this agony.
As a reminder, the only way to prevent tetanus is through vaccination. It is not possible to gain immunity to it by 'natural' means. Tetanus vaccination is the reason there were only 196 cases nationwide between 2009 and 2015, resulting in only 16 deaths.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'They're my kids' only goes so far in excusing potential
Well, I have seen that happen with anti-depressants and thoughts of suicide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guillain-Barré Syndrome is on the Vaccine Table of Injuries
Guillain-Barré Syndrome is on the Vaccine Table of Injuries for Seasonal influenza vaccines. It applies to Petitions for Compensation Filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, and do you know why? What am I saying, of course you don't.
It's on there because in 1976 there was an increased risk of people getting GBS after having received the vaccination for a particular strain of the swine flu. In 1976, not today. The vaccine didn't cause GBS, it just increased their risk. However, their risk of getting GBS was HIGHER if they actually got the flu. So while it increased their risk some, it was still a lesser risk than actually getting the flu. And it was only observed in 1976. I assume (since that was still the early days of vaccines) that there was some issue with that particular vaccine that nobody knew about and has since been corrected for by better technology.
There are a lot of other things on that table too. Why don't you call those out? Oh, that's right, none of those other things have anything resembling as close of a link to vaccines as GBS, therefore that's what you latch onto, hoping nobody else has done or will do their research on it. Because if they do, they'll find out your a liar and a moron.
Haven't you had enough of a beating yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
"The vaccine didn't cause GBS, it just increased their risk....
I assume (since that was still the early days of vaccines) that there was some issue with that particular vaccine that nobody knew about and has since been corrected for by better technology."
If GBS has been corrected, then why does the government still have it on the table of injuries caused by vaccines, saying that they will compensate it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
https://www.vaccinationinjury.com/case-results
Rodriguez
Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS); Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIPD); Death
Caused by Influenza (Flu) Vaccine
$425,000 Compensation
Muldowney
Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS); Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIPD);
$175,000 Compensation
Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS)
Caused by Trivalent Influenza (flu) Vaccine
$600,000 Compensation
Guillain Barré Syndrome (GBS); Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy (CIPD)
Caused by Influenza (Flu) Vaccine
$750,000 Compensation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and? What is this link to some random law firm supposed to show? I can get data on ALL vaccine injury awards direct from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. I don't care about some random law firm's site that may or may not be correct in their statements about what they personally have gotten for their clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GBS
"I can get data on ALL vaccine injury awards direct from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program."
Does that include settlements?
I was under the impression that settlements are sealed, and the links I gave only showed the attorneys, not the injured people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did say 'ALL' did I not?
Perhaps you should actually TRY doing some research then before you spout off something of which you have absolutely zero knowledge. Yes, that link I provided includes data on settlements. Which, I might add, don't count because there was no judgement that the vaccine was at fault in those cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because it happened once. Better to list it as a potential risk and have it not come to pass then leave it off and get sued for negligence.
But, the CDC has a whole article on it with lots of links to multiple scientific studies on it. Perhaps reading that would provide a more thorough answer for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Guillain-Barré Syndrome
https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-vaccine-court-is-it-real-2019-3
Inside 'vaccine court,' where the US government pays millions to people who say they were harmed by vaccines
Hilary Brueck
Mar 16, 2019, 3:30 PM
So far this month, the court has decided five different Guillain-Barré cases, all related to the flu vaccine. One was dismissed for insufficient proof, and the other four received lump sum payments in a range from $150,150.58 to $255,829.99.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and? What's your point? Or are you just spam posting random facts in the vain hope it will make you look like you have facts and data to back up your arguments. Pro-tip: it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'If you can't dazzle someone with brilliance bury them in BS'
I noted it above, and at this point I'm all but certain, but assuming they aren't simply trolling I strongly suspect that they are merely searching for certain keywords and just throwing any hits out in the hopes of overwhelming any opposition with sheer volume.
Barring trolling or an absolutely stunning level of self-deception I can't think of any other explanation that would explain the fact that the 'evidence' they've presented has been consistently either bullshit from frauds or something that doesn't say what they claim it does anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You may be right. That doesn't seem to be working out for them though as there seems to be plenty of people keeping an eye on the comment thread close enough to counter-bury their postings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, no it really hasn't been, and that has been a real source of entertainment and amusement thanks to you and others going above and beyond to counter them, so thanks on both counts for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, no it really hasn't been, and that has been a real source of entertainment and amusement thanks to you and others going above and beyond to counter them, so thanks on both counts for that.
Yeah, I appreciate you countering this moron.
Separately, I will go out on a limb and predict that this thread will easily win the "most comments on a story" list at the end of this year -- thanks to what appears to be one clueless idiot. I haven't even looked, but I'm going to bet that it's not even close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t think there’s any other article with even half the number of comments here, not even the “Shiva settled with us for basically nothing” article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, if you count the thread that blue keeps spamming in... since 2018... and took so much longer to fill up with his Pizzagate comments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I should’ve specified that I meant out of this year’s articles. 😅
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey Mike, I will let you be the first to roll up your sleeve when the HIV vaccine hits the market.... Better yet why wait sign up to for the clinical trials and get the shot now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That sounds like a threat to have him infected with HIV after he receives the vaccine. You wouldn't be planning to assault Mike, would you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not at all..... You are missing the point..... Children are told they must get the HPV shot to go to school. Babies are routinely given the Hep B shot before they leave the hospital..... I feel we should not be excluded from school and work because we say no to a vaccine..... If they can mandate those they can mandate the HIV vaccine...... The doors are wide open for abuse.... We are being sold to the pharmaceutical companies....... This issue is not about the Measles it is about the 300 vaccines that are coming are way.... They want you to be ok with mandates and vaccines as a condition of employment.
Everyone wants a product that the government mandates on millions of people every year because that's big money.
Manated Adult vaccines is there goal..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel you should not be allowed into schools and workplaces because you said no to a vaccine. You’d put the health and well-being of everyone who doesn’t have (and possibly can’t get) the vaccine at risk. Those places have every right to protect the health of the innocent from your desire to be another Typhoid Mary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So schools should mandate the Hep B for the reasons you described, right?
They can use that same argument for the HIV vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don’t respond to otherwording.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If Hepatitis B and HIV have become airborne, then yes. Otherwise, that question is a red herring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes.
No, they can't because Hep B and HIV are not transmitted in the same way. Unless you are saying that schools are just one big sex orgy. Then yeah, an HIV vaccine should be mandated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I admittedly am less familiar with Heb B than other diseases preventable by vaccines, so I cannot opine on that.
Regarding the HIV vaccine, 1) it’s not strongly recommended by the CDC the same way vaccines against measles, polio, chicken pox, or HPV (among females, at least) are, and 2) HIV is no where near as communicable as diseases like measles, polio, or chicken pox, so schools have no particular reason to mandate an HIV vaccine in particular.
I’ve already told you multiple times to stop bringing other vaccines that aren’t at issue here into this discussion. Each vaccine has its own merits and risks, and it’d be absurd to offer blanket statements covering every single one. Nothing Stephen said was addressing Hep B or HIV vaccines specifically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, I'm pretty sure he got the point. That being you are an idiot and a moron.
So?
So?
Everyone else feels differently. Deal with it.
They can, but they won't. The most common way of getting HIV is by having unprotected sex with an untreated person who has HIV. And that is the most common. All the other ways are even less common. So, unless everyone in the world is having sex with a person infected with HIV, there is no reason to get the vaccine. And certainly not for children of school age.
Oh do tell.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Oh yeah? How do you figure?
Who is they? And why are mandated vaccines (especially in healthcare where you could kill someone if they catch measles from you) a bad thing?
Sure it is. Because the world runs on money. That doesn't mean it's automatically bad. In fact, in many cases, that's a good thing. I mean, it's mandated that you have to be a certain age and pass special tests before you are allowed to drive a care. Are you saying we should do away with those mandates and let 5 year-olds drive?
Well, it's not actually. But even if it was...so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wow. You have really drank the Kool-Aid.
And you know that Hep B is a sexually transmitted disease just like HIV and yet they routinely give a hepatitis B vaccine to babies before they leave the hospital. There is no reason to get this one just like there is no reason to get the HIV vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Projection. Classic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I've drank scientific facts and statistics. You have drunk the anti-vax Kool-Aid and you have provided ZERO evidence to back up your assertions that vaccines are bad, while I have linked to multiple sites proving vaccines are safe. But keep trying, we're having a lot of fun shredding your stupidity.
Except that in addition to being sexually transmitted, Hepatitis B can be transmitted in a number of other ways as well. Not the least of which being from mother to child during birth. HIV is only spread in very specific ways and it is not commonly spread that way. Hence why babies are given the Hep B vaccine at birth. It helps prevent them from getting it from their mother.
If you actually did your research you would know all of this, moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don’t see a problem with this.
Tough. Others disagree, and for good reason. As this has been explained to you multiple times before here, I won’t say more here.
First, you’ve just fallen for the slippery slope fallacy, and you offer no justification for making that leap.
Second, why is that such a problem? I make no specific claims about an HIV vaccine (partly because I’m unaware if one even exists at present), but if you want to make a compelling argument, you should explain why this is so horrible that it should give us pause.
[citation needed]
Well, some vaccines (incl. MMR) prevent measles, and a good portion of this discussion has been about measles and MMR vaccines, so I think you’re the one missing the point here.
I’m doubtful that there are that many vaccines coming anytime soon, but more importantly, none of us are talking about those. We’re only talking about some of the vaccines available here and now. We have absolutely no reason to address any hypothetical vaccines that don’t exist yet.
Please explain why that’s not okay. It seems sensible to me, and it did even before I did any research or knew anything about specific vaccines. If you are employed in an environment that will likely put you in contact with vulnerable or infected individuals, it makes sense that employers would require their employees to be vaccinated.
Sure. So what?
And you haven’t explained why that’s so bad; nor have you proven that allegation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about you just take a course in understanding risk, then maybe a stats course to make you understand how idiotic all you arguments are? A basic debate course couldn't harm, since you already list all the main logical fallacies without realising it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is recommending a vaccine that has been vetted by the FDA, CDC, and the scientific community comparable to recommending a vaccine that has not been tested yet?
Seriously, we’re only talking about the vaccines recommended by the CDC and approved by the FDA (or a similar regulatory body). Stop asking us to take vaccines that do not fall into that category. That is a completely separate discussion that really shouldn’t be had in this comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So all your arguments have been shredded to pieces and now your only response is to attack the author of the article? Oh yeah, that sounds like a mature, logical response. Not.
Pro-tip: If you have no valid arguments left, maybe, just maybe, you are wrong and should re-evaluate your stance on the subject instead of continuing to reject facts and reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, considering the only way that everyone could be at risk for getting HIV was if we had one gigantic orgy, I'd say that most people don't need to get vaccinated for it. On the other hand, measles is airborne and you can catch it from just entering a room a contagious person was in an hour ago.
Your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are very welcome my good sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injuries
In Vaccine Court, causation should be based on the circumstances of the particular case, having no hard and fast scientific or medical rules.
The determination of causation should involve ascertaining whether a sequence of cause and effect is logical and legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.
For example, causation can be found in vaccine cases based on epidemiological evidence and the clinical picture regarding the particular child without detailed medical and scientific exposition on the biological mechanisms.
To require identification and proof of specific biological mechanisms would be inconsistent with the purpose and nature of the vaccine compensation program.
The vaccine compensation program stems from Congress's recognition that while most of the Nation's children enjoy great benefit from immunization programs, a small but significant number have been gravely injured. And it is not always possible to predict who they will be or what reactions to the immunizations they will have.
The Court of Federal Claims should not be seen as a vehicle for ascertaining precisely how and why vaccines sometimes destroy the health and lives of certain children while safely immunizing most others.
This research is for scientists, engineers, and doctors working in hospitals, laboratories, medical institutes, pharmaceutical companies, and government agencies.
The special masters in Vaccine Court should not be diagnosing vaccine-related injuries.
The sole issues for the special master should be, based on the record evidence as a whole and the totality of the case, whether it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a vaccine caused the child's injury or that the child's injury is a table injury, and whether it has not been shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a factor unrelated to the vaccine caused the child's injury.
The government may defeat a petitioner's claim with an alternate theory of causation so long as it proves that there was in fact another cause, and that the other cause in that particular case was principally responsible for causing the petitioner's illness, disability, injury, condition, or death.
The government is supposed to be required not only to prove the existence of an alternate cause, but also to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the particular condition present in the child actually caused the injury complained of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injuries
having no hard and fast scientific or medical rules
Found the dog whistle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injuries
having no hard and fast scientific or medical rules
"Found the dog whistle."
Vaccines affect different people in different ways. So what if the particular injury observed does not follow the rules, then that is not science, that is politics. Science begins with observation, not rules. Science has not identified all the vaccine injuries that people can have in such a way that they can be put in a box. Science has no clue about what causes autism, so how can anyone believe that all possible vaccine injuries for all eternity are listed inside of a box?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injurie
Yes, and eventually if you believe or homeopathy hard enough measles will cure cancer!
No, seriously - why don't you guys inject yourselves will all the diseases, then you can blame us vaccinated people for daring to have the common cold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injurie
"Vaccines affect different people in different ways"
Yes, and there's an entire field of professionals studying such things. But, you're determined to reject all their findings.
"Science has no clue about what causes autism"
Well, I mean if you're going to lie about the very basics of the subject you can make up all sorts of crazy shit about the rest of it!
Hint: the subject is way more complicated than you want to admit, and "we don't know everything" does not mean "we know nothing".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injurie
This is technically true, but we aren’t talking about individuals but overall statistics and probabilities as well as scientific causation.
This is, again, trivially true. However, there’re some things to remember. First, everything after the first step (observation and forming an initial hypothesis) does have to follow certain rules. You have to follow the scientific method and follow guidelines regarding experiments and statistics. The results must also go through peer review and, ideally, be repeatable. Second, the main purpose of science is to discover the rules that nature follows. Nature does follow certain rules which can be studied and understood.
Simple. We may not know the exact cause of autism, but we have a pretty good idea of the basics, and we can effectively rule out some potential causes through experimentation. Many studies have been done on this, and all the credible ones show no link between autism and vaccines. If it has any effect, it’s so minuscule that it can effectively be disregarded as less important than other potential causes.
Similarly, we can take all the reported potential vaccine injuries and adverse effects and test each of them individually for causation. With this, we can rule out certain injuries as not being caused by the vaccines but by other factors, as well as determine other factors that determine which injuries are possible.
More importantly, you have it kinda backwards: causation has to be proven first; not assumed until it is ruled out. That’s how logic works. And science isn’t going to be testing every single imaginable idea, no matter how implausible, and certainly not ones that haven’t even been alleged.
Unless you have a specific issue with the evidence against causation, causation is assumed to be nonexistent until new evidence proving otherwise is discovered and then vetted through scientific procedures.
Plus, barring some substantial changes in human biology, it is unlikely that new injuries will be discovered any time soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In other words: “If you can bullshit your way through a claim of ‘vaccines injured me’ well enough, you should get to win a case even if you can’t factually prove that vaccines injured you.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How appropriate that the troll, continually making the flipping-the-burden-of-proof fallacy all over this thread, also wants to do the same to the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injuries
Tell it to the judge.
If you were in his court, you would be the loser.
Knudsen ex rel. Knudsen v. Secretary of the Department of Health & Human Services
https://casetext.com/case/knudsen-v-secretary-of-dept-of-hlth-hum
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit Sep 9, 1994
ARCHER, Chief Judge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the judge would tell you you're an idiot and a moron.
No, he wouldn't. Why you may ask? Because you cherry picked a case from the early 90s that dealt with a supposed injury from 1956. Almost 40 years prior.
As noted in the decision (which by the way, doesn't state the final outcome of whether they were compensated or not, it was just remanded back to the lower court) because of how the rules of that court work, preference is given to the plaintiff in cases where there is not a preponderance of evidence either way. Which, there wasn't because this originally happened in 1956 when vaccines were new, hadn't been studied much, much less was known about their interaction with the human body, and medical technology was such that it made determining actual cause more difficult. Indeed, both experts in the case basically admit that the same injuries could have been caused instead by a viral infection, but because of the lack of evidence in either direction, by default the plaintiff gets preference.
That would not be the case today where it's very clearly understood how vaccines interact with the human body, there have been multiple studies done, and medical technology is such that there would be a preponderance of evidence to firmly conclude one way or the other that the injury was caused by the vaccine or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence, proof
"That would not be the case today where it's very clearly understood how vaccines interact with the human body"
We don't know why some people get injured and why others don't.
So, no, that won't fly.
If we knew, then there would be a better system of taking into consideration contraindications.
When flu shots are given out without a medical screening, and if a medical screening does not predict side effects, then we clearly don't understand how vaccines interact with the human body.
If we did, there wouldn't be any vaccine injuries in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, yes we do. You obviously have not been paying attention as this has been brought up previously. In fact, not only do we know why some people have adverse reactions and others don't, the CDC and doctors use that information to screen out patients who should NOT be vaccinated. It's even listed in the handouts they give you and publicly available online. Now granted we don't know ALL possible causes but of the adverse reactions we know about, we also know most of the common causes. And before you say "well we should know all of them before we give them out" we don't know why all the causes of why some people are allergic to certain vegetables, fruits, cats, or dogs. We also don't know why some babies are stillborn. Just because we don't know all the answers doesn't mean we should ban the thing. And less people have a severe reaction to vaccines than people who have allergies to fruits and vegetables, or whose babies are stillborn. So your argument is invalid.
Oh hey look, it has wings and is flying. Unlike your lead brick of an argument.
Going back to you obviously not paying attention, the list of people who should not take vaccines is quite well known and is listed on the information provided with every single vaccine. It's also publicly available on the internet.
And yes, we have a pretty good system of taking into consideration of contraindications because doctors are trained to screen out those people.
Should we start screening people for allergies before selling them fruits and vegetables? Because that makes about as much sense.
Well, you might have a point, if we couldn't predict who may or may not have side effects at all. But we can (especially the severe/permanently damaging ones) so you just don't live in reality and are ignorant of actual medical science.
You assume that we can know everything about something and never be surprised or run into any situations where what we know was either incorrect or didn't apply. I have news for you, nothing in the universe fits that description. What you want is simply not possible, will never happen, and has never happened. What we do know about things is enough to make a determination on whether it is relatively safe or not, though. And vaccines fall into that camp. In fact, I'd say they are probably more well understood than some OTC painkillers. Which, by the way, have a list of side effects comparable to, if not worse than, vaccines, up to and including DEATH.
So, to make your argument consistent, you would also need to argue that we shouldn't take ANY medicine or medical treatments EVER because we don't understand fully how they all interact with the human body and could potentially cause severe and permanent damage. Then you will have to explain why that is preferable to the MILLIONS OF LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN SAVED by all the medical procedures and medicines we have today that weren't available a few hundred years ago and why you want to return us to the dark ages when children only had a 50/50 shot of living to adulthood.
Go on. I'll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injuries
This is technically true, but we aren’t talking about individuals but overall statistics and probabilities as well as scientific causation.
This is, again, trivially true. However, there’re some things to remember. First, everything after the first step (observation and forming an initial hypothesis) does have to follow certain rules. You have to follow the scientific method and follow guidelines regarding experiments and statistics. The results must also go through peer review and, ideally, be repeatable. Second, the main purpose of science is to discover the rules that nature follows. Nature does follow certain rules which can be studied and understood.
Simple. We may not know the exact cause of autism, but we have a pretty good idea of the basics, and we can effectively rule out some potential causes through experimentation. Many studies have been done on this, and all the credible ones show no link between autism and vaccines. If it has any effect, it’s so minuscule that it can effectively be disregarded as less important than other potential causes.
Similarly, we can take all the reported potential vaccine injuries and adverse effects and test each of them individually for causation. With this, we can rule out certain injuries as not being caused by the vaccines but by other factors, as well as determine other factors that determine which injuries are possible.
More importantly, you have it kinda backwards: causation has to be proven first; not assumed until it is ruled out. That’s how logic works. And science isn’t going to be testing every single imaginable idea, no matter how implausible, and certainly not ones that haven’t even been alleged.
Unless you have a specific issue with the evidence against causation, causation is assumed to be nonexistent until new evidence proving otherwise is discovered and then vetted through scientific procedures.
Plus, barring some substantial changes in human biology, it is unlikely that new injuries will be discovered any time soon. If it is, then we can talk about investigating it. However, we can safely rule on those which have already been investigated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injuries
It's the kind of dumbass who thinks that just because we haven't proven 2 + 2 = 5 yet, it doesn't mean we've already tried hard enough. Nurgle cultists are something else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause injurie
You have no decorum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People who refuse to accept facts and reality, despite having all their talking points completely and thoroughly debunked multiple times deserve none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause inj
Deliberately and maliciously lying repeatedly to our faces (aka being an antivaxxer) is at least three orders of magnitude ruder than any coarse language could ever hope to rise to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause inj
You're not wrong.
I also want fewer dead children.
I wonder which society will prefer - the occasional asshole or fewer dead children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have no arguments if you must resort to complaining about decorum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Evidence needed as proof that vaccines cause inj
If you're anti-vaccine, do you also remove all the mirrors in the house?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% "
Lets figure out why 0.2% of people die instead of medicating 99.8%
Did they treat the patients with high doses of vitamin-a like the World Health Organization suggest?
"Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% of the cases in the United States from 1985 through 1992. As with other complications of measles, the risk of death is highest among young children and adults. Pneumonia accounts for about 60% of deaths. The most common causes of death are pneumonia in children and acute encephalitis in adults."
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've already addressed this in this comment. But thanks for showing you have no intellectual honesty at all since you've proven you just ignored it.
To recap, you're an idiot and a moron, and here's why: it's measles, a disease.
It's what it does, it tries to kill you. That's why 0.2% people die from it and other diseases. The only way to keep it from killing people is to prevent people from getting the disease in the first place. Hence vaccines.
No, they didn't because the WHO doesn't suggest that as a treatment for all cases of measles. And the WHO recommends you take the vaccine so you don't get measles in the first place. As usual you leave out several important bits of information:
Any treatments for measles are too late because the person has already contracted the disease. Once you have it there is no way to get rid of it until your body has fought it off, if it can. As noted you can die from measles. The best way to prevent those 0.2% of deaths is to not get the disease in the first place. The only way to do that is to take the vaccine.
Yes, just in the US and during a specific time period. In less developed countries it has a death rate of upwards of 10%. And it can go as high as 20%-30% if there are health complications.
Here's another link for you:
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/downloads/measlesdataandstatsslideset.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow... I do not agree with a lot of what you say for example.....
"Any treatments for measles are too late."
The treatment for measles is vitamin-A. In layman's terms measles eats up vitamin A so doctors recommend that if you have measles to treat it with lots of vitamin A... Doctors also say good nutrition, rest, and stay hydrated to name a few. Doctors also tell people to stay home, why, because it's not a big deal...
Think about it, the protocol for measles isn't rush to the emergency room because you're going to die it's stay home take vitamin-A, get rest, Etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because, as the rest of your comment proves, you are dangerously malinformed about every facet of the subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I don't care. Those are the facts. If you reject them then you are rejecting reality and truth. Which is your choice, but I'll continue to call you an idiot and a moron for it.
NO. IT. IS. NOT. It is only a treatment for those who are vitamin A deficient. Not anyone else: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/measles/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20374862
Only if you are vitamin A deficient. If you are not, then there are other treatments they recommend. And vitamin A doesn't cure you of the measles, at best it lessens the severity of the symptoms. What it does do is help prevent you from getting other serious secondary infections like pneumonia, if you are already vitamin A deficient.
They also say to get vaccinated so you don't get the damn disease in the first place.
No, they tell you to stay home so you don't infect anyone else with it, you moron.
No, the protocol for measles is to take the vaccine so you don't get the disease in the first place. If you are stupid enough to NOT get vaccinated (or are medically unable to) then the fallback is to treat the disease and hope for the best. But since there is no sure fire cure for measles after you have it, you're taking your chances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fallback is to treat the symptoms and hope for the best. Perhaps splitting hairs but it seems important to point out that there is no cure for measles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. It can never be over-stated or emphasized that there is no cure for measles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) issued a joint statement recommending that vitamin A be administered to all children diagnosed with measles in communities where vitamin A deficiency (serum vitamin A <10 µg/dL) is a recognized problem and where mortality related to measles is ≥1%."
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/91/5/1014
"There's no specific treatment for an established measles infection...Children with low levels of vitamin A are more likely to have a more severe case of measles."
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/measles/diagnosis-treatment/drc-203748 62
Vitamin A supplements are not a treatment for measles, they're a treatment for vitamin A deficiency, which makes measles worse. If you already have sufficient vitamin A, more of it will do nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It sounds a lit like a variation of that Vitamin C scam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah I thought the same. $10 says he found out some people get treated with Vitamin A because they are deficient and decided to combine the two and try to use it as counter-point. Not that it helped him at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Death from measles was reported in approximately 0.2% "
Others have addressed many of the merits (or lack thereof) of this claim. I just want to ask you again to explain how this knowledge would change anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hep B study
Delayed acquisition of neonatal reflexes in newborn primates receiving a thimerosal-containing hepatitis B vaccine: influence of gestational age and birth weight.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/20711932/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good thing all Hep B vaccines in the US are only available as thimerosal free or thimerosal-reduced then, isn't it?
Come on man, this is one of the lamest points you can bring up because the vast majority of vaccines no longer contain thimerosal. The ones that do are being looked at for options to remove it from them as well.
Regardless of all that, that study was done on birds only, not actual people. So there is no evidence the same effect would be found in humans. And the conclusion of that study was that there was no conclusion. It said that it needed further study.
Additionally, there have been multiple studies done on the effects of thimerosal on humans and they have all conclusively proven to be safe. The only reason they removed it from vaccines was because idiots like you wouldn't shut up about it and they had other alternatives available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hep B study linked to the developmentally disabled
Boys who received Hepatitis B vaccines with Mercury were 9 times more likely than unvaccinated boys to become developmentally disabled..
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02772240701806501
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hep B study linked to the developmentally disabled
Now if only you could find a citation that isn't from a Walkefield-level scam source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh really? You don't say. Hmm, let's see what the first paragraph says there. And this is assuming there isn't anything wrong with the study itself.
Well, there you have it. The study only studied boys prior to 2000 when thimerosal was still used as an ingredient. Since it no longer is we can discard the entire study and your argument is invalid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do voices of the vaccine injured matter?
If the voices of the vaccine injured don't matter then why even have VAERS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. But only if they were truly injured from the vaccine itself. As previously cited data has shown, that is an exceptionally small amount of people, and the majority of those were not injured by the vaccine itself but instead because they had an underlying condition that was aggravated by the vaccine.
VAERS is a safety precaution. It's because it's impossible to test anything (even software updates) on everyone and in every single conceivable scenario. Therefore, VAERS and other similar agencies were set up as a safety net to continually monitor vaccines and identify any trends that may have not shown in the trials. This is how pretty much everything works. If they find anything, then the vaccine can either be withdrawn or modified to account for those issues if they are found to be caused by the vaccine itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thank you, that is very helpful.
What do you think about this.....
In 2016, VAERS received 59, 117 reports that included 432 deaths, 10, 284 emergency room visits, 4,132 hospitalizations, and 1,091 permanent disabilities.
HHS paid Harvard to do a study and found out that less than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported to VAERS.
How many vaccine injuries do you think there would be if 100% of people reported their injuries to VAERS??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A lot, and almost all of them would be very mild, as has been explained to you repeatedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If 432 is 1% of the reported deaths to VAERS than is it possible that if 100% of the deaths were reported to VAERS than it could be as high as 43,200 deaths from vacccines in 2016?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possible? Maybe. Plausible? Probably not. Likely? No.
As I say in another comment, not every reported injury in VAERS is a direct result of the vaccine itself. It could also include results from improperly administering the vaccine or from unrelated conditions. Plus, it could be the result of the vaccine exacerbating a preexisting condition, such as an autoimmune disorder or immune deficiency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To clarify, if 432 is the number of post-vaccine deaths reported to VAERS, and only 1% of post-vaccine adverse reactions are reported to VAERS, it’s possible that if 100% of post-vaccine adverse reactions were reported to VAERS, you would get 43,200 post-vaccine deaths. However, this would require two conditions to be met:
The percentage of post-vaccine deaths that are not reported to VAERS out of all post-vaccine deaths is the same as the percentage of other adverse effects that go unreported.
1 is almost certainly false, as people are far less likely to report a minor adverse reaction (caused by the vaccine or not) than any more serious or long-lasting adverse reactions, and death is possibly one of the most likely to be reported.
2 is definitely incorrect. Many cases reported to VAERS are known to not be caused by vaccines but some other source.
That’s why it’s highly unlikely that there were actually 43,200 vaccine-related deaths. They are unlikely to be unreported compared to other adverse reaction, and not all reported injuries were actually caused by vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just making up numbers, because there's no reason to think that deaths are reported at the same rate as all injuries. It's much more likely that a far higher percentage of deaths are reported.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not necessarily making up numbers, you could reasonably use that to extrapolate if 100% of injuries were all reported, but as you say, that would just mean they were 100% reported. Not that they were actually caused by vaccines.
It is a useful exercise to disprove them with their own data though. As I pointed out in my own reply to this further down, that's still less than 1% of the number of people who receive vaccines each year. Which means vaccines are safe more than 99% of the time. Kind of throws a major wrench in their "vaccines are dangerous" argument. OTC painkillers I don't think are that safe. Dying from the actual disease is at least in the single digit percentages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you cannot. It is not reasonable to assume that the percentage of post-vaccine injuries reported is the same as the percentage of post-vaccine deaths reported. It is possible that that is true, but is a baseless assumption in the absence of data.
To bring up the required car analogy, that would be like if only 60% of car crashes are reported to police (a number I just completely made up for illustration), then you assume that means that also 60% of fatal car accidents are reported to police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, yes and no. I'll try to clarify below.
No, that is not reasonable, but that is not what I did. The statistic stated that there were 432 deaths reported, not total injuries, so I used that to come up with the 43,200 number. That's not total injuries, just hypothetical deaths.
I agree completely, but I'm not saying he's right. I'm showing that even if the worst case is true (as he is implying), that still works out to less than 1%. So even if he's right, which he isn't, it's still less than deaths caused by the actual disease, therefore the vaccine is safe.
I think there might be some confusion here. To my knowledge there was no juxtaposition of injuries with deaths. If I implied there was my apologies as that was not my intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe that was OP's intent: use the injury reporting rate to inflate the possible number of post-vaccine deaths. I just wanted to make sure you didn't inadvertently help him/her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Based on my experience with this AC, while they may lean anti-vax, unlike most anti-vaxxers, this one is willing to accept evidence that goes against the anti-vaxxers’ claims seems genuinely interested in learning. They may make some mistakes, be a little ignorant, and/or misread some things. They may also be poor at math. However, based on what I’ve seen, I don’t believe they intend to misstate the data. I believe that they are genuinely asking for help interpreting the data they have found or been given.
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t wrong or lacking in bias completely, but I believe that they are honestly trying to improve and learn. They were even willing to agree with me on a pretty important issue: the distinction between known and proven side-effects and adverse reactions, which often have a much more tenuous link, if any, to a given vaccine, as well as the fact that there is some bias in reported incidents compared to unreported incidents. They have also thanked myself and another AC for our assistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's possible. And that would still be less than 1% of all people who received a vaccine in 2016. The death rate of people dying from measles in the US is 2%. That's more than double the number of people who "may" have been injured by ALL vaccines, not just the measles one.
But as has been pointed out numerous times now, of those 432 reported deaths, only a small fraction of those were actually somehow related to vaccines. So the actual number of vaccine related deaths is FAR fewer, if any at all. Compare that to the millions of deaths vaccines have prevented and your position just doesn't make any sense. The cost benefit analysis tips HEAVILY in favor of giving people vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For the record, VAERs tracks adverse reactions—which is anything negative that happens after the vaccine has been administered, even if it isn’t definitively known or even likely to be caused by the vaccine, even if it has already been tested and ruled out as a potential side effect, and even if it is not a result of the vaccine alone but improper administration of the vaccine—not side effects—which are unintended effects of the vaccine that some patients may experience and that are known to be causally linked to the vaccine.
In short, data from VAERS is a useful tool to track potential side effects not detected in clinical trials, but just because an injury is listed in VAERS doesn’t necessarily mean the injury was caused by a properly administered vaccine. And, as you note, not every vaccine injury gets submitted to VAERS (though part of this is because not every vaccine injury is severe or long-lasting enough to be submitted). So VAERS is not a complete list of all injuries ever incurred after a vaccine, nor is every injury listed actually caused by the vaccine itself. It’s really more of a tool so that researchers can find possible, previously unknown side-effects to research further and take appropriate action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok... That's very good.... One thing... When I called VAERS they said to report ALL injuries no matter how big or small it may be or how long I had the side effects..
info@VAERS.org or call 1-800-822-7967
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So do that. That doesn't change anything else that has been said here.
Do you have an actual question to go along with that or are you just providing that information as an FYI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To put that AC’s comment into context, they were pointing out a perceived error in my comment.
I said:
This can be reasonably interpreted as saying that VAERS has some sort of restrictions on submissions based on severity and/or duration.
The AC came to this perfectly understandable conclusion about my claims, but noted that, when called, VAERS says:
This would appear to contradict what I said based on a reasonable interpretation, which is why they posted this information, implicitly asking me to explain this apparent discrepancy.
Of course, it was all just a misunderstanding. What I meant was that many people choose not to report certain adverse reactions of vaccines to VAERS because they themselves don’t feel they are severe or long-lasting enough to justify reporting them. I never intended to suggest that VAERS imposed any such limitation or didn’t ask for any adverse reaction to be reported, regardless of severity or duration.
I explained this to the AC, and they have accepted and agree with this explanation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was referring to what the injured would be thinking. It’s the same kind of thinking that makes people decide not to go to the doctor if they catch what they think is a minor cold or something or get what they consider to be a minor injury. This also means that the less serious the injury, the less likely it is to be reported to VAERS, even if they probably should.
It is true that VAERS will accept any injury submitted, no matter how minor or short-lived, though. Like I said, it’s meant to try and document all adverse reactions people experience at some point after receiving the vaccine, regardless of seriousness, duration, or actual causation.
Sorry for any confusion I caused with my imprecise language.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No problem.... I agree with your comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Glad to see this discussion is finally leading to some agreement.
I appreciate your desire to learn more on the subject. I always support the pursuit of knowledge, as long as it’s tempered with appropriate skepticism, openness to new ideas, and awareness of the limitations and/or biases of certain sources. I hope that we’ve been helpful to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're welcome.
Very few of those were actually related to injuries from vaccines and most were due to other causes.
No, it found that less than 1% of adverse events after receiving a vaccine were reported to VAERS. An adverse event that happened after receiving a vaccine is not the same thing as injury CAUSED by a vaccine.
Is this a serious question? Are you not able to do the math yourself?
Let's say that (for the sake of argument) that 100% of the 432 reported deaths to VAERS were indeed factual and caused by vaccines (they aren't as has been covered previously, see the report of a guy turning into the Incredible Hulk after receiving a vaccine if you don't believe me). Let's also assume that those reported cases account for 1%, just for argument.
So then, all we have to do is multiply 432 by 100 (for 100%) to find out the estimated number of deaths that would be reported as caused by vaccines. That's 43,200. Out of, let me check, an average of 300 million (this number is likely much higher for 2016, this was an average of the total number of vaccines given out from 2006 to 2016). That's less than one percent of people who (theoretically) die from vaccine injuries each year. That's far and away way fewer people who would die from getting the ACTUAL DISEASE. And that's assuming that all 43,200 deaths were vaccine caused, which is not the case.
Extrapolate that same math out to the other "injuries" you mentioned and you still only come up with less than 1% of people who are severely or permanently injured by vaccines. That means that vaccines have a greater than 99% safety rating. What do you think about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for that information... I wonder what the rate of autoimmune disorders are the vaccines versus the disease?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're welcome.
It's all publicly available information. I encourage you to do some research on it. However, I will tell you that it is less than the damage caused by the disease itself. All the same math and arguments that have been previously stated apply here too. In fact I've already included it in many of my other comments where I state:
So, you either get vaccinated and risk a less than 1% chance of becoming permanently damaged by a vaccine, or you can not get vaccinated and risk a 2% or greater chance of permanent damage by the disease itself. In a cost/benefit/risk/reward analysis, the vaccine wins every single time as the better option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, ok thank you I will look at the previous post!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It looks like each vaccine should be judged on its own merrit. The National Cancer Institute did a study & they found.
From 2011-2015
Annual deaths from cervical cancer in the u.s. for women of all ages is 2.3 per 100,000.
Death rate in Gardasil clinical trials from all causes were 85 per 100,000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More or less. But the merits of each vaccine are pretty good and all are better than the actual disease.
You going to provide links for that statistic? Because I can't find it anywhere, and I highly doubt they were able to test it on 100,000 people in the clinical trials. In fact, according to this FDA site, Gardisil was tested on a grand total of 21,000 females. That's 79,000 less than what you claimed.
But, assuming that is an accurate statistic and you didn't just pull it out of your ass, let's take a look at what it actually says, specifically the part where it talks about deaths from "all causes". That means that those 85 deaths were not limited to JUST those directly caused by the vaccine. Those 85 deaths include anyone who died from old age, car crashes, other diseases, and other causes. So the actual amount of deaths caused by the vaccine is actually much less than that.
You can read this CDC site to get some actual statistics on reported deaths in connection with Gardisil. Spoiler, none have been linked to the vaccine itself and were instead either fake or caused by other things.
So, can you provide a link to where you got that data? If not, I'm calling bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes! Finally, someone gets it! I’ve been repeatedly telling one particular commenter that we don’t have to defend every single vaccine ever made or theorized. Each one is different, and they often improve over time. Additionally, the diseases they prevent are different, differing in seriousness, long-term adverse effects, complications, contagiousness, geographical distribution, etc.
I honestly don’t know much about this. Do you mind posting a link?
Also, one thing in particular stuck out at me:
Note that it doesn’t say “from the vaccine”, “from Gardisil”, “from Gardisil-related causes”, “from cervical cancer”, “from an allergic reaction to Gardisil or any of its ingredients”, or any similar conditions. It says “from all causes”. These deaths from the clinical trials could have absolutely no connection whatsoever to Gardisil or the condition it’s meant to prevent. It’s possible that some amount of those deaths aren’t even suspected to be caused by anything related to the clinical trials.
To be honest, this doesn’t surprise me. I’ve participated in clinical trials before, and they track a lot of data. They ask you to report just about everything, even if you don’t think that it’s connected to the medication/vaccine/treatment being tested or it’s known to be caused by a preexisting condition. That’s one of the reasons why “thoughts of suicide” is often listed as a possible side-effect for just about every anti-depressant or anti-depressant booster. It probably wasn’t caused by the medication; it’s likely just a failure of the medication to completely treat the underlying condition, one symptom of which is “suicidal thoughts”.
So take that “85 per 100,000” with a grain of salt; the information you gave, even if completely accurate and coming from a reliable study done and reported by a credible source and peer-reviewed, simply isn’t sufficient to conclude that 85 out of 100,000 people died from Gardisil or complications from the treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1000!
My last comment was the one-thousandth comment on this article. Wow. And the discussion shows no signs of slowing down!
Does anyone know what, if any, other articles have 1000+ comments on them? Please feel free to links to them if you find any.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 1000!
Dang! Beat me to it. I ended up being away from my computer when it clicked over, otherwise I was going to try and make the 1000th post. Congratulations sir!
As for the data on other articles, yeah, I was curious about that too. Supposedly there's a thread out there that's been going on since 2018. I'm curious to see that one. No idea which one it is though, somebody just mentioned it in one of the comments up thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 1000!
The 2018 article is Devin Nunes Releases Memo That Doesn't Show The Surveillance Abuses He Hypocritically 'Cares' About, currently sitting at 556 comments as of this one, and while you could go check it out I wouldn't suggest it, as it's mostly Blue ranting and throwing out their usual garbage with PaulT and a few others poking at them every so often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1000!
I've said it before - more readers really should be flagging the garbage blue posts there. But I'm more tickled that he's been pleading and boasting for the Nunes thread to be the longest thread on Techdirt... and he's sworn to that duty since 2018. But the Nunes thread wasn't even the longest thread to start with; there's a few ancient posts that have already hit the 1000-post mark. Granted those were mostly by website spambots, but this legit thread smashed blue's record in a matter of weeks. Now that's gotta sting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 1000!
:"it's mostly Blue ranting and throwing out their usual garbage with PaulT and a few others poking at them every so often"
It's basically a cycle, or was. Some news story about Trump or one of his cronies is in the current cycle, he pops in there to rant about whatever distracting story his echo chamber is pushing. I get an alert email so pop in there when I'm bored to poke fun at him and his questionable sources. A couple of other people pop in to mock him. Everything goes quiet until the next news cycle.
He is a lot quieter in there nowadays. Is it because he's realised the futility, or is the current evidence so damning that not even his sources can think up a way to deflect attention?
Both threads share one common element - a single person so woefully misinformed that people feel the need to communicate reality. At least in the other thread nobody's life is at direct risk if they believe the crap being spewed, with this one it's a scary insight into some peoples' lack of knowledge is dangerous (assuming that he's not just playing an act at this point, it's always hard to tell).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 1000!
How fucked up do you have to be that out_of_the_blue outshines you in the sanity department?
He is a lot quieter in there nowadays. Is it because he's realised the futility, or is the current evidence so damning that not even his sources can think up a way to deflect attention?
He hasn't even been showing up regularly in recent threads. Unfortunately we haven't gone a month in the Nunes thread where he just doesn't show up. I highly doubt he's realized the futility, or has been pacified by the Ukraine evidence.
Personally I prefer to think that he's trying not to asphyxiate through the rabid foam covering his mouth, or been assigned overtime damage control duty like Bennett. They did always enjoy the taste of Cowper's fluid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Confidence in Vaccines
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/nvpo/about/vaccines/nvac-vaccine-confidence-public-health-re port-2015.pdf
Assessing the State of Vaccine
Confidence in the United States:
Recommendations from the
National Vaccine Advisory Committee
Approved by the National Vaccine Advisory Committee on June 10, 201
Vaccine confidence encompasses these important concepts: it recognizes that parents and health-care providers need to have trust in the recommended vaccines, trust in the providers who recommend and administer vaccinations, and trust in the processes that lead to vaccine licensure and the recommended schedule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Confidence in Vaccines
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/partners/vaccinate-with-confidence.html
Stop Myths
CDC is engaging local messengers and partners to contain the spread of misinformation and ensure key stakeholders have critical information about vaccines.
New Investments and Partnerships
•Work with social media companies to promote trustworthy vaccine information
•Provide accurate, accessible information on vaccines to state policy makers
•Engage state and local health officials to advance effective local responses to misinformation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Confidence in Vaccines
I seriously don’t understand you. Do you read these things before you post them? Do you even read the copy-and-pasted stuff? What is this supposed to prove? That the CDC considers false information about vaccines to be dangerous to our health? Is that really that surprising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Out of curiosity what country gives the most vaccines? Does that
Out of curiosity out of the 33 most developed countries who gives the most vaccines and who gives the least vaccines?
And out of the 33 most developed countries who is the healthiest country.
Who has the highest infant mortality rate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Going by OECD’s numbers for 35 countries (when variables are considered together instead of compared), China has the highest rate of child vaccinations, while Indonesia has the lowest. And according to World Bank’s numbers, China’s infant mortality rate is 7 deaths per 1,000 children and Indonesia’s is 21 per 1,000 children.
…not exactly the silver bullet argument against vaccinations that you thought it would be, huh? But by all means, continue corn cobbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I should note: By lining up the two sets of data, India has the highest infant mortality rate of the countries on OECD’s list, with a vaccination rate of 85% and an infant mortality rate of 30 deaths per 1,000 children.
Another note: By OECD’s numbers, China is one of seven countries with a reported (or estimated) 99% vaccination rate. Of those countries, China has the highest infant mortality rate — but the lowest belongs to Finland, with only 1 death per 1,000 children.
Even with those caveats, your attempt to create a silver bullet argument has now vanished like a fart in the wind. Got anything else for us to dismantle?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yea. You rock on finding that data so fast! I ask because I read things like this and wonder if there's anything to it?
"American infants receive more vaccines in their first year than infants anywhere in the world."
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/infant-and-child-mortality-in-the-u-s-nothing-t o-brag-about/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. That is a quack website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. No, there isn’t. You’re reading bullshit because you refuse to pop your anti-vax bubble. Instead of letting anti-vaxxers tell you what to think by misleading you on the data and using appeals to emotion meant to make you disregard even the most basic logic, find the actual data and make up your own fucking mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To be fair, I believe that they are willing to reach outside the bubble every now and then. They just have trouble exiting it completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They just refuse to take anything with them back into the bubble out of the fear that the bubble would burst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it’s less an unwillingness to accept new information and more an inability to adequately judge a given source’s credibility or interpret data, and perhaps a strong reluctance to let go of bad ideas. They are willing to admit making a mistake, though.
I’d say that of the anti-vaxxers I’ve dealt with, this one is the most pleasant to work with (which isn’t saying much, to be honest).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I was wondering how many injections they were getting and how many different types of vaccines they were getting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is publicly available information. Do your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, so China has the highest vacvine coverage and and the highest infant mortality rate... That's wild.
I wonder what the vaccine rate is in Finland and how many and what kinds of vaccines they get??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is publicly available information. Do your own research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…a distinct, willful misreading of what I said, Ex-Laxxer. So maybe this will clear things up for you in a way even you can’t fuck up.
Of the 35 countries on OECD’s list for the vaccination rates data, China is one of seven countries with a 99% vaccination rate. Of only those seven countries, China has the highest infant mortality rate. The country with the highest infant mortality rate of all 35 countries on OECD’s list is India. Of the countries listed on World Bank’s list for infant mortality rates, the Central African Republic has the highest rate (85 deaths per 1,000 children). That country isn’t listed on OECD’s list, which means I can assume the vaccination rate is lower than Indonesia’s 76%.
China has the highest infant mortality rate of a specific subset of countries. It does not have the highest infant mortality rates of all countries, which is what you implied with that misleading bullshit statement I quoted. If you’re going to bullshit, do it to people more ignorant than you; everyone else is just going to call you on your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow... Aggressive much. Knowone is trying to pull the wool over your head. Just trying to have a conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, that is EXACTLY what you were trying to do by misquoting what he said. If you were truly interested in a legitimate conversation, you wouldn't have done that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And introduce my kids to measles. Fuck that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You intentionally misquoted what I said to serve your own purposes; I’m not obliged to be nice when you pull that shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your gaslighting and sealioning is decidedly not "just trying to have a conversation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I get where the others were coming from, as it seems like too stupid and convenient mistake to be accidental, but I’m guessing you either misunderstood the information given or misspoke. This seems particularly likely to me because you asked about Finland’s vaccine coverage when, in that same comment in the same sentence you were referring to, it says that Finland is one of the seven countries with around 99% vaccination rate.
If you want more precise numbers or rankings on that, maybe you should check the source this data is coming from. Regardless, the difference in vaccination rates between China and Finland is less than 1%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What Stephen actually said:
What you got from that:
So while China does have the highest vaccine coverage of the 35 countries checked, it does not have the highest infant mortality rate; it greatly trails Indonesia (the country of the 35 with the least vaccine coverage) and India (the country of the 35 with the highest infant mortality rate. China only has the highest infant mortality rate among the 7 countries with around 99+% vaccine coverage. Thus, in all likelihood, the vaccine coverage probably isn’t the reason for the (somewhat) higher infant mortality rate; it’s more likely due to other factors, like socioeconomic factors and the one-child policy.
What he said:
What you asked:
The answer to that question was given to you: it’s one of seven countries with around a 99% vaccination rate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You explained that very well thank you.... I did misinterpret what was said.. My mistake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You’re welcome. Glad to help!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Debunking antivaxxers' VICP claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
National Vaccine Information Center
Your Health. Your Family.
Your Choice.
Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
Is the childhood vaccine schedule safe? 1
In 1953, health officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control told doctors to give children 16 doses of four vaccines by age six. 2
In 1983, it was 23 doses of 7 vaccines by age six. 3
In 2013, it was 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18, with 50 doses given by age six. 4
With infants and children in America getting four times as many vaccinations as their grandparents got, how healthy are they?
Today, 1 child in 6 is learning disabled. 5 In 1976, it was 1 child in 30. 6
Today, 1 child in 9 has asthma. 7 In 1980, it was 1 child in 27.8 9
Today, 1 child in 50 develops autism. 10 In the 1990s, it was 1 child in 555. 11 12
Today, 1 child in 400 has diabetes. 13 In 2001, it was 1 child in 500 has diabetes. 14
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
Diabetes is caused by too much sugar, dumbass.
Today more children have mobile phones, why not blame that instead? It'd be just as informed as the tripe you're quoting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
Just to make things completely accurate, diabetes can also result from your immune system attacking insulin-producing cells in your body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes.
The National Vaccine Information Center is not a reliable source of information.
None of the statistics you quote have anything to do with vaccines or each other. Nothing here suggests vaccines caused those. You could just as easily list the rising number of car crashes and credit card theft on this list and it would mean about as much.
You say you just want to have a conversation, but you don't seem to be actually listening to anything we have said. We have told you many multiple of times that science and medicine has studied this and proven that vaccines are safe and the benefits FAR outweigh any potential serious side effects that occur in less than 1% of people who receive the vaccine. And we have also linked to those scientific and medical studies. You have not provided ONE SINGLE bit of evidence that says otherwise. All you have provided is random facts and statistics that don't prove anything and a bunch of quotes from sites that are known to be unreliable at best and outright frauds at worst. If you were truly interested in a conversation, we have gone well past the point where an honest person would have said "Huh, wow, I was wrong, I guess vaccines are safe after all.".
I will say this again: There is ZERO evidence that vaccines cause autism or any of our other common health issues we experience today. In fact there is large amounts of evidence that they PREVENT many health issues that used to be common. The evidence and proof of this is all publicly available and easily attainable.
I strongly recommend doing some research on sites run by reputable organizations, such as the CDC, FDA, and WHO. Wikipedia would even be a great starting point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm pretty sure that specific lie was already debunked days ago. Do try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, moron, none of those studies actually proves or even suggests that vaccines cause autism. And most, if not all, of them talk about mercury in vaccines, which was removed from the vast majority of vaccines YEARS ago. So none of those studies even apply to vaccines today. You are behind the times. Especially as Toom noted that this link has already been debunked in this very thread, days ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
Did you know US space spending is strongly correlated with suicide by strangulation? Maybe we should stop spending on space exploration so fewer people kill themselves.
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
Absolttely not.
It's one of the multiple scam sites run by the antivax Dwoskin family foundation / Claire Dwoskin.
Its sole purpose is to spread false information about vaccines.
Take any claim you find there with a pound of salt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the Childhood Vaccine Schedule Safe?
Well, I've seen some idiotic correlations in my time, but are you really trying to tie vaccinations to diabetes? That's a new level of ignorance for you guys if so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DTaP & flu shot given to pregnant woman. Hep B to baby
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-has-highest-first-day-infant-mortality-out-of-industrialized-world-g roup-reports/
Is it possible that the high death rate in babies have anything to do with the DTaP and Flu shot given to pregnant woman and the Hep B shot given to babies before they leave the hospital?
Shouldn't we investigate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, no it is not.
We already have:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/sids.html
https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initia tive/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/index4.html
No link was found. And this has already been covered multiple times in the conversation on this comment section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do you even bother reading the studies you provide..... It's laughable...
The first one was done using VAERS and you guys say VAERS is an reliable source of data being that it's a passive surveillance system remember?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You’re misunderstanding something. VAERS is sort of a preliminary way to detect adverse reactions that may or may not result from the vaccine. If anything of interest comes from that, additional investigation into those claims may occur, followed by more studies to prove ore disprove a causal link between the vaccines and the adverse reactions. It is a start, but not the end-all-be-all on this subject. I actually explained this in another comment already. Claims submitted to VAERS are accepted even if they turn out to be completely fraudulent, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do. But apparently you don't.
What's laughable here is the level of your stupidity.
So?
Yes. So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Additional recommendations for SIDS risk reduction include avoidance of exposure to smoke, alcohol, and illicit drugs; breastfeeding; routine immunization; and use of a pacifier."
The second study was done by a corrupt organization.
And notice how it says SIDS risk reduction include the avoidance of an in that list it says routine immunization and breast feeding.... You can interpret the quote anyway you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sounds about right. What's your point here?
You got any links to back up that obviously false and baseless accusation? Or are you thinking of the American College of Pediatricians, instead of the American Academy of Pediatrics? Because the AAP is a well known and respected organization. The ACP? Not so much.
I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say with your word salad and bad grammar, so I'll just point out that scientific studies have been done that show breast feeding does reduce the risk of SIDS, as well as immunization, and avoiding exposure to bad substances (smoke, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc...). I hadn't actually heard the part about the pacifier before. Interesting.
I interpret it as "if you want to help prevent your child from dying from SIDS, get them vaccinated".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Another study from VAERS. Either y'all want to use this as fact or not.... Stop flip flopping.
Then you have an epidemiology study which we all know it just means that you should investigate more.
And then you have a study using that vaccine safety datalink which nobody can repeat because the government says nobody's allowed to look at it except for them..
Come on.... You have got to be paid by pharma or the government to spat out these studies so fast.... You know 5 studies is not enough to say that the vaccines are not the results of a high infant mortality rate.
And the World Health Organization didn't provide any data they just assert opinions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve already addressed this. It’s just a collection of data without any qualifications or anything. That data can then be used for studies, but additional investigation into individual claims is needed before drawing any conclusions.
I have to ask: how many studies does it take, then? True, the more the better usually, but why would 5 studies into the same thing be insufficient. How much more do you need?
Also, I’m pretty sure you meant to say that it’s not enough to say the vaccines are not the cause of a high infant mortality rate. You’re still wrong, but I’m pretty sure that was a mistake.
…which are based on publicly available data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes and? We aren't flip-flopping at all. VAERS is a valid source of data. That doesn't mean all the data it contains is factual. See the guy who reported to VAERS that a vaccine turned him into the Incredible Hulk.
No, I don't. Considering that epidemiology is literally the field of medicine that studies and investigates things.
Seems pretty available to look at to me:
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/Abstract/2004/07000/Lack_of_Association_Between_Hepatitis_B_Birth. 12.aspx
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vsd/accessing-data.html
I've got links, you don't. I have the high ground and the burden of proof is on you. So far you've provided not even evidence. Just a lot of lies that are easily disproven.
Or know how to do a google search. My google-fu is strong.
No? That's good since there are 7 on that one CDC link. But if that's still too low, how about over a hundred? Is that enough for you? (It's way more than a hundred, I just didn't bother counting the exact number ON THAT PAGE ALONE.)
Based on studies on data and the conclusions of those studies. They aren't just spouting random shit out of their arse like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They were not looking at the vaccines given to pregnant women nor do they take a good look at the hepatitis B vaccine given to babies before they leave the hospital...
It's terrible how the public has been tricked into infecting their baby with a sexually transmitted disease..
It won't be long before that HIV vaccine comes out and they tell you that you should give your newborn that vaccine too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For the purpose of this discussion, the HIV vaccine is completely irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious, do you want me to embarrass you and prove you to be an idiot and a liar? Because I can and will:
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2018/02/16/peds.2017-3310
https://www.ncb i.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15247605
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734710
https://www.cdc.gov/vacci nesafety/vaccines/hepatitis-b-vaccine.html
The only trickery going on here is you and your lies. See above.
No, because while HIV and Hep B can both be transmitted by sex, Hep B also has other common transmission methods that HIV does not. Therefore, the chances of normal people in everyday life becoming exposed to HIV is extremely low. Hep B on the other hand is commonly transmitted from mother to child during birth, hence why they vaccinate right away. You do know exactly how a baby comes out of a mother right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is it possible that the unvaccinated group in the VSD study was too sick to be vaccinated... Come on you know that they don't give the shot when the babies is in critical condition...
Look at the death rate of babies where the mothers got a DTaP and flu vaccine and the babies got the Hep B vaccine..
Where is that data... and don't give me a case study of 9 babies or some bogus epidemiology study.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Possible, but unlikely.
And only an idiot would publish a paper with that kind of blatantly bad study methodology.
What am I looking for here? Seems fine.
Publicly available. Just like everything else we've posted.
Ok. Here's a few hundred:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/research/publications/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What does he have against epidemiology, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDC Members Own More Than 50 Patents Connected to Vaccinations
CDC Members Own More Than 50 Patents Connected to Vaccinations
Kinda a conflict of interest wouldn't you say.
https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/environment/environment-health/cdc-members-own-more-50-paten ts-connected-vaccinations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DPT too dangerous for the US
DPT vaccine too dangerous for the US but WHO does not mind they will give it to third world countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering it's regularly given out in the US, I'd say you are blatantly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adverse events following HPV vaccination
Adverse events following HPV vaccination, Alberta 2006–2014.
Of the women who received HPV vaccine 958 were hospitalized and 19,351 had an emergency department visit within 42 days of immunization. Elsevier 2016
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X16002036
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I see someone wants to bring this spamfest up to 1100 posts.
Bring it, nurgler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your life must have been very bad for you to use name calling... I feel sad for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I was called names once.
I got over it much faster than someone with measles.
Mind-blowing, I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I feel sad you want people to die and have to lie to try and support your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They were successful. I posted the 1100th post just a few minutes ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has anyone proven a direct causal link between vaccinations and any of those hospitalizations and ER visits? It's entirely possible (and exceptionally likely) that those hospitalizations and ER visits were caused by things other than vaccines — car accidents, broken bones, other illnesses that the vaccines didn’t cover, that sort of thing.
I know you’re a disingenuous piece of shit who’s more interested in pushing the anti-vax narrative than you are in having an actual conversation where you actually learn something, but damn, son, even you should’ve learned by now that correlation is not causation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are correct correlation is not causation...
But let's think about this. you're giving a vaccine to alter the immune system and guess what soon after people's immune systems are destroyed...
Yes this is a correlation but let's investigate. We have investigated in the circumstantial evidence is massive.
I think a great example of this is the studies where the scientist want to cause various immune disorders, food allergies, and food intolerances in rats and they use the same type of aluminum salts that are used in vaccines.
There is mounds of circumstantial evidence and some good biological evidence that has come out and is coming out soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And if you could prove vaccines are doing that, maybe you’d have a point. But you can’t prove it happens with any more regularity than has already been pointed out, or that vaccines are the singular cause of it.
So what? There's plenty of circumstantial evidence that women aren't safe drivers (all the car crashes they get into), but that doesn't make the notion itself true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lol... You make good points... I'll try to dig through my stuff tommow and get the biological studies and send them to you...
Zimmerman provided a statement this year talking about the mechanisms of autism.
The studies that Christopher Exley and his team have done are really interesting to look at. They examined aluminum in the brains of individuals who've died and have autism and controls..
What's funny is you always say correlation isn't causation but what you don't realize is to say that the MMR vaccine works against measles is a correlation. Nobody has ever proven causation with vaccines it's always a correlation.
People have managed to prove that vaccine causes antibodies but the presence of antibodies does not necessarily mean that you're going to be protected against the disease.. Its called primary vaccine failure. You should look into secondary vaccine failure as well I think that would interest you.
To prove causation with a vaccine you must give someone the vaccine and then expose them to disease but we can't do that because it's unethical but you get the point.
Any, goodnight.. I will try to continue this again tommow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re willing to expose people to diseases by not getting vaccinated, so maybe look at whose ethics are in a fucking trash can right now. (Hint: Yours are.)
You’re not gonna change anyone’s minds, you’re not going to make anyone here buy your anti-vax bullshit, and your arguments aren’t going to magically get better overnight. Stop trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow.. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nope, yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At this point it wouldn't surprise me if this chucklefuck managed to bloat the thread to a five digit reply count. Maybe that's the best thing we can do - waste this fucker's time so he doesn't go out to the supermarket to preach his "homeopathy cured my cancer" spiel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do the world a favor, liar, and please don't wake up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I know the back and forth can get heated at times but try not to sink to their level. Bad enough to have one side rooting for death and suffering of those around them, no need to have both doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, it can get a bit hard to keep the bile down when dealing with deliberate objectively evil bad faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you don't make any, good or bad.
I'm not holding my breath.
And he noted autism is not caused by vaccines.
You mean this guy? The guy whose studies were found to be improperly done and has now had his funding pulled? Yeah I don't think he's a reliable source of information.
...I am dumbfounded by the level of stupidity on display here. This is like saying the missile we launched at a bunker may not have been what destroyed the bunker. It's just correlation, not causation. That's so idiotic I don't even have words for it.
The measles vaccine was developed and tested specifically against, wait for it, measles. We KNOW it works against measles because that's what it was tested against, you unmitigated moron.
No, it's called higher brain function failure. You should get that checked out.
Primary vaccine failure: This is when a person fails to produce antibodies (at detectable levels) or does not produce enough antibodies considered necessary to protect from the disease.
Secondary vaccine failure: This is when a person does produce antibodies in response to vaccination however the levels wane and decline at a faster rate than normally expected.
Neither of those is what you presented them to be.
Good news then! This has been tested in BILLIONS of people over the last 50-70 years! And it has been proven to be effective in preventing that person from getting the specific disease they were exposed to.
No, I don't get the point. It's unethical to do that in pre-clinical trials but that's exactly what they do in clinical trials. It's also EXACTLY what happens after the vaccine is approved and given out en masse to the population. You go to the doctor, get a vaccine shot, then you go out into the world and expose yourself to all those diseases. This happens on a daily basis.
And you know what? Polio was pretty much eradicated, measles WAS close but then you idiots decided to spread a bunch of lies and now it's coming back because people believed you. I hope you get MY point.
Your choice. We'll all still be here to provide links and logical arguments proving you wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One last thing that will interest you before I sleep.... Vaccines are not compaired to true placebos sometimes they're not compared to anything..
Because vaccines are labeled as biologics they don't have to go through the gold standard like regular drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[The plaintiff offers no support for their claims, so they must be disregarded.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is blatantly false. One of the requirements of vaccine clinical trials is that they go through placebo testing. You are blatantly wrong and/or lying.
You're right. Because they are given to typically healthy people, they go through the diamond standard which is higher and more stringent than the gold standard. Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Obviously you have not.
No. Vaccines do not alter your immune system.
There is no evidence that this is the case. I mean, seriously, millions of people get vaccines every year and their immune systems are just fine. Where's your evidence?
There actually is no correlation, but that's ok, we investigated anyway and proved it. The links to those investigations have been provided in many many previous comments.
Grammar man. Yes, the evidence is massive that vaccines are safe.
And? Scientists can also use water to drown animals or inject them to poison them. That doesn't make it 100% harmful to humans.
You do know what circumstantial means, right? It means it doesn't mean anything.
You have yet to link to any of it.
Are you a scientific researcher involved in that study that you have such great inside knowledge to it? If not, liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Adverse events following HPV vaccination
Just a reminder: adverse reactions are not known to be caused by or related to vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Adverse events are not the same as side effects or reactions to or caused by a vaccine. We've been over this many times now. Me getting in a car crash on the way home after receiving my vaccine can be listed as an adverse event.
Stop spouting this crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It warms my heart to see the shitstain has resorted to gish-gallop flailing out of deranged desperation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile:
EU regulators have finally approved the Ebola vaccine Ervebo, after it was allowed to save at least 90,000 potential victims in the DRC ebola outbreak thanks to "compassionate use" protocol.
It is so effective, at around 97.5%, that it was decided that it would be net harmful to continue having an unvaccinated control group (which temporarily hindered data collection).
With this, Ebola is now officially preventable and treatable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
God forbid anyone ever do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study to identify any side effects of the vaccine. just give it to the people and say that any vaccine injuries are just a coincidence. That's what they do with all vaccines. They never go through the GOLD STANDARD like regular drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone gets into a car crash hours after they receive a vaccine, is that a “vaccine injury”? 🤔
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
VAERS would say sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, no, they would say that's an adverse event. Only anti-vaxxers seem to have trouble conflating injuries with adverse events.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(Unless, of course, you're talking solely about quack William Halford and his regulations- ethics- and science-dodging herpes trials backed in part by Peter Thiel.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They have, and the side effects (and their chance of occurrence) are well documented:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
Why would we do that? For that matter, who has done that?
Well, as the data shows, most of them are just coincidence. But no one is just saying that just to say it and ignore potential actual injuries. Stop lying.
YES. THEY. DO. The FDA regulates them the same as any other drug. Actually, because these are given to typically healthy people, I believe the safety thresholds and regulations are even higher than normal drugs. But if you think otherwise, do provide links to the evidence that they are not. I'll be happy to shred it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Vaccines are biologics they go by a different set of rules.... Look at the package insert... They never compair the vaccine to a true placebo..
Hep b, no placebo.
DTaP, no placebo.
IPV polio, no placebo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You.
Are.
Quite.
Literally.
Wrong.
And even if they aren't the exact same rules, they are actually MORE stringent and rigorous than normal drugs because of their nature.
And what is that supposed to prove? I have looked at several package inserts. In general they all provide information on how they were manufactured, tested, and the recommendations for who and who should not receive them; along with all relevant (and in some cases non-relevant) safety information. Looking at the package inserts only confirms to me that these are rigorously tested before being approved.
Yes, they do.
I've touched on this before but it is typically a requirement for all new vaccines for diseases that had no vaccines previously.
In addition, it is considered unethical to do placebo trials for new vaccines when there already exists a vaccine for that disease because it would mean denying people access to protection from diseases they could die from. But, even so, we have conclusive proof vaccines are effective as no amount of placebo effect can account for essentially eradicating an entire disease. That is scientifically quantifiable.
Yeah, there was: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6111671
Well, there was with this one too: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00017486.htm
You should be expecting what I'm about to say here: there was a placebo trial with this one too: https://www.who.int/immunization/polio_grad_ipv_effectiveness.pdf
So the question becomes, are you a liar or are you just really ignorant and not know how to do proper research?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol... I love how you pulled studies that show how effective a vaccine is and not how safe a vaccine is..
And you should know I'm talking about the gold standard when the vaccine is being made. read a package insert...
You and I both know they don't use true placebos when they're making these vaccines read the package insert.
How do you assess safety with a vaccine when you are not comparing it to a true placebo..
MMR vaccines are compared to MMR vaccines that's like comparing a poison to a poison and saying which one is will kill you faster.
Come on guy. You must be getting paid for my pharma to talk about how effective a vaccine is when this whole conversation is about how safe of vaccine is.... but look at your studies look how many people they looked at in those studies..lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And I love how you ignore that the safety was studied at the same time, in the same studies.
So am I. What's your point?
I have. You've yet to explain exactly how that supports your point. As I've pointed out, the package inserts tell the exact methods of testing and what the safety results were.
No, that would only be you. Also, that's a bit of a switch from what you said earlier in that there were NO placebo studies done. What's the matter? Facts getting in the way of your lies?
Repeating the same thing over and over is not going to change my response. Either say exactly what I'm supposed to glean from reading a package insert that would support your argument (or better yet link to one) or shut up about it.
Because the purpose of placebo trials is not to measure safety. There are better methods for that. Hell, you don't even NEED a placebo trial for that. Here, educate yourself on what a placebo trial is and is used for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo-controlled_study
Or it's like comparing newer baby car seats to older baby car seats to see which one protects your baby better. Your comparisons are flawed. Especially since vaccines don't kill people. Unless you are going to sit there and tell me that the billions of people who live in this world and have received vaccinations and are still alive are somehow a gigantic hallucination.
Right back at you.
Well, no. And I truly want nothing to do with your pharma. Actually why do you even have a pharma? I thought pharma was bad, according to you.
And you are extremely dishonest and an outright liar to ignore that A) safety and effectiveness have been discussed from the very beginning of this gigantic comment section, and B) safety was studied in all of the studies I linked to.
You mean 600,000? What, is that not a large enough sample size for one study for you? Or did you just not bother to read the links? I think I can guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You and I both know they don't use true placebos when they're making these vaccines read the package insert.
Sheesh. Now we've reached the "no true placebo" stage of this insanity.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
You have spent many days and many comments on this site, spewing absolute garbage. You have been corrected, debunked, and educated -- and you keep spewing the same debunked nonsense.
I have asked you before to fuck off, and I'm going to ask you again. You are a nonsense peddler, a true idiot, and you are endangering lives. Stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Watch the 3 min video. This is the type of person that you have been trusting for your precious vaccines.
Dr. Stanley "Human-in-Form" Plotkin, re: experiments on orphans/mentally retarded/prisoners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What 3 minute video? You haven't linked to any.
The rest of your post is a whole lot of projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is the link to the three min video....
https://youtu.be/yevV_slu7Dw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cool. I have no idea what's going on in that video, other than an old guy answering a bunch of questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Setting aside the fact that you clearly don’t understand the purpose of a placebo, among other things, I’m sick and tired of seeing, “Read the package inserts,” without links or further explanation. First, many of us have, and those who have don’t think they support your claims. Second, for those of us who haven’t, most people don’t exactly have a bunch of package inserts lying around the house, and it’s not our job to do your research for you. Post some links and maybe some quotes to give us guidance.
God, it’s getting worse than, “Read the transcript!”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The irony there is that actually reading the transcript kinda proves the case against Trump, which is why he tells people to read the transcript: He knows his base won’t read it because they have near-religious faith in him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... 'near'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How do you know, with the certainty of God Herself, that every vaccine manufacturer doesn’t use “true placebos”? How can you know that with God-like certainty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" I have looked at several package inserts"
The package insert obsession is particularly silly. I personally have suffered from gout since I was 15 years old. Genetic quirk, painful but controllable. I take allopurinol for the condition to keep it in check. The following is what's listed as possible side effects. I still take it because I'm not an idiot and I understand that the rare possibility of severe reactions is far outweighed by the more likely possibility of being unable to walk at various points.
Some less serious side effects of allopurinol may include:
Vomiting
Diarrhea
Drowsiness
Headache
Muscle pain
Changes in sense or taste
Serious Side Effects of Allopurinol
Call your doctor immediately if you experience any of the following serious side effects:
Fever, sore throat, and headache with a severe blistering, peeling and red skin rash
Any sign of skin rash, no matter how mild
Nausea, upper stomach pain, itching, loss of appetite, weight loss, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice
Pain or bleeding when urinating
Urinating less frequently or not at all
Joint pain or flu symptoms
Easy bruising, unusual bleeding, or purple or red pinpoint spots under the skin
Severe tingling, numbness, pain, or muscle weakness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is the single leading source of maliciously misleading anti-vax ads on Facebook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are volunteers needed for AIDS vaccine trials?
Why are volunteers needed for AIDS vaccine trials?
https://www.hvtn.org/en/participants/volunteer-faq.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it's an unethical to force someone to take a trial drug against their will? Just an idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why are volunteers needed for AIDS vaccine trials?
The exact same reason volunteers are needed for every experiment—including clinical trials—done on humans: ethics.
Seriously, what did you expect to happen? That every person was just going to get forced to take an untested vaccine? Are you nuts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, he’s not making a good case that he’s not nuts…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What was the inert placebo used when the MMR vaccine got made?
What was the inert placebo used when the MMR vaccine got made?
I couldn't find the placebo in the package insert.
Where is the data?
We need to shut this guy up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is really irrelevant. Especially considering multiple placebo controlled trials have been done on MMR and none have found any issues with safety or efficacy. But here, go have a look at this study of a collection of them and see for yourself: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6458016/
This site also has some good info on placebo trials of vaccines: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/placebo-controlled-trials-of-vaccines/
So? The exact placebo used is irrelevant. It's a placebo. It doesn't do anything.
Publicly available for anyone to go and look at it. I've already provided many links.
Hey man, don't blame me just because you are an ignorant, lying moron who can't even do the most basic research. I told you, if you want me to embarrass you and show you to be an ignorant, lying moron who can't do his own research, by all means, continue to post this crap and I'll happily oblige.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Authors' conclusions
The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre‐ and post‐marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."
Do you even read your one data
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What have you read from your own data, outside of frothing at the mouth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, I do:
But obviously you just search for hot takes and "gotchas". Too bad you didn't read the rest of it, otherwise you would have prevented yourself from being shown to be an ignorant, lying moron, who can't do proper research. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's an easy way to do this. Stop posting your crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re free to spread your nonsense anywhere you want on the Internet. Everyone trying to make you shut the fuck up here is showing you the door and asking you to go somewhere else — which, yes, you should absolutely do by fucking every last mile of off that you can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine Injury Epidemic
Vaccine Injury Epidemic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MozcnBvarik&list=UUq6oOuhSx7ESreh6m9LGy6Q&index=2&a mp;t=0s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh look, it's a quack convention live streamed on Youtube! Should be good for a few laughs, but not much else. Definitely not a reliable source of information.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The dark history of MMR
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/165/6/704/63700#498902
Meningitis in the past and mumps outbreaks in the future.
https://www.mdedge.com/ccjm/clinical-edge/summary/vaccines/mumps-outbreaks-vaccinated-us-pop ulations
When the vaccine fails to protect just give them another.
They said in the beginning that you would only need 1 MMR shot but since the vaccine wanes they want to up it to three shots.
They give 5 DTaP shots and want to up that one to 6 shots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this is an issue…how, exactly? Again: Actual injuries (not “adverse events”) from vaccines are exceptionally rare. If a vaccine’s effectiveness wanes over time, of course you should get another one (unless you have medical conditions that make doing so impossible).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a fantasy world.
Oh look! It's safety precautions working as designed to pull drugs off the market when they find previously unknown issues. I fail to see the problem here.
Bold of you to say you can see into the future. What am I going to eat for breakfast tomorrow?
What was that you were saying about not reading your own data? I believe that first link explicitly stated that the vaccine DID protect people from the measles but was found to have had a higher risk of side effects, so they pulled it and replaced it with a safer one. Moron.
Um, no, that's blatantly false. I have no idea where you are getting your info from but it sucks. The current standard is two doses of MMR, spaced 3 to 5 years apart.
Says who? But even if true...so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The dark history of MMR
There’s a lot of wrongness here. What I want to know is why people get upset about having to take the same vaccine more than once. If you weren’t injured the first time, then it’s highly unlikely you would get injured the second or third time unless you acquire an immune deficiency in between shots, as essentially every serious or long-lasting injury is dependent on pre-existing factors which will be known before the second shot. If you are injured by the first vaccine (except by incompetence in giving the vaccine) or get an immune deficiency by the time you’re supposed to take a subsequent dose of the same vaccine, you should have a valid medical reason not to get that same vaccine in the future.
In other words, multiple doses don’t increase the risk of a significant injury from the vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IPOL vaccine insesrt NO PLACEBO: IPV Pol + DTP compared to DTP
When they licensed the IPOL which is the IPV (inactivated polio vaccine) they compared the polio vaccine concurrently with DTP and compared it to DTP and then watched the babies for 48 hours.
DTP was never tested against a placebo when it was being licensed. We no longer used DTP in the US because of all the suspected injuries and deaths
"ADVERSE REACTIONS"
"Body System As A Whole In earlier studies with the vaccine grown in primary monkey kidney cells, transient local reactions at the site of injection were observed. (3) Erythema, induration and pain occurred in 3.2%, 1% and 13%, respectively, of vaccinees within 48 hours post-vaccination. Temperatures of ≥39°C (≥102°F) were reported in 38% of vaccinees. Other symptoms included irritability, sleepiness, fussiness, and crying. Because IPV was given in a different site but concurrently with Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed (DTP), these systemic reactions could not be attributed to a specific vaccine. However, these systemic reactions were comparable in frequency and severity to that reported for DTP given alone without IPV. (12) Although no causal relationship has been established, deaths have occurred in temporal association after vaccination of infants with IPV. (37)"
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean, I already debunked this particular claim but here, have another link: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.565.298&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Again, already debunked, but here's another link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5287315/
And you accuse me of not reading my links. You don't even read what you post. Here's some highlights:
That means they didn't last. Just in case you don't know what "transient" means.
Oh look, they have not found vaccines to cause death.
The lying, ignorant moron who can't do proper research strikes again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HEP B package insert: Dont see a placebo
ENGERIX-B
You can see with the Hep b vaccines they looked at 416 adults and what they did here is compare diabetes to controls and watched the for 4 days. (I am assuming non diabetes).
They never compared the vaccine to a saline injection.
"In a clinical trial, 416 adults with type 2 diabetes and 258 control subjects without type 2 diabetes who were seronegative for "hepatitis B markers received at least 1dose of ENGERIX-B. Subjects were monitored for solicited adverse reactionsfor 4 days following each vaccination. The most frequently reported solicited adverse reactionsin the entire study population were injection site pain (reported in 39% of diabetic subjects and 45% of control subjects) and fatigue (reported in 29% of diabetic subjects and 27% of control subjects). Serious adverse events were monitored through 30 days following the last vaccination. Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 3.8% of diabetic subjects and 1.6% of controls. No SAEs were deemed related to ENGERIX-B."
I don't see that when any of the Hep B vaccines were in the Clinical Trials Experience that they compared the vaccine to an inert substance such as a saline injection.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m sorry, you have the wrong site. Batshit insane plague enthusiasts are somewhere else. You’re on a site with actual intelligent people who can see through bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't have to use this site. You can use whatever site you want as long as it has the package insert.... Who cares about the site we are talking about what the package insert says about the clinical trial experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do. I like Techdirt. All you’re doing is shitting it up with plague enthusiast bullshit. You think you’re ever going to change the mind of anyone who’s spent all this time debunking your bullshit and trying to educate you on all the ways your anti-vax nonsense is both stupid and potentially harmful to society? You’re not. You won’t win here, you can’t win here, and you shouldn’t be trying to win here, you fucking Gish Gallop machine. You’re a plague enthusiast, you’re no longer deserving of even a basic level of respect, and you’d be better off as a person if you shut off your computer for the rest of your life. Now please, do everyone here — including yourself — a favor and fuck all the way off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I provided you with the data showing you that they do not use true inert placebos in the clinical trails when they are making the vaccines.. You responded with name calling not science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry, clinical trials... It's hard typing on a phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And I provided you with data showing that they DO. Why are you ignoring it?
Because the science was already provided. You are ignoring/rejecting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice and kind are not the same thing, and by not being nice any more, I’m being kind to you — because I’m outright telling you that you’re full of shit, everyone here knows you’re full of shit, and maybe you should go examine why everyone here believes you’re full of shit instead of continuing to defecate on this site because you can’t be bothered to listen and learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually by all means, he should be posting here. As I'd mentioned above, I'd rather he spend time spouting garbage and providing entertainment, instead of going out and corrupting the easily impressionable. It's like taking attention away from 419 scam letters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now there's a wonky situation. A nurgle cultist posting their garbage here is annoying and can take up time from those that are responding to them, but it provides information for any that are actually interested in the science/facts, keeps their attention here where the odds of them conning anyone are slim to none, and at the least reduces the amount of time they spend throwing out their poisonous garbage into forums where they actually might convince some gullible sap to sign those around them up for Darwin Awards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Normally a minor thing, but just to be clear...
Bah, just noticed I missed a few words and as such part of the statement above could give the wrong impression. In the interests of not providing a quote that could be misconstrued/cherry picked by the dishonest in an attempt to portray support for their position that doesn't in fact exist, the relevant portion should read 'A nurgle cultist posting their garbage here is annoying and can take up time from those that are responding to them, but it provides an opportunity for information for any that are actually interested in the science/facts, provided by those that are responding to said cultist with accurate information to debunk their latest baseless claims...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok... If you don't like the site then go to one you like with the package insert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Again, that’s not our job. We aren’t going to do your research for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HEP B package insert: Dont see a placebo
Doesn't mean it didn't happen. Here's ANOTHER link in addition to the one I provided previously: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJM198010093031501
In that one study. Doesn't mean other studies weren't done where they did do a placebo trial.
Well so far I've already provided links to TWO studies where they did do placebo trials, and those were just the first ones on the google search I did. There were many more.
Well then that just proves what I've been saying all along, that you are a lying, ignorant moron who can't do proper research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HEP B package insert: Dont see a placebo
First, I am saying that in the clinical trials true Placebo are not being used.
Second, this abstract asserts safety, "The vaccine was found to be safe, and the incidence of side effects was low." But are they asserting that based on what the package insert says that never used a placebo?. What data are they using to assess safety? I tried to go to the full text but it says I have to purchase it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, as clearly shown by my multiple links, they do use true placebos in clinical trials. So, you're wrong.
Yes, because it was rigorously tested.
Because placebos are typically used to test efficacy and account for the "placebo effect". While they can be used to test safety, they generally are not because there are much better methods for testing that.
The data in the studies and clinical trials they did that are listed on the insert and publicly available elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: HEP B package insert: Dont see a placebo
You don’t use placebos to test safety.
Here’s the deal: there is this phenomenon where just taking something you think might be medicine or something, even if it does absolutely nothing, you will often see improvements over someone who takes nothing at all. By testing against a placebo, you can test the actual beneficial effects of the treatment itself that other treatments (including placebos) don’t have.
(Incidentally, this is one reason why improved versions of existing vaccines are tested against the old version rather than a placebo. If a previous version has already been tested against a placebo and been found to be better than the placebo, then a new version that performs even better than the previous one would logically also perform better than a placebo. If it doesn’t perform as well as the old version then it doesn’t matter whether or not the new one is better than a placebo; we already have a better version. Either way, a placebo is unnecessary to test the beneficial effects of the new vaccine. The other major reason is that, if we have a clinically tested vaccine available for the disease, it would be unethical to intentionally leave subjects completely unvaccinated against that disease, especially when you’re going to intentionally expose those subjects to the disease. Regardless, even if the current vaccine hasn’t been tested against a vaccine, if you follow the chain of tests and comparisons, you’ll eventually find a version of that vaccine that performed better than a placebo, so it can be safely assumed that if the current vaccine surpassed its predecessors in clinical trials, then it must also be better than a placebo.)
While this phenomenon may possibly occur for harmful effects, that’s only where the person thinks that harmful effects are more than likely, like being told that something is poisonous even if it’s harmless. When it comes to medical treatments, that’s generally a nonissue, especially given that volunteers in clinical trials likely would expect some sort of benefit from a treatment they’re volunteering for, so the placebo effect would only affect positive effects of the treatment, not potential harms. A placebo would therefore be unnecessary to determine safety.
Additionally, clinical trials for effectiveness often either directly test safety simultaneously or collect data on adverse reactions that can then be used to determine safety. Pretty much any clinical trial will have some information on the safety of the treatment. If an adverse reaction is too minor or rare to be worth testing, or it has been tested before and so causation has already been determined to be true or false, then it might be ignored for determining safety, but it will almost always, if not always, be included in the report on the results of the test.
As for the abstract, assuming you’re talking about the abstract in a post-clinical-trial lab report, as I said earlier, that information was probably taken from the clinical trial itself. An abstract in a lab report is essentially a summary of the information contained inside the report. An abstract almost never includes information that does not come from the trial itself or a cited source. If the abstract itself doesn’t specify where that claim came from, check the introduction or conclusion, which almost certainly will have that same claim with a citation or explanation. And at any rate, not mentioning a placebo doesn’t mean one wasn’t used (as explained below), and an older version of the vaccine can be used as a substitute for a placebo in clinical trials without compromising the reliability of the test (as explained above).
Finally, the exact placebo used may not be given because it is largely irrelevant (the whole point of a placebo is that it has no actual effect whatsoever, so which placebo is used doesn’t really matter) and is so standardized that in most cases, it can be safely assumed what was used anyway, so they may only mention it where a unique placebo is used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Flu shot :6.1 Clinical Trials Experience no inert placebo
Here they compare Fluzone High-Dose to fluzone. You do not see anywhere on the package insert that they compared the flu vaccine to an inert placebo such as saline.
Sanofi Pasteur 372 Fluzone® High-Dose
6.1 Clinical Trials Experience
"Within the study surveillance period (approximately 6 to 8 months post-vaccination), 1323 (8.3%) Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 1442 (9.0%) Fluzone recipients experienced an SAE. Within 30 days post-vaccination, 204 (1.3%) Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 200 (1.3%) Fluzone recipients experienced an SAE. The majority of these participants had one or more chronic comorbid illnesses. A total of 167 deaths were reported within 6 to 8 months post-vaccination: 83 (0.5%) among Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 84 (0.5%) among Fluzone recipients. A total of 6 deaths were reported within 30 days post-vaccination: 6 (0.04%) among Fluzone High-Dose recipients and 0 (0%) among Fluzone recipients. These data do not provide evidence for a causal relationship between deaths and vaccination with Fluzone High-Dose"
I have never seen them use a true placebo in the Clinical Trials Experience in any flu vaccine.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, that doesn't mean it wasn't done: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/vaccines-work/effectivenessqa.htm
Well, then you haven't actually looked hard enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Again, we are talking about the issue of safety not effectiveness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And once again, no, we've been talking about both and placebo studies are typically used to study effectiveness, not safety. So you're just wrong all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As has already been explained, placebos are only meant to be used to test effectiveness. There is no placebo effect regarding safety that would need to be controlled for. While a placebo treatment may be—and often is—more effective than no treatment at all, assuming a placebo is properly chosen (e.g. don’t give a sugar pill to someone with diabetes or something), a placebo treatment is no more or less safe/harmful than no treatment at all. As such, placebos are not needed to test how safe a treatment is; they are only necessary for testing the effectiveness of a treatment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine Excipient Summary from CDC
Here is the Vaccine Excipient Summary from the CDC website if anyone is interested
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay class, in the few above posts from the spammer, you can see an exquisitely clear exemplar of the bad-faith troll tactic known as "cherry-picking."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
we are talking about placebos when the vaccine is being produced or rather lack there of.... i don't know how that cherry picking. i have provided a list of various vaccines so you can go through them and read them for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Correction: You re pushing the malicious false narrative that vaccine safety isn't adequately known, currently with your made-up false metric of a vaccine requiring sufficient-to-you "placebo" use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how far back he’ll keep moving the goalposts on placebos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And we have provided examples of studies that have been done on those vaccines that included placebos. The fact that the placebo study is not explicitly stated on the package insert is irrelevant. Hence, "cherry-picking".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stanley Plotkin, Vaccines Deposition, Under Oath, on YOUTUBE
Stanley Plokin is considered a hero and the "God Father" of vaccines. Stanley has been a major player when trying to fight the so called anti-vaxxers.
See him fight against the anti-vaxxers in this informative deposition.
Stanley Plotkin, Vaccines Deposition, Under Oath, 9 Hour Full Video
https://youtu.be/DFTsd042M3o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ok.
Never heard of him.
Pass. Irrelevant.
I don't need some old dude to prove you wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Stanley "Human-in-Form" Plotkin, re: experiments on orphans
This is the man we have listened to for years and years. He is the "Godfather" of vaccines.
Dr. Stanley "Human-in-Form" Plotkin, re: experiments on orphans/mentally retarded/prisoners
https://youtu.be/yevV_slu7Dw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re never going to win here. You’re never going to turn anyone here into a plague enthusiast. Your entire act is impotent, possibly like you are, and it’s no longer worth debunking since that’s been done plenty of times before. Fuck off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This whole placebo talk has really upset you.... I remember when I first read a package insert and learned how they don't do long term double blind inert placebo testing. I was really bothered by it too. They said that the reason is that vaccines are so valuable so they want to get them on the market as fast as possible... They say that we shouldn't worry because VAERS will catch any problems with the vaccines.. essentially we're being experimented on when a vaccine first comes to market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Still asserting facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is a fact. It says what they used in the package insert.
And, the package insert is what I am summiting into evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the package insert is what evidence the company used to submit to the FDA .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's actually not: https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/biologics-license-app lications-bla-process-cber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I've shown multiple times with multiple links, it really isn't. They do in fact do placebo trials.
Then you are cherry-picking your data to bolster false view of reality.
And it doesn't support your argument.
Here's a package insert that DOES list placebo trials: https://www.fda.gov/files/vaccines,%20blood%20&%20biologics/published/Package-Insert---Gardasil. pdf
Now shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Pfft. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Oh this is rich. Please see all my posts where I debunk your stupid placebo arguments.
Well that says something about your learning ability then. Because history is rife with double blind inert placebo testing of vaccines.
Educate yourself then.
Well, since they do actually do placebo testing (as shown in links above) that is a blatant lie. I question where you heard this from.
Any that have not already been caught in placebo and other clinical trial testing yes.
No, we're not: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've never heard of him and never heard anything he said. Irrelevant.
That's cool. I'll be sure to thank him if I ever see him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stuy: flu shot to old flu shot is like cigarette vs cig no filte
Comparing a vaccine to a vaccine is like comparing a cigarette without a filter to a cigarette with a filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stuy: flu shot to old flu shot is like cigarette vs cig no f
[Maliciously asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now you’re not even fucking dealing with facts. You’re dealing with the shittiest analogy for vaccines that I’ve ever seen. Why don’t you go somewhere that doesn’t believe in vaccines and spread your plague there? I’m sure they’ll be happy to have you~.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm.pretty sure he's already there. Who else do you think has been feeding him the lies he's pasting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
At least whoever they are, they can at least muster more effert in support of their cult than the fuckwitted threadshitter dancing for my amusement in another thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stuy: flu shot to old flu shot is like cigarette vs cig no f
That’s… actually a valid test, you know. Though, in that case you’re talking about something that is well known to be more harmful than helpful (benefits are quite minor, while harms are highly dangerous and incredibly likely to occur)—which is not the case for a vaccine—so a control (not a placebo) would be necessary. Though if you only care about the relative safety of a cigarette with vs. without a filter, then without a filter would be a reasonable control for the experiment. You’re not testing whether a filtered cigarette is safe; only whether the filter makes any difference at all. Including a category for no cigarette would keep people from using the results to claim that filtered cigarettes are completely safe. But again, that’s testing whether a specific safety measure is effective in reducing a common danger; that’s not what happens with vaccines.
When determining safety, a placebo is unnecessary for a control. All that is needed is something with its relevant dangers to be known, which could be absolutely nothing at all or an older, well-tested version of the same thing. For testing health benefits, a placebo or an older version of the vaccine that is known to perform better than a placebo is necessary and sufficient as a control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, anti-vaxx guy! If vaccines don't help you build immunity and us vaccinated people are so sick all the time, why don't you help yourself and your kids by adopting a rabid squirrel? You'd survive, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
See what you don't understand is unvaccinated people practice prevention in that type of situation... We would not get close to the animal...
Did you get your rabies shot yet?? Because you never know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Whether you practice prevention or not is irrelevant. The original poster is saying that since you assert that vaccines have zero benefit, and the only way to develop immunity to something is to actually contract the disease, then why don't you go and deliberately expose yourself to disease (in this case rabies) so you can get the immunity? There are people out there whose job it is to get close to animals with rabies. How do you suggest they protect themselves if they shouldn't get vaccinated?
No amount of "prevention practice" will protect you from the measles or other extremely contagious diseases, unless you confine yourself to a hermetically sealed house, or suit, and never come out or allow anyone else in. Which is not feasible (nor desirable for that matter) for 99.999% of the population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"No amount of "prevention practice" will protect you from the measles or other extremely contagious diseases"
...as shown by the centuries of death caused by diseases such as measles before vaccines were invented. But, because his generation was vaccinated, his kids are able to coast along on the herd immunity provided by vaccines until they've successfully brought the epidemics back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"We would not get close to the animal"
Oooh... so close.
Now, imagine that instead of "adopting a rabid squirrel" the subject was "letting a measles-infected kind into your school". Would your recommendation be the the same?
I smell hypocrisy, but I'll give you the chance to say otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Each disease is handled on its own Merit. I am not afraid of catching measles because I understand the disease and I understand what to do if I catch the disease. I also understand what I can do to build my immune system before I am exposed to the disease..
I have caught many of the childhood diseases just like my mother did. We know what to do to recover.
I am permanently damaged by a flu vaccine so for me personally I will take my chances without vaccines but you guys feel free to get the shots. Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Me...Me...Me...Me...
The problem is, this is about more than you. If you refuse to get your kids vaccinated for measles, the parents of the kids you place at risk have the right to tell your kids to GTFO of their school. If you refuse to get flu shots, then the medical staff in charge of the higher risk patients you are putting at risk have the right to tell you to GTFO of their hospital.
"We know what to do to recover."
Millions of people died before vaccines of these very diseases, and it's not your place to risk others because you have no concept of anything outside your own little world.
"I am permanently damaged by a flu vaccine"
The plural of anecdote is not data. Your claim does not outweigh the many that the flu shot saves every year. Your fear of other vaccines do not outweigh the lives of millions who have been saved since their introduction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Only I'm allowed to refuse to be around disease carriers'
Worthwhile to note that they seem to have confirmed their hypocrisy via their response. When it comes to a rabid animal the reasonable response is apparently 'keep away from it', yet when it comes to a school not wanting to have a potential vector for disease in the form of an unvaccinated/infectious child around all the other kids that's suddenly unacceptable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Only I'm allowed to refuse to be around disease carriers'
'Yes, it's a natural human response to want to protect you and your own so I don't necessarily begrudge them that. But, they obsess over statistically insignificant risks and ignore the people who know what they're talking about in order to increase everybody's risk - including their own. That's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Only I'm allowed to refuse to be around disease carrier
'Yes, it's a natural human response to want to protect you and your own so I don't necessarily begrudge them that.
If they were consistent about it it might be less hypocritical, but arguing that they should be able to 'protect' themselves against an insignificant statistical anomaly in the form of vaccine related injuries while at the same time arguing that it's unfair for those around them to in turn respond to the all-too real danger of an unvaccinated person by issuing the ultimatum of 'if you want to send your kid to this school/work at this job they/you need to be vaccinated' is where any sympathy dries up real quick.
It's one thing for a person to risk their life with darwin award level stupidity, another entirely to put the lives and well-being of others at risk due to said stupidity, especially if part of their argument is that people have a right to refuse something that they consider dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. And of the ones that have vaccines for, ALL of them are weighted heavily in favor of getting the vaccine rather than the disease.
This tells me you don't:
Yeah I'll pass on getting that disease. Especially when the chances of injury are MUCH higher with the actual disease than the vaccine.
Which is absolutely nothing. There is absolutely nothing you can do to insure you "get over" the measles and not have permanent damage and/or death.
Which will not prevent you from contracting the measles. If that was all it took then the common cold would have been wiped out decades ago.
I'm so sorry for you. I have not caught many of the childhood diseases my parents did. Measles, chickenpox, etc... Thankfully I never had to suffer through any of those.
Wait, hope, and pray. The only thing you can do is wait for your body to fight it off. There is nothing you can do to make sure that you do recover without permanent damage or death.
Liar.
Good luck with that. Meanwhile we'll be living the high life not suffering from pain from easily preventable diseases and/or wondering if we're going to die from them.
Already did. Most I got when I was a baby/toddler. 30+ years later, no downsides. I've also not had to suffer through any of the diseases I got vaccinated against.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are many things that I find wrong in your comment but I will point out the most obvious one..
You say, "1-2 in 1000 will die" of the measles.....
CDC says.... "In the decade before 1963 when a vaccine became available, nearly all children got measles by the time they were 15 years of age. It is estimated 3 to 4 million people in the United States were infected each year. Also each year, among reported cases, an estimated 400 to 500 people died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 suffered encephalitis (swelling of the brain) from measles."
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html
The death rate and injury rate got better without the help of vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are free to disagree with facts and reality. Just don't expect to be applauded for it.
This should be good.
No it didn't. You suck at math. Here, let me help:
1 x 10 = 10; 1000 x 10 = 10,000
10 x 10 = 100; 10,000 x 10 = 100,000
100 x 10 = 1,000; 100,000 x 10 = 1,000,000
1,000 x 3 = 3,000; 1,000,000 x 3 = 3,000,000
That's not better. That's worse. And how did you even come up with that ludicrous statement?
That all aside, that's not even a good comparison. You're comparing the rate/chance of deaths due to measles, while ignoring the ACTUAL NUMBER of deaths. The ACTUAL NUMBER of deaths from measles today is only a FRACTION of what it was prior to vaccines. Why? Because people who are vaccinated against measles can't die from it. You can't die from a disease you can't get.
Here, go have a look at the actual number of cases of measles in the US for 1944-2007. See when they fell off a cliff? Yeah, that's because of vaccinations. And guess what, if you have less people getting the disease, you also have less people dying from it. If only 1,000 people get measles, only 1 or 2 people are going to die. But if you have 4 million or more people getting measles, then you are going to have 1,000 or more people dying from it. That's a minimum of 1,000% more people dying that could have been prevented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Both your and their citations ultimately come from the CDC website. (Yes, theirs links to a Wikipedia article, but that quote in the original article has a footnote citation that links to a page on the CDC website that includes those specific claims.) So essentially, you’re saying that the CDC is contradicting itself. And by the way, note the caveat: these were the complications from the reported cases, while the previous figures may not just be from reported cases. Who knows how many complications from the measles went unreported?
As for this:
Well, first off, the quote you pulled doesn’t say anything about that. More importantly, though, so what? The infection rate went way down after the vaccine was introduced. Besides, any improvement among those with measles prior to vaccinations likely came from better practices and hygiene in general, as well as better access to health care and better understanding of medicine in general, rather than a better understanding or improved treatments of the measles in particular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet you won’t do the same for vaccines, which are also handled on their own merits. You (allegedly) were harmed by just one vaccine (the flu vaccine) and from that have decided that all vaccines are just as harmful.
Do you? Because you seem to be ignoring the potential complications that occur in measles patients that can’t be prevented completely once the measles are contracted, which includes death. And before you say, “That’s rare,” the same can be (and has been) said about the risks of vaccine-caused injuries, which you are unwilling to ignore. In fact, vaccine-caused injuries are rarer than measles-related injuries that are either severe or long-term.
First, this has been bugging me for a while. You seem to be using ellipses (often with only two dots for some reason) in ways that don’t make sense. They’re meant to be used to designate an omission (generally in a quote), a pause, or an incomplete sentence where the remainder is intentionally left unsaid.
Second, you’re ignoring one pretty important way to build your immune system: get vaccinated. It’s a great way to build your immune system.
Third, you have previously claimed that you have an immune deficiency that actually keeps you from being vaccinated anymore. If that’s true (which I’m skeptical about), then building up your immune system is most likely a waste of time at best. Your immune system is too weak to even fight off weakened viruses.
First of all, again assuming you’re being truthful about having an immune deficiency, any immunity you once had to those diseases is gone, and your symptoms would likely be worse than the first time should you catch one again.
At any rate, this is all great for you and your family and all, but what about the other unvaccinated people who have been exposed thanks to you? Are you building up their immune system, too.
You’ve said this several times, and we’ve addressed this multiple times. However, a question has just occurred to me: if you have been severely injured by the flu vaccine like you said, have you sought and received compensation for your injury? Have you submitted your injury to VAERS? I mean, beyond not getting vaccinated in the future (which you have said you can’t do anyway because the flu vaccines supposedly gave you an immune deficiency), not letting your kids get vaccinated, and speaking out like this about vaccines, what have you actually done in response to getting injured by the flu vaccine?
Again, I am incredibly doubtful of your claims, specifically that you received severe nerve damage, several unspecified autoimmune disorders, and an immune deficiency so severe you can never be vaccinated again, all from a single flu vaccine. Quite frankly, I find every part of that claim suspect. However, if you were genuinely injured, and those injuries were caused by the vaccine, surely you sought some sort of redress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you’re kind of missing their point, but more importantly, do you speak on behalf of all unvaccinated people? Do all of them practice such prevention techniques?
Also, as you seem to concede later, prevention techniques don’t work for all diseases. Rabies is actually fairly unusual among diseases that can be vaccinated against in that there are (relatively) simple measures to prevent humans from contracting the disease without a vaccine. That’s not the case for a number of other preventable diseases, like the measles, the flu, and polio.
Additionally, some people work in occupations that require close contact with animals, so that simply won’t work for them. (And that’s ignoring other people with pets or who like animals.) You may be thinking, ‘Well, maybe those people should be vaccinated, but why should I have to?’ And you know what? You would be wrong about that. However, you have criticized the fact that some employers require employees to get vaccinated, which is often done because the work environment increases the chance of preventable diseases spreading through either the work force or the customers/clients. In particular, the job you said forced you to get vaccinated, taking care of the elderly, involves working with people with compromised immune systems, so taking measures to avoid spreading communicable diseases (like the flu) are necessary, and vaccines are the best way to do so when available. Same with schools; a school environment greatly increases the probability of infection and spreading of a number of preventable diseases, so a number of vaccines are mandated for students and faculty to mitigate the risks as much as possible. In fact, avoiding school buildings and other public places is often the only way—outside of vaccines—to significantly reduce the chances of catching many preventable diseases. So yeah, even if your logic could make sense for children who are homeschooled or attend online courses or for adults who don’t go out in public much and don’t have certain occupations, it doesn’t make sense for work and school environments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
When someone gets a vaccine they are taking on the risk of injury and death.
When taking a vaccine you are hoping that it works.
When you take a vaccine you don't know how long it will work.
The "authorities" don't talk about vaccine failure.
When you take a vaccine you risk being infected by other viruses than what was intended with the vaccine.
When you take a vaccine you may get cancer.
The company's that have made vaccines have made terrible mistakes in the past and continue to make mistakes.
I want Medical Freedom do you? Or do you want to be like old time Nazi Germany?
I do not believe I should be required to risk my health or the health of my child by vaccinating for the "Greater Good". Why must my family take the risk for someone else? Why is their health decisions more important than mine. How about they take the risk.
Why do you guys want medical tyranny?
Do you really want the pharmaceutical industry and the Government to own your body because they will always hide their sins in the name of "Public Health".
If I told you that you must eat a certain way because it will help you to spread less disease would you be ok with that?
How far are you guys willing to give up bodily autonomy in the name of Public Health/Greater good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Taking aspirin comes with similar risks to vaccines. There are greater risks if you contract the actual disease
Not really. We know they work, and we know they work well.
Yes we do. This is well documented. Granted they are finding some vaccines lose their efficacy faster than originally thought but not significantly and there isn't any kind of wild variation wherein one person will be protected for life and another only for three weeks from the same vaccine. That's just not reality.
Yes they do. See the CDC's website, the information packets they give you before getting the vaccine, wikipedia, FDA, etc...
....Wut? The hell are you talking about? I haven't even heard this from other anti-vaxxers. Stop spouting crap.
No, you really won't. There is NOTHING to suggest vaccines give you cancer. Now you're just making crap up.
Everyone makes mistakes. Or were you under your rock every time huge batches of food are recalled due to contamination? Should we stop eating food? Please, make that argument. I'm begging you.
You have it. No one is forcing you to get a vaccine. That doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do but it is your choice.
And Godwin. Surprisingly I think that's the first time in the 1200+ comments. But this is not like Nazi Germany. Not in the least. Show me the law that forces people to get vaccinated whether they like it or not and are rounded up if they refuse.
Fine, do it for your good then. But you still aren't required to. This has been debunked many times already.
The risk is less than the risks of getting the disease itself (and most of the harms you are worried about have not been shown to be connected to vaccines). Yes it helps other people but it's also better for your health to get vaccinated.
It's not and no one is saying it is. We're saying vaccines are better for your health than contracting the disease and as a side bonus it helps protect those who truly can't get vaccinated. If you get the disease and then are around someone who can't be vaccinated, YOU are responsible for them getting sick and being harmed.
As noted above, the people who can't be vaccinated can't take the risk. So by not vaccinating yourself, you are directly responsible for them getting sick. The risk of something bad happening to you from a vaccine is practically non-existent compared to something bad happening to them if they get the actual disease.
We don't. Stop putting words in our mouths.
Nobody owns anyone's body and that is not what is being suggested. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that vaccines are inherently dangerous and harmful. They are the exact opposite and you haven't shown any data to the contrary. In America there are laws that protect you from doing anything you don't want to do. Nobody is suggesting changing that.
Dude, we're already told that: "eat lots of fruits and veggies to stay healthy and not get sick". You saying that's wrong? But if you're talking about forcing people to eat a certain way, no one is saying that and that is not what is happening. Stop lying and making crap up.
No one is suggesting giving up ANY autonomy. None. Zero. Your continued insistence to the contrary shows you are either lying or have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. There are no laws requiring that everyone be vaccinated. None. Nada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are talking about people being forced to give up their rights... Wake up. This whole thing is not about a thousand people getting measles. This whole thing is about putting so much fear into you guys that you are willing to give up your rights. Most of you vaccinated your children for school and had no idea that that you could get exemptions to opt out of the vaccines. When someone tells you that you must take a drug to go to school or work that is coercion. And in some cases people are being forced to get vaccines. Look what they did in Argentina. Argentina says that if you want to drive or fly you must have a vaccine. The pharmaceutical industry and government is trying to get you guys on board with medical tyranny. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Y'all look at science paid for by the pharmaceutical industry and by a corrupt CDC. Look at the science done by independent researchers and open up your ears because people are getting sicker are are trying to warn you. Immune systems are being destroyed so use some common sense and look at the one thing that's designed to alter an immune system.
Also, stop blaming the victims of those injured by vaccines. Listen to them and investigate their claims. And certainly stop telling people who believe that they have been injured to roll up their sleeves again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And certainly stop telling people who believe that they have been injured to roll up their sleeves again.
You mean like when you told all the parents not to get measles vaccinations, and their kids got measles despite you telling them they'd be healthier? Where were you when the parents swarmed the medical offices to get the vaccination, telling them they were fools for not sticking to the plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are confused. I don't care if you get a vaccine or if you choose to vaccinate your kids.
Out of curiosity have you gotten an HPV, Hib, pneumococcal, hepatitis A, Rotavirus, or Hep B shot yet?
And you know that the Mumps portion off the MMR wears off so you should go ahead and get another one just to be sure. I would hate for you to contract the Mumps and it cause permanent sterility.
The mumps vaccine is putting men's sterility in jeopardy. You should have gotten mumps as a child when it would not have been an issue but now thanks to the vaccine wearing off men are catching it in college and on Navey ships.
You guys believe in the shit like a religion. It's like what ever ACIP and the CDC gods tell you to do y'all go OK and you have very little knowledge on the subject. I bet none of you have even been to an ACIP meeting or watched one. You are all truly brainwashed while the government and pharmaceutical industry is laughing all the way to the bank.
Y'all can go ahead and sign up for vaccinations from cradle-to-grave. I wish you the best of luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care if you get a vaccine
You clearly care enough to stand up in supermarkets.
Let's go over this again. The parents listened to your advice. Their kids got measles. Now thanks to the advice you gave, which fucked up, the parents are panicking.
You not caring what happens to the kids of others - that is why people are pissed.
By the way, I have got the hepatitis vaccine. Turns out it's a lot less sucky than hepatitis B. Who the fuck knew? Mind blown!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're right, I am confused. If you truly don't care then why are you still here? Go away.
Yes. Irrelevant.
At the appropriate recommended time I will.
Is that a threat? I don't respond well to threats. Take it elsewhere. But on that, you better make sure you take it too. After all, you don't want to become sterile either, right? Oh wait, you're against vaccines. Darn, guess you'll just have to risk not having any kids in the future.
You just got done implying I should get the vaccine to avoid becoming sterile from the Mumps itself. Now you're saying the vaccine is causing it. Make up your mind. Also, prove it. Because the way I see it, there's a WHOLE lot of women getting pregnant from men who got the MMR vaccine. I did and I have a couple kids. Cite your facts or shut up.
Let's take a closer look at that shall we? It is ONE navy ship, not several, and the reason why is because the vaccine they received was defective. NOT because it wore off. Lying and hoping nobody will fact check you will not work here. We do our research.
No, we believe in it because the evidence supports it. You have NO evidence to support your claims. Why would we believe you?
The research is all publicly available for anyone to read. The fact that you refuse to and then say that we're just believing what someone told us to believe makes you an idiot and a moron. As well as a liar and a hypocrite.
That is irrelevant since their findings are publicly posted online. You don't need to attend one to know the results of their findings. But also this: "Meetings are open to the public and available online via live webcast."
You are literally wrong.
Cite your sources then. So far I have no reason to believe you. Show me the data where people started dying in the millions after vaccines were standardized. Show me the data where 85+% of the US population is autistic and immuno-compromised. Show me the data where people aren't living past 60. SHOW. ME. THE. DATA.
Thanks, we will.
Better luck than you've had. To date I haven't contracted a single disease I have been vaccinated against and I am in excellent health. But by your own admission, you've had to suffer through multiple diseases that could have been prevented by a vaccine. So I'm already having better luck than you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First of all, are you claiming to be the same person who just said, “Wake up”? If not, then I’m afraid that you’re the one confused here. The other person said things that very much suggested an opposition to anyone getting vaccines.
[Citation needed]
No, we just believe what experts tell us by default, back up that belief with data, and require strong evidence from a reliable source to change that belief.
I don’t know what ACIP is offhand, but as for the CDC, 1) you haven’t given us a reason to disbelieve the CDC, 2) I believe you yourself have attempted to use data from the CDC’s website to support your claims, and 3) they show their data to back up their claims, and you haven’t given us reason to invalidate that data.
Again, I don’t really know exactly what ACIP is, what it does, what happens at an ACIP meeting, or how any of that’s related to the topic at hand, but since I haven’t been using data or claims provided by ACIP, I don’t see how that matters here. Actually, this is the first time I’ve seen ACIP mentioned in this discussion, so the assertion that we’re blindly trusting it is a bit odd.
🙄
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
(As all the skidmark on humanity that is antivaxxism always has and will do)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This whole thing is about putting so much fear into you guys that you are willing to give up your rights"
No, the whole thing is about people not willing for them and their kids to be infected by preventable diseases that killed generations of people before them, because some asshole doesn't care about anyone but himself and his poor understanding of statistics and medical science.
"Also, stop blaming the victims of those injured by vaccines."
What about the victims of the diseases you are bringing back? Don't they get a say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am awake. You are delusional. Nobody is talking about that except you idiots. Again, show me the law forcing people to get vaccinated no matter their personal opinions beliefs. If you can't do that, you're wrong.
No, that's EXACTLY what this is about, because 10 years ago there weren't 1,000 people getting measles in the US.
No it's not. No one has given up their rights and no one is being forced to. Cite the law that says otherwise if you think I'm wrong.
No, most everybody IS aware of that. They even tell you before you get the vaccines. As a matter of fact, they ASK you if you want to give your kids the vaccine, they don't tell you you have to. I vaccinated my kids knowing I could opt out. I deliberately chose not too because I'm not a moron and I knew that giving them the vaccine was far better for them than not.
NO. IT. IS. NOT. It's called playing by the rules. Those places also tell you you have to wear a shirt and shoes. Is that coercion? If you don't like it you can not work at those places (which are few that require vaccinations) and homeschool your kids. Stop being an idiot.
Name ONE case in the US where the government forced someone to get a vaccine against their will that was not a requirement of employment or to participate in some other organization/event. I'll wait.
That's Argentina, NOT the US. Your argument is invalid. Doing that would be illegal and unconstitutional in the US, so don't worry, your rights aren't going to be violated any time soon.
No, they're trying to get you to not be a moron. Obviously it's not working.
The only drinking Kool-Aid is you. See all 1200+ comments prior to this one for proof. I guarantee every argument you can bring has already been addressed and debunked.
Not all of that science is paid for by the industry and you have yet to show any evidence, much less proof, that the CDC is corrupt. Stop spreading your conspiracy theories that you can't even back up with a single fact. You just continue to look like an idiot.
It all shows that vaccines are safe. We've linked to many of them in these comments.
Really? Because I thought the average lifespan of humans has been increasing and is much longer than it was 100+ years ago. Not to mention the quality of life and overall healthiness has been increasing as well. But do cite your sources showing people are less healthy today than 100 years ago. I'll wait.
You've yet to provide any evidence of this. You can't just show up and say something is true that literally NO ONE ELSE is aware of and expect to be taken seriously. Cite your sources for this. But if that were really true, people would be dying off by the millions. That's not happening.
We are. You aren't.
How many times do I have to state this? VACCINES DO NOT ALTER YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM, NOR ARE THEY DESIGNED TO.
No one is blaming them for anything other than spreading false information. No one is denying that they were injured, we're just denying it was from vaccines because they have not presented any evidence to suggest it was.
We are and we have. The evidence points to causes other than vaccines, like underlying medical conditions.
No. Not unless they have a medical reason why the shouldn't.
Your emotional appeals have less than zero effect here. Either provide facts to back up your delusions or shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have provided citations to the claims I have made already. They are flagged in the above comments. You sensored them because you are afraid people might read them and actually wind up thinking for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The only citation you made in the last few days was a link to the CDC's website that didn't say what you thought it said, as I and another commenter pointed out. You provided absolutely zero other citations for the comments you made over the last few days.
No, they aren't. There is very clearly only your one link to the CDC that doesn't support your argument.
The word is "censored" and no, as of right now they are not collapsed.
We flag your comments because you are making blatantly false claims that have been debunked multiple times. Even if they get flagged enough to collapse them, that won't prevent other people from reading them and potentially being taken in by them.
No, I respond to your posts to prevent other people from being taken in them. I don't care if other people read them, in fact, as long as there is actual hard facts and data showing your claims to be false, I think it might be good for people to read your claims because then they can see just exactly how stupid and idiotic they are and that in many cases you are just flat out lying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://youtu.be/yevV_slu7Dw
Forced vaccines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nothing in that video says the vaccines were forced on anyone. Participation in medical studies is voluntary.
Can you cite the actual US law that forces people to be vaccinated against their will when not required by their profession or participation in an event?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You idiot. They were forced and he does say that they were forced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey moron, they were not. It is against US law to force people, against their will, to partake in a medical study. Do explain how that works with your claim.
And NOWHERE in that clip does either the person asking questions or Plotkin say ANYTHING about forcing people to take vaccines. But go ahead, post the exact part of the transcript where he says "we forced people to participate in the study and forced them to take the vaccine". I'll wait.
You can't just make crap up, then call people idiots when they call you out on it. Don't like it? Don't lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you have a time-stamp for where that was said? I don’t see it.
If you mean that the people who participated in the study were “forced” to be vaccinated if they wanted to continue to be part of the study, well, sure. Of course, no one was being forced to participate in the study to begin with, so…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/physicians-for-informed-consent-cdc-data-shows-immunity-fro m-the-mmr-vaccine-wanes-over-time/
This should help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does not. The conclusions made by that site to do not follow from the studies they cite. Indeed, several of the studies showed that two doses of the vaccine were sufficient to protect the children.
To date there is no evidence to suggest that the measles vaccine does not provide sufficient lifelong immunity for the vast majority of those vaccinated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This should help"
Help what? Compiling a list of shitty blogs that re-interpret things for anti-vaxxers, because the primary sources don't support their claims?
Although, even if what that link says is true, the risk associated with being vaccinated and still getting one of those diseases is still way less than the risks associated with not getting vaccinated and reducing herd immunity for everybody.
So, even if you're right, you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Note: When an antivaxxer says "independent" researcher, they mean frauds paid under-the-table by the big-money antivax scammers like Claire Dwoskin.
You'll find lots of fallacies, pseudoscience and photoshop, but no facts from such tainted sources.
Which is why they project so hard that it's "Big Pharma" and the CDC that are corrupt on vaccones (with, naturally, zero evidence).
As the spammer has already copiously proven in this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then later…
Who exactly is using scare tactics again?
Also, while I rarely follow this myself, I’ve noticed that when anyone says, “Wake up,” on the internet, everything that that person says is pretty much nonsense that can generally be ignored. It’s just a bunch of absurd conspiracy theories with no real, substantial, relevant, non-debunked evidence supporting any of it, possibly with some ad hominem and/or strawman arguments thrown in for extra flavor.
For the record, what constitutional right is being infringed on here? The right to privacy (the closest thing to bodily autonomy) ends when it affects others.
Well, I for one was well aware of the exemptions before getting vaccinated. I also knew that there was no good reason that they ought to apply to me, as neither I nor anyone else had any reason to believe at the time or since that I had a valid medical reason to not get the vaccines. Same goes for the rest of my family. And you know what? I don’t have any reason to regret any vaccine I or my family have ever received.
You’re assuming that we’re merely ignorant, and that if only we saw what you did, we’d decide differently. Let me make this clear: much of it we do know about and have considered; anything else must include a credible source for the claim. In this case, it’s the former.
Technically, yes. However, I consider it to be reasonable coercion with a good policy reason backing it up. Requiring you to pass a driving test to get a license that will allow you to drive is also coercion, but I don’t see you complaining about that. A lot of what government does is coercion; that doesn’t make it inherently bad or wrong. All nations, schools, and employers all have rules that necessarily involve coercion. I don’t see why this is a problem. At worst, I’d consider it a necessary evil.
Yes, and we’ve already explained why that is and why it’s not a major problem.
Well, first of all, I really don’t care about Argentina. I don’t know much about it, and what happens there doesn’t really affect me, so I don’t feel terribly qualified or persuaded to comment much about that particular country.
That said, again, I don’t believe that that’s a problem. You haven’t persuaded me that this is something bad that I should denounce.
Again, I don’t consider it to be “medical tyranny” to expect people who can to get vaccinated. Plus, the pharmaceutical industry would make a lot more money treating diseases than preventing them.
Which has been backed up by independent research.
I’m not going to try to find evidence to back up the claims you made. That’s your job.
And we’re getting sicker of pointing out that these concerns are either baseless or overblown.
Vaccines don’t alter the immune system. This has already been pointed out.
When it comes to science and medicine, common sense is meaningless.
No one’s blaming the victims. We simply ask for the same thing as we do for any other claim that something is dangerous:
Evidence of the injury. (Although on the internet, this requirement can be relaxed.)
The nature of the injury, including its severity and duration.
And for those who are trying to prove that vaccines are too dangerous, they must also provide:
Evidence that those injured by vaccines in that manner is significant (which requires more than just anecdotes).
This isn’t exclusive to vaccines. It also applies to any claim of injury or danger from any medication or treatment.
Furthermore, should a person have actually received an injury from a vaccine (not just improper administration of a vaccine), and there is reason to believe there is a substantial likelihood that getting another vaccine (same or different, depending) will do the same, then that person has a valid medical reason not to get vaccinated, and no one is asking them to go through that again.
We’ve explicitly said that people with a valid medical reason not to get vaccinated (such as a known allergy to one or more ingredients of the vaccine or a known immune deficiency), then not only would we never ask them to get vaccinated in the future, we specifically ask that they not get vaccinated. In fact, the reason we demand that people who do not have a valid medical reason not to must get vaccinated is in order to protect those who can’t for valid medical reasons.
The issue is what is or isn’t a “valid medical reason”. If there is no proof that the injury was actually caused by the vaccine itself, or there is better proof that the injury was caused by something unrelated to the vaccine, then that is not a valid medical reason. Fear of the vaccine causing autism is not a valid medical reason. A family history (rather than personal history) of a) allergies to vaccine components, b) immune deficiencies, or c) severe or long-lasting harm known to be caused by vaccines may be a good reason to have some tests done before vaccinated, but on its own may not constitute a valid medical reason (which, by the way, means that the fact that you were once injured by a specific vaccine may not, on its own, be sufficient evidence of a valid medical reason to not give your kids that specific vaccine, and it’s certainly not enough to keep your kids from receiving any vaccine at all). A personal mistrust of vaccines is not a valid medical reason.
Also, another issue is whether or not that should allow such a person to have a particular job or attend school. The latter is highly dependent on the nature of the medical exemption (for example, an allergy to a component of the vaccine shouldn’t prevent you from attending school, but an immune deficiency may mean that you shouldn’t attend school in person for your own health). That may also be true for some work-required vaccines for some jobs. However, if your job involves a substantial amount direct contact with the sick or elderly, for example, then I’m afraid that the risk of exposing the vulnerable to preventable diseases is too great. However, the solution is not “get vaccinated”. The solution is “find a different job” (or, for school, get homeschooled or attend classes from home through online schools or wireless communication devices allowing class participation from home). I’m sorry, but patients’ or clients’ health is generally more important to employers than that of the employees. Plus, do you really think someone with a weak immune system should spend a lot of time with sick patients?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Before I address the specific points you brought up, I’d just like to note that you failed to address any of the points I brought up. So already, this is not a very good reply.
For example, a major topic of my specific comment that you were replying to largely involved mandating vaccines for school or work, which is never mentioned anywhere in your reply. In fact, it seems as though you’re talking about universally mandated vaccines, which is a separate topic. At any rate, to the extent that you were trying to argue against that, it wasn’t clear, and largely stems over whether to value public health or bodily autonomy more rather than any dispute in the logic or factual basis of those particular claims, which to me is not a useful argument to have unless you expect to be able to persuade the person you’re speaking to. Since you’ve tried this tact over and over again without the slightest hint that it would convince anyone here, I have no idea why you think it’ll work here.
Now, let’s go point-by-point.
That risk is, as we’ve already shown, minimal and mitigateable. Additionally, just about every medication or treatment carries a nonzero risk of injury and death, and measles itself carries a substantially higher risk of injury and death. As I’ve said, that risk was taken into account when deciding whether or not to mandate a given vaccine, and under what circumstances.
Well, no more or less than for any other medicine or treatment. Sure, it’s not a 100% guarantee, but it’s a lot more likely to work than not, and it’s substantially more likely to do nothing than to inflict serious or long-lasting injury. The science suggests backs it up.
Actually, experts have a pretty good idea of how long it works. That’s why they prescribe multiple doses and/or booster shots over time. If I don’t know, that’s because I haven’t done the research to find out; that doesn’t mean that that information isn’t available.
I’m not sure what you mean. Which “authorities” are you talking about? More importantly, I’m pretty sure that I recall a number of studies, as well as information on government websites, that explicitly discuss vaccine failure. It’s why maintaining herd immunity through large-scale vaccinations is so important: to protect those who can’t get vaccinated or who don’t receive immunity from the vaccine despite having been vaccinated. So I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here.
First, [citation needed].
Second, how? How would that even work? The only plausible scenario I can think of is if the doctor/nurse uses a dirty needle, but that’s not the fault of the vaccine but the one administering it. Other than that, since the vaccine would contain at most one kind of virus in it, how would another virus get involved?
Again, [citation needed]. AFAIK, none of the ingredients in any vaccine currently used is a known carcinogen in the doses used.
Irrelevant. That tells me nothing about vaccine safety. Also, be more specific.
I have no idea what Nazi Germany has to do with this. At any rate, there are limits to medical freedom, and I have no desire to reduce the limits we currently have.
Because they either can’t or have taken the risk and it didn’t work. Again, individually, their health isn’t more important than yours. However, a) you’re greatly overestimating the risk incurred from taking the vaccine, b) most of the people you’d be endangering that we’re worried about can’t make the choice or have taken the same risk we expect from you and your children, and c) they outnumber you and your kids, and we have no reason to value their lives any less than we do yours and those of your kids. Plus, the value of autonomy has reduced priority when it affects others.
Well, since I don’t consider valuing the physical health of the many over the physical health of the few a “sin”, I have no idea what “sins” you’re talking about. I also don’t consider mandating vaccines to be “owning your body”.
Because nutrition doesn’t really affect the spread of a disease by much, it’s a nonissue. Furthermore, the process of getting the recommended vaccinations is a much smaller investment of my time, energy, and effort than changing my diet, the two really aren’t comparable.
Well, just get the recommended vaccinations (unless you have a valid medical reason not to), and don’t do anything that would substantially and unnecessarily increase the spread of disease. I don’t see how this is excessively invasive or too much to ask.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Keep swallowing that bait, homie. Where you been? Camping at the local supermarket because all those vaccinated noobs were too scared of catching measles like a real man?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Lol.... Get him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, seriously - I thought you were up to posting "read the package inserts" 30 times a day. What'd you do, give a talk to kids about how their parents poisoned them by making them immune to mumps?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MMR VACCINE, is it Safer Than Measles?
MMR VACCINE (Measles, Mumps and Rubella)
Is It Safer Than Measles?
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/vrs/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try posting a link from a site that doesn't lie, then get back to us. On that page alone there are multiple lies and misstatements of fact. For example:
At first glance you might think this is fine. But it's not. Side effects are NOT the same as adverse events. Side effects are proven to be caused by something. Adverse events are negative things that have occurred within a relatively close time frame to the thing you are tracking, in this case vaccines. Adverse events can include: car crashes, drunkenness, the common cold, a bad grade on your math test, or a cloud obscuring the sun while on a picnic. Just because VAERS records an adverse event does not mean it was a side effect caused by the vaccine.
Stating it as they did gives the impression that everything reported to VAERS is a bona fide, verified side effect caused by someone getting a vaccine. That is not true and also neglects that people can submit falsified reports to VAERS. See the guy who submitted a VAERS report that said a vaccine turned him into The Incredible Hulk.
If you want I'll be happy to shred anything else you post from that site as either misleading or an outright lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/mmr-waning-immunity/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
Once agani, antivaxxer can't cite a nonfraudulent source.
"Physicoans for Informed Consent" is one of Del Bigtree's scam sites, not a good-faith source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
Lol. No it is not. You guys are so brainwashed you think anything that says anything negative about vaccines must be false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, we call it false because it is. The claims asserted by that site are NOT backed up by science. They aren't even backed up by the studies they cite, which is proof positive they should not be trusted as a reliable source. They are either deliberately misrepresenting the studies and facts or they have no idea what they are reading. Either option automatically disqualifies them as a reliable source.
But you don't have to just take my word for it, you can look at the point-by-point debunking of it that I and others have done here, some of which include links to ACTUAL RELIABLE sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
And Brexit will allow the UK to dictate trade terms to the EU, US and China...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
So I'm 10% wrong.
In haste I misread the ambigupus statement in the quoted part of this article
As saying Del was running both of those scams, not just the first one.
But the important point, that it's a scam site by and for frauds, is still 100% fact.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-strange-saga-of-peter-gotzsche-and-physicians-for-informe d-consent/
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/physicians-for-informed-consent-a nother-radical-anti-vaccine-group/
https://vaxopedia.org/2018/01/15/measles-propaganda-from-the-phys icians-for-informed-consent/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I already debunked this one in one of the above comments. The studies they cite do NOT support their conclusions that 50-70% of children are susceptible to measles after vaccination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waning Immunity and the MMR Vaccine
We’ve already shown that this Physicians for Informed Consent website is not a reliable source. They make claims that are not backed up by the studies they cite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2012 final pertussis surveillance report
In my research today I came across the pertussis reports for various years. In 2012 there was 48,277 cases of pertussis reported. 59% of the pertussis cases had 3 or more doses.
pertuss-surv-report-2012.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
Good for you…?
I’m sorry, but what is pertussis, and how is it relevant here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
Another name for whooping cough.
Which is still mostly managed by the vaccine aimed at preventing it, so who knows what the fuck he's trying to prove, especially with a PDF URL that doesn't actually work. Anti-vaxxers are something else when it comes to tech savviness, but it's not like they have much of a brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
Thanks. Apparently, he’s saying that this report supposedly shows that 59% of people who got the DTaP vaccine still got whooping cough… I think.
Of course, the headline of his source says that the vaccine’s supposed ineffectiveness is causing a resurgence of the whooping cough, but that wouldn’t explain why the number of cases went down before and are just increasing now. So the title of the article makes me skeptical that it’s from a reliable source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
It went down because of DPT. It is going up because now we use DTaP that's not working very well. Another reason why we have vaccine failures is because the pertussis has mutated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
Lol. Pertussis is whooping cough. When you get a DTaP shot the P in the vaccine is pertussis. The report shows that despite the fact that 59% of the individuals got the 3 or more of the vaccines they still contracted pertussis (whooping caugh). THE VACCINE IS FAILING TO PROTECT AGAINST THE DISEASE.
https://www.bu.edu/sph/2017/09/21/resurgence-of-whooping-cough-may-owe-to-vaccines-inabilit y-to-prevent-infections/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
Well, thanks for answering the question. Sorry. I don’t know every medical term.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
Ahem. Perhaps you'd care to explain this graph then?
https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/incidence-graph-2017.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
Notice when the DTaP vaccine was implemented pertussis starts going up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
"Everyone who has ever taken the smallpox vaccine has, or will die!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s as dangerous as dihydrogen monoxide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2012 final pertussis surveillance report
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By a negligible amount. Really, you can barely even tell it rises. Also, you're ignoring the fact that the tiny amount it rose after DTaP was introduced doesn't even compare to the fact that the amount of pertussis cases before any vaccine was ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE greater.
So no, the vaccine is not failing to protect against the disease. It very clearly is. In order to claim that it's not, the amount of pertussis cases would have to rise back up to pre-vaccine levels. It's not even close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Down from 200,000 cases from before we had the vaccine, during which time 9,000 babies died every year. That's more than a 75% reduction in people getting it and dying from it. I would say that's effective and definitely worth it.
Maybe next time try not cherry picking your data and presenting it in a misleading context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some historical irony
I can’t remember where I read this, but I just remembered something. As many of you know, the main study that anti-vaxxers tend to use to support the idea that vaccines cause autism was performed by Andrew Wakefield; it specifically claimed that there was a link between autism and the MMR vaccine in particular. As you also probably know, that study has been discredited and retracted for a number of reasons, and Wakefield lost his license to practice medicine and do medical research.
Now, IIRC, one of the many reasons for this was a conflict of interest on Wakefield’s part. See, Wakefield had either invested in or created a measles vaccine, which would naturally compete with the MMR vaccine. So this study was likely done for the specific purpose of discrediting the MMR vaccine just so he could push his measles vaccine as a better alternative.
So despite being a poster child for many anti-vaxxers, Wakefield wasn’t actually opposed to vaccines in general; just one particular version of a specific vaccine. He actually was involved with selling vaccines that competed with the vaccine he opposed. So yeah, he’s not exactly above corruption or pushing vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some historical irony
Let's be fair, you kinda don't need to remember where. It's not like Mr. Measles here is particularly keen on linking his sources or anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some historical irony
First, the "WAKEFEILD" study is not the only study. It's laughable that you guys think that everyone stopped vaccinating based on one study.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link
S econd, you clearly have not read the study.
Third, Andrew Wakefield was not the only scientist in the study. I encourage you to investigate what happened to Walker Smith. Walker also got his license taken away and he had the money to fight it in the high court and won. I doubt you have even heard of Walker Smith nor have you read the court transcript.
You listen to the video, investigate Walker Smith and Andy and decide for yourself. Read the study. It was a case study so you would have to say that the parents were lying and was in on the whole thing too.
https://youtu.be/mT0VzAvfnb4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Some historical irony
I never once said there that it was the only such study; just a major one that a lot of anti-vaxxers love to use as evidence. For the record, as already mentioned here, all the other studies have been discredited for one reason or another, and all the credible studies show no link. But that’s irrelevant to my point, which was solely about the irony that a lot of anti-vaxxers love to use Wakefield to support their claims. For the purpose of this specific comment, I was not addressing every merit of the anti-vaxxers’ claim regarding a link between vaccines and autism.
The Wakefield study was retracted for a number of reasons, including small population size, biased sampling, and unethical treatment. Wakefield’s conflict of interest was just icing on the cake. None of the reasons given involved the parents lying, and Walker Smith’s competence is irrelevant when the methodology was severely flawed. Also, I don’t think you
You really think I’d talk about the study without having read it? Plus, I’m pretty sure that I just made clear that I had done some prior research on Wakefield specifically. I just can’t be bothered to remember every single detail. It was really just an interesting fact I remembered reading somewhere. I could look up a decent source that mentions Wakefield’s conflict of interest for you if you’d like, but you don’t appear to dispute that particular claim, which, for the purposes of this discussion, was the only salient claim I was making. Everything else was just context. I have researched the Wakefield study and Wakefield himself thoroughly in the past. Even if I don’t remember every single detail of what I read, saying that I have done no research and have never read the study is plainly false. You offer no reasons to suspect that I have not done so.
Any inaccuracies in what I said in that comment were not relevant to the point I was making: Wakefield is an ironic choice for anti-vaxxers to hold up as a hero of the movement. Everything else makes no difference in this particular discussion.
Also, again, I don’t really care about Walker Smith. I only cared about Wakefield because of some interesting facts mentioned in my research on his study and the fact that his name was always mentioned every time the study was. By the time I learned all of that, I had already formed the opinion that, based on metastudies, peer review, and the methodologies used in the study, the study was bunk. What I learned about Wakefield may have strengthened that belief, but it was not a factor in forming that opinion to begin with. And there is nothing about Smith that could possibly change my opinion about the study itself. Sometimes even the best researchers may occasionally participate in a bad study. People make mistakes after all.
If you want to discuss the alleged link between autism and vaccines any further, I’d prefer that it be in a separate thread. My comment was more about Wakefield as a person rather than the merits of the arguments his study is used for or any merits the study may have had. I feel that is a completely different conversation that deserves its own thread. If you want to talk about Andrew Wakefield’s alleged conflict of interest or apparent goals, then that’s fine to do here. If you want to poke fun at major figures on the pro-vaccine side of the debate for something, that’s fine too. I’d just prefer the other stuff be in a separate thread, as it ultimately doesn’t address anything I was saying in that particular comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some historical irony
The root of antivaxxism is always and ever for-profit fraud perpetrated by its proponents.
From Wakefield's sham to push his competing product, to Quacks like Tara Zandvliet playing the dog whistle for the exemption fees she charges, to the "vaccine injury lawyer" the scammer cited with yet another fake "study" proposing vaccine injuries, to the likes of the Dwoskins, Del Bigtree, and Kennedy making multitudes of astroturfing sites and misleading ads to keep yhe millions in donations rolling in from mindless rubes that hate their kids, to pay for quacks to smear shit on a piece of paper and call it "proof."
There is not a single part of the antivax cult that operates in good faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Some historical irony
Skid probably thought they were doing that once or twice here apready, but in reality they ended up with laughably pathetic strawmen instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're right. There are NO reliable studies supporting the claim that vaccines cause autism.
Because that's literally what happened. People were more or less fine with it up to that point. When his study came out, people lost their minds.
That link has already been debunked as containing studies that either do not support your argument or are unreliable and were done poorly so as to invalidate their conclusions.
Don't need to, but actually I have perused it. It's total bunk.
No, but he ran and oversaw it.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Already investigated and decided. He's a quack who conducted an improper study. He should not be listened to as a reliable source.
Did. It didn't change my mind.
No, that's not how case studies work. If the case study is done improperly (as Wakefield's was) you can get a completely incorrect conclusion from the exact same data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More false narratives debunked:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/deception-by-omission-del-bigtrees-ican-calls-the-studies -licensing-mmr-into-question/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... that scumbag was involved in the propaganda dumpster-fire Vaxxed? Well, that tells me all I need to know about them really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Defective vaccins
Listen to the parents tell their story and you decide.
https://youtu.be/Ts_rhpEy-Jk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Parents are not qualified to determine if the vaccine was what caused injury to their children. That requires medical and scientific analysis. Something the vast majority of parents are not qualified nor trained to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you're going to project like that, the least you could do is learn to spell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He can't.
Viral hemorrhagic fever. You know, the kind of thing a suitable vaccine might have prevented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one suggesting people with absolutely ZERO medical training and/or knowledge be regarded as the supreme authority on the subject. Idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defective vaccins
Sorry if this sounds heartless to you, but I really don’t care what the parents have to say. Sorry, but it’s completely irrelevant.
None of us have said that the parents have been anything but genuine. None of us have ever said that parents willing to tell such stories don’t exist, or that their suffering isn’t genuine. That has never been an issue here.
The issue is that parents are not inherently qualified to determine the specific cause of medical conditions, and will often misplace blame. My mother still genuinely believes that video games cause violence, which isn’t true.
Additionally, these are still just anecdotes, which is insufficient for determining safety.
You can give us all the surely heart-wrenching tales from honest parents you’d like, but they won’t actually change anything. When it comes to determining medical causation or safety, we need statistics, studies, and experts, not anecdotes and personal accounts. As has been stated, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Defective vaccins
I do agree with you for the most part. The problem is that when we get injured the default for the doctors is to say it was not a vaccine it was a coincidence. Most doctors refuse to entertain the idea that it was the vaccine. They don't investigate our claims. The only reason why my doctors and my pharmacist believe that it was the vaccine that damaged me was because I had the reactions in front of their face.
I got an autoimmune disorder and nerve damage from a vaccine and then years later they told me that BECAUSE I have a weekend immune system I should get a DTaP and meningococcal vaccine. I got the vaccines and development a rash, breathing problems, swelling in my brain, and kidney damage. I still have swelling in my brain and its been two years so forgive me if I mispell something. They tell me that they are sorry and now after being damaged by multiple vaccines I can say no to them for school and work.
When doctors don't listen we resort to figuring it out on our own and we may be wrong but doctors are failing us when it comes to the issue if vaccines.
We spend 2-8 hours a day reading, listening to books, learning immunology, interviewing doctors and pharmacist, watching lectures, listening to one another, reading package inserts, keeping up on the laws and what pharma and the government intend to do in the future. The pharmaceutical industry spends more than oil and gas lobbying our congressman ask yourself why they want to do that. They want y'all to believe that the " science is settled" and vaccines are safe and effective so they can bring more mandates and vaccines your way. We are getting sicker despite all the vaccines find out why. and if it turns out that vaccines have nothing to do with it than I will except that.
one of the things I learned in class was observation. And I am observing a healthy child get a vaccine and then stop being healthy I investigate.
Is it possible that first they create a problem so then they can sell you a solution? You have to wonder when you look at the price of epipens. The news reported years ago on the fact that peanut oil was used in the vaccines to make them last longer and then the pharmaceutical industry made it proprietary so you don't get to know what type of oil if any is in the vaccines anymore. Something to think about.
We are giving vaccines to alter our immune systems and autoimmune disorders are through the roof not to mention allergies, allergies, allergies.
Did you know that when scientists want to cause a food allergy in rats they use the same or similar aluminum salts that gets used in vaccines.
Y'all don't need doctors to use your common sense no matter what the CDC says. Use those skills that you have a demand safer vaccines and answers on the increasing rate of brain damage, autoimmune disorders, allergies, autism, ME/CFS, Lupus, infant deaths, SIDS. They want to spit us up to distract from their lack of answers. Its war for them and the name of the game is divide and conquer meanwhile our kids are paying the price.
I like for us to come to some common ground because we all want to be healthy and protect our kids health and we all want the rights to choose what medicine gets injected into our bodies.
Thank you for reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Again... parents listened to your advice.
Their kids got measles, and all of the ill effects.
They swarmed the doctors' offices for medical attention and the vaccine you told them not to take.
You didn't listen to them.
You didn't care what they thought.
And you want all of them to listen to you about how one autoimmune issue is worth hundreds of thousands of other kids getting measles.
Process that with whatever brain you have left.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
First, I am not telling people not to vaccinate. You decide what you what you want to do with your child.
Second, you are a bad person. You are blaming the victims. You are making fun of us. You are trying to make us go away so you don't have to deal with the fact that vaccines just might be killing and injuring more than you have ever imagined.
You would have done well in Nazi Germany. You say mean and hateful things and say that the unvaccinated are unclean meanwhile you deny any damage being done to the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Liar.
No help to you deliberately trying to feed them fraudulent misinformation
[Asserts facts not in evodence]
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
And?
so you don't have to deal with the fact that vaccines just might be killing and injuring more than you have ever imagined.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
You would have done well in Nazi Germany. You say mean and hateful things and say that the unvaccinated are unclean meanwhile you deny any damage being done to the people.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
FYI. I don't know anyone that has gotten measles recently. I have spoken to older people who got measles as a child and they say that it was not really a big deal. They don't know anyone who died of measles nor do they know anyone who had complications from the measles. People do die from the measles and get injured but it's not quite as scary as you may think. But if you are afraid get a booster because the vaccine wanes.
I have gotten childhood diseases and recovered.
I have gotten vaccines and have never recovered.
You decide whats best for you and I will decide whats best for me.
Let's live in a country where we have a choice of what gets injected into our body.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Choosing to biry your head up your ass lile that isn't going to make the real world magically disappear from in front of the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a better idea: Let’s live in a country where measles is fucking eradicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It used to be until these chucklefucks went and brought it back and offered themselves as petri dishes to cultivate and spread it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Ask yourself are you trading short term diseases such as chicken pox for long-term chronic illnesses.
You find the data, (not just CDC asserting that vaccines are better) the real data that shows risk of the vaccine and the risk of the disease.
Fill in the data.....
Deaths from disease. Vs Deaths from vaccine
Injury from disease. Vs. Injury from vaccines.
You must look at short term and long term side effects and deaths. ( what is the overall health of the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated?)
Make sure to factor in all the vaccines you would need for that disease for example kids get 5 DTaP/TDaP shots before they are 18 and then they need boosters for life. Each time you get a vaccine you take a risk and that must be calculated.
Also, calculate any non-specific risks or benefits for both of them.
After you do a true risk vs benifits then you might be able to make a good decision assuming there was no manipulation of data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listen, Ex-Laxx, if you wanna get shingles and go hang out with parents who had to bury their children after a measles outbreak, you go right the fuck ahead. But don’t make everyone else do it just to make you personally comfortable. We’re not willfully ignorant plague enthusiasts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Look, we have outbreaks of shingles now because of the vaccine. You get infected with the disease either from the vaccine or naturally but you don't get any wild boosting. We now see shingles in kids about 10 years after the vaccine because they are infected with the disease but are not exposed to the disease in the wild so they get shingles. To put it simply you need to be exposed to the disease to get boosted so you don't get shingles. I don't care what pharma is telling you they created a shingles problem thats why they created a shingles vaccine. They new it was going to be big money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That lie was already debunked here over a week before you made it.
Do try to keep up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
To wit:
"Chicken pox vaccine will caise more shingles due to lack of chicken pox exposure" was an unfounded fear the UK used as an excuse to not make the varicella vaccine mamdatory, that didn't pan out on the real world.
In the US, shingles rates were monitored.
It was found that while Shingles rates rose slightly for a while, the jncrease started before the vaccine came out, and zero increase in shingles due to varicella vaccination appeared.
In addition, being getting the varicella vaccination as opposed to chicken pox has proven to reduce shingles incidence by up to 80% - the opposite of what you lie.
The new shingles vaccine protects those too old to have gotten the varicella vaccine (who without the shingles vaccine have a 1 in 3 chance to develop shingles), and helps add another layer of protection to those already protected.
tl;dr:
Get chicken pox: 1/3 chance to develop shingles
Get just chicken pox vaccine: 1/18 chance to develop shingles
Shingles vaccine reduces both those rates by a further 90%
Ex-Laxxer continues to lie through their teeth as always and ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Could you please cite your source so that I may read it for myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/hcp/clinical-overview.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a victim of the UK's refusal to use a chicken pox vaccine (most of us didn't even know there was one!) can I just say that chicken pox sucks, and anyone who deliberately inflicts that on kids is an unmitigated sadist. And it's by far from the worst thing that vaccines stop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Facts say: not in the slightest.
We've already done that, if you'd pull the wool off your eyes.
[Projects facts not in evidence]
Risk from diseases > risk from vaccines by several orders of magnitude. Which you keep deliberately lying about.
Death and injury from Disease > Vaccine in all cases.
Done that too.
Vaccinated proven to be overall healthier.
Already done. There's been nothing more than baseless bad-faith fearmongering behind the "concern" over the number and timing of vaccines.
The only ones shown to have been manipulating the data have been the greedy frauds antivaxxers cite.
No amount of can't-withstand-basic-scrutiny sham science from professional scam artists is going to make vaccines the worse option.
Disease plays Russian Roulette with your kids' future. There is zero "benefit" to suffering sickness; only avoiding lasting harm through blind luck.
Any loving parent would take the chance medical science has given them to unload that gun via vaccination.
To do the opposite - to push for the greatest amount of suffering to be inflicted upon the greatest number of people, as is the sole aim of the antivax cult, is the objective definition of evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
"You find the data"
This is the issue. We HAVE found the data, and the data tells us that despite the minuscule chance of adverse effects from vaccines, that is far preferable to the risks of being unvaccinated. I'm sorry that you turned out to be one of the rare cases that suffered, but humanity is better off for not following your bullshit advice.
"After you do a true risk vs benifits"
Again, we did. The fact that you dislike the results is your problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
No. You have not. You could never prove it with data. Where is the proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Try reading the replies to you, liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
You know it's not there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Deliberately ignoring it doesn't make it invisible to anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
But it does explain a lot, in particular the repeated claims of 'show me the evidence' despite the many examples of people doing just that. They keep saying it because they simply refuse to see what people have attempted to show them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
First of all, the assumption there is that anyone who gets chicken pox will only ever suffer a short-term disease as a result. That simply isn’t true. Have you never heard of shingles? A severe complication that may not occur until many years after apparently recovering from the chicken pox? And the odds of that happening in an unvaccinated patient far exceed the chance of experiencing a severe or long-lasting side-effect from the chicken pox vaccine.
And yes, that’s even if you assume you have the same risk with all 5 doses, which isn’t actually the case. Almost all cases of a severe or long-lasting side-effect from a vaccine are due to a pre-existing condition such as an immune deficiency or allergy, so generally, if you’re fine the first time and don’t have anything that creates an immune deficiency occur between shots, you’re even less likely to experience severe or long-lasting side-effects from subsequent doses of the same vaccine. Of course, if you have a severe or long-lasting side-effect the first time, then you’ll be far more likely to experience the same thing on subsequent doses, but generally by then you’ll have a valid medical exemption anyways, so you wouldn’t be taking multiple doses anyways.
Anyways, I’m not going to do your research for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Lol. I'm not sure what news you're watching but there wasn't hundreds of thousands of cases of measles this year in the US, it was between 1000 and 2000.
Before the vaccine mothers did not fear the measles just like they did not fear the chicken pox. Yes, you can die from both. GO GET THE VACCINE IF YOU WANT. YOU DECIDED. DO THE RESEARCH and be ready to deal with the consequences if things go sideways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mothers didn’t fear a disease that had a better than average probability of killing children or a disease that could turn into another, worse disease (shingles) later in a child’s life.
Uh…huh.
And I suppose next you’re going to tell me that Family Guy post-Season 3 is the height of hilarity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
You truly are delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, that would explain a few things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Defective vaccins
Again, vaccines don’t cause autoimmune disorders.
I’m skeptical that you got nerve damage, as I have never heard of a properly administered vaccine doing that. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I’ll just assume that you did receive nerve damage and that it was because the doctor administered the vaccine improperly.
As I’ve said previously, the idea that you have autoimmune disorders conflicts with the idea that you also have a weakened immune system. The latter does a pretty good job of mitigating if not eliminating the former.
I’m getting tired of repeating this: vaccines don’t alter your immune system.
Common sense is even more useless than anecdotes. Nature, medicine, and science in general can often be counterintuitive. Common sense is insufficient.
With the possible exception of some infant deaths (due to allergies) or some brain damage (mainly in older vaccines that are no longer in use, there is no evidence, not even correlation, to suggest that vaccines do or even could cause any of those things. For a number of them, like autoimmune disorders, allergies, and autism, there’s actually a lot of evidence that vaccines do not cause those things. I’d link them here, but we’ve already done that so many times that I just can’t be bothered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Defective vaccins
"Listen to the parents"
I'd rather listen to doctors, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
59% had >3 vaccines & still caught whooping caugh
In 2012 there was 48,277 cases of pertussis reported. 59% of the pertussis cases had 3 or more doses.
Are you blaming the anti-vaxxers on all the vaccine failures?
You get a series of three and then boosters.
pertuss-surv-report-2012.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're going to post a link to the PDF you want to submit as evidence, try using a link that actually works.
Your hatred of vaccinated kids is duly noted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 59% had >3 vaccines & still caught whooping caugh
What was the infection rate among those who weren't vaccinated?
I mean, you're full of shit either way but at least try presenting the complete version of your stats.
Oh, and I do love the only presenting the filename rather than the URL of your supposed evidence. Are you just pulling random shit off your hard drive now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 59% had >3 vaccines & still caught whooping caugh
Look up 2012 final pertussis surveillance report and download the PDF.
In 2012 it was 9% of individuals who got 0 vaccines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We’re not here to do your work for you. Link the PDF yourself, you lazy ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/surv-reporting.html
Scoll down and find 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I scrolled down and found that graph you showed off earlier.
Seems like the data doesn’t really go in your favor, since it shows that the number of cases of pertussis dropped drastically after “the introduction of pertussis vaccines in the 1940s”. Only now are the numbers rebounding, but even the 2012 high of ~48,000 cases doesn’t match the pre-vaccine 1934 high of ~265,000 cases. Hell, 2003 was the first time pertussis cases numbered in the tens of thousands since 1964 — at least a decade after the introduction of the vaccine.
From what I can tell, the pertussis vaccine helped lower the number of cases to record lows. That the numbers are now increasing suggests one of two major causes: less effective vaccines or fewer people receiving the vaccine. Both could be true, neither could be true, or only one could be true. Obviously, studying the causes would be the prudent thing to do.
But let’s not act like fewer than 20,000 cases of pertussis per year, compared to ten times that, is worth throwing out science and vaccines and giving a shit about the health and welfare of others. That way lies madness and plagues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MMR vaccine coverage. Are the unvaccinated putting us at risk?
MMR vaccination rate among U.S. children aged 19-35 months 1994-2017
https://www.statista.com/statistics/385577/mmr-vaccination-rate-among-us-children-aged-19- 35-months/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes. Next question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Prove it. Correlation is not causation, REMEMBER.
First prove that there are more unvaccinated in the US. What is the MMR vaccine coverage for the last 10 years or so?
Second, if there was an increase in unvaccinated and an increase in measles that does not necessarily mean that the unvaccinated is actually causing the increase in measles cases. Correlation isn't causation remember. There's also been an increase in cell phones does that mean that cell phones are causing an increase in measles too.
Y'all love to say correlation is not causation when it comes to autism and other vaccine injuries but when it comes to putting blame on measles cases you love using correlation.
Last, you obviously didn't look at the MMR vaccine coverage over the last 25 years.
The MMR vaccine causes viral shedding. Maybe the Measles cases are from the vaccinated. Was the strain from the vaccine or was it the wild virus strain?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well, apparently you looked at it. Care to link to any statistics? But considering how long it took you to link to a pdf to spout your misinterpreted statistics I'm not holding my breath you'll actually start bringing anything substantial to the table aside from calling parents noobs for wanting to avoid shingles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Herd immunity works when vaccination rates reach a certain level. When people opt out of vaccinations (either for themselves or their children), those rates drop below the needed levels. Next thing you know, Li’l Jimmy Antivax and his family are the Patient Zeroes of a measles outbreak. Jimmy doesn’t die, thankfully — but several of his friends do. They didn’t have their vaccinations, either. The families tell Jimmy and his family that they’re not welcome at the funerals.
This story lacks the data you’re asking for. But since you’d ignore that anyway, I figured maybe a hypothetical story about little children dying might tug at your heartstrings enough to show a little goddamned humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Vaccine induced herd immunity is a theory based on a theory of natural herd immunity. The amount of people that the pharmaceutical industry said needed to be vaccinated to produce herd immunity has changed I believe around seven times.
Please prove that the theory of vaccine induce herd immunity is possible with a wild virus vaccine such as measles and tell me how many need to be vaccinated for it to work.
Vaccines are the only product I can think of that when they fail they just keep selling more vaccines. They say sorry we need two shots now, my bad. Or, oops we thought measles would be eradicated if 70% got vaccinated, well let's try 80%.
You must prove the theory first. Correlation is not causation, REMEMBER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I’m curious as to what source told you that the portion of the population that needs to be vaccinated for herd immunity to be effective has changed multiple times.
And yes, the vaccine doesn’t last forever or as long as we once thought many years ago. However, nowadays we have a much better understanding of how long each vaccine remains effective. Same thing probably goes for herd immunity, assuming your claim on that is true. The fact that we didn’t get it exactly right before isn’t a sign of flaws but a sign that we understand things better now.
At any rate, we’ve already provided sources discussing herd immunity, including studies into the phenomenon. I’m not going to repeat them for you here. Unless you have evidence refuting the sources already provided for you, we have no reason to go any further than we already have. We’ve already satisfied our burden of proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
US MMR vaccine rate is high and yet people get measles
Prove that unvaccinated individuals are causing an increase in in nature measles.
What is the MMR vaccination rate? Has it dropped over the last 10 years? How high does herd immunity have to be to work? How was vaccine induced herd immunity proven? How many people get the vaccine induced strain of measles? What are there symptoms? How are vaccine strain measles tracked? How many vaccinated get the unvaccinated sick with the vaccine strain?
Prove the theory of "vaccine induced herd immunity".
Correlation is not causation.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/385577/mmr-vaccination-rate-among-us-children-aged-19 - 35-months/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/health/samoa-measles-emergency-intl-scli/index.html
https:/ /www.cnn.com/2019/04/24/health/measles-outbreak-record-us-bn/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because there is more measles in the US does not necessarily mean that there is less MMR vaccination coverage.
You are not proving that it is the unvaccinated that is the reason for an increase in measles. The articles use assertions and guesses and use words like "linked". Correlation is not causation. (Regardless of how reasonable something my be:). )
They even say in one of the links that the US has a very high vaccine rate.
At least look at the vaccine coverage for MMR over the years.
It is possible that the vaccine is failing just like the TDap/DTaP vaccine is failing. (Refer to the above flagged links if you want that data again).
You want YOUR CORRELATIONS to tell people to vaccinate but when we see a correlation such as a vaccine injury with our child that's not a good enough reason to stop. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
I don't need the pharmaceutical industry to decide for us that we are right or wrong that vaccines caused our children to scream through the nights, vomit, have diarrhea, fevers, and wind up never being the same again. We investigate for our children and we decide what goes into their bodies. You find the proof that vaccines are full of rainbows and sunshine and go vaccinated the hell out of you and your kids, that's YOUR choice.
-Health does not have to come through a needle.
P.S. "Vaccine induced herd immunity" is a theory that has never been proven.
I have to go out for a while so I don't have time to chat back and forth. Here is a good video that will give you something to think about and research for yourself.
https://youtu.be/GBzJHXrrDB8
Good luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cases of measles increased around the time anti-vaxxers became an organized “mainstream” group. Correlation isn’t causation, but that’s a coincidence I don’t think you should take lightly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also worth mentioning that the measles outbreaks are sticking with antivaxxer enclaves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
While you're out there, could you pick up some rabies from the nearby alleyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: US MMR vaccine rate is high and yet people get measles
I just want to address your subject line. It reminds me of this line from creationists: “If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”
While it’s not quite as obviously wrong as that line, your line still fails for comparable reasons.
This is more of a nitpick, but the first half refers only to the US population, while the second half could easily be read as “people in general”, without any restrictions on location. That said, I assume you meant, “US MMR vaccine rate is high and yet people in the US get measles.”
Just like every other treatment humans have ever come up with, no vaccine is 100% effective on 100% of the people who take it. So even if 100% of the population was vaccinated, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that nobody would ever get the measles. (Though herd immunity would make that chance extremely low if the effectiveness is sufficiently high.)
Now, if a sufficient portion of the US population receives the MMR vaccine and the MMR has a sufficient rate of effectiveness, then herd immunity should protect the portion of the US population that has not received immunity to measles. In fact, for a long time after the vast majority of the US population got the MMR vaccine (or other Measles vaccines), there were little to no cases of measles in the US. It was virtually eradicated in the US. Unfortunately, over the past couple decades, the vaccination rate has declined and has gotten low enough that measles has begun to reappear due to herd immunity being sufficiently weakened. However, that is not purely because of the ineffectiveness of the vaccine itself; far from it.
It’s because of a number of people opting not to receive the vaccine even if there is no valid medical reason for them not to do so. Whether or not you yourself have a valid medical reason not to get vaccinated (and immune deficiency can be one), there are others who don’t have one and still won’t get vaccinated. The fact that the vaccine isn’t 100% effective and the fact that not everyone can safely receive the vaccine would not, by themselves, lead to more than a few cases of the measles per year; the rate of effectiveness is sufficiently high enough and the likelihood of an individual having a valid medical exemption sufficiently low enough that, if essentially everyone who could safely get the MMR vaccine did get it, herd immunity would protect everyone else pretty darn well.
And if you’re questioning whether herd immunity actually works, I’d like to point out that, despite the fact that the smallpox vaccine had the same issues with effectiveness and safety as the MMR vaccine, we were still able to vaccinate enough of the population over a long enough period that smallpox has been eradicated. No one in the US has had smallpox for decades. Herd immunity works!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: US MMR vaccine rate is high and yet people get measles
The use of a smallpox vaccine and smallpox going away is a correlation. Correlation is not causation
Many diseases went away without the use of a vaccine.
Look at the smallpox vaccine coverage in the US and in the world it was much lower than what we have for MMR vaccine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name thirty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: US MMR vaccine rate is high and yet people get measl
I don’t really think you of all people should be saying that, considering the fact that every proof you’ve offered has been a case involving correlation without evidence of causation. Yes, it’s a correlation, but it is a strong correlation, so It shouldn’t be dismissed to readily. Same goes for the correlation of MMR and similar vaccinations to measles infections and for DTaP and similar vaccinations vs whooping cough incidents. Correlation isn’t causation, but a very strong correlation with a logical theory of causation is extremely strong evidence for causation. As I’ve said, we’ve already presented studies on herd immunity, which include evidence of causation. I was simply presenting an easy example of herd immunity working.
Do you have any evidence of that? Any at all? Also, limit it to diseases caused by viruses, as those work differently from those caused by bacteria, fungi, other parasites, genetic disorders, radiation, etc. Do you know what did cause those diseases to go away? If so, is it even possible for those to apply to smallpox?
That’s in part because we started vaccinating against smallpox long before the first measles/MMR vaccine was discovered. Over time, the portion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to maintain herd immunity would logically go down (slowly). By the 20th century, smallpox was already pretty rare in the US, so fewer vaccinations against it were needed there. There are also differences between smallpox and measles that would make a difference in the threshold for herd immunity. For one thing, measles is a lot more infectious. For anything else, I defer to those more knowledgeable on the subject than I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I was very pro-vaccine until I saw this one chart"
Pro-vaxxer turned anti-vaxxer until he started reading, analyzing charts, investigating claims, and thinking for himself.
https://youtu.be/MFvLZ7Ud6bM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I was very pro-vaccine until I saw this one chart"
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I was very pro-vaccine until I saw this one chart"
You spelt "until I started buying into propaganda" incorrectly.
I do, however, find it interesting that so many of you guys start switching to random YouTube video when people keep debunking your text links. Is it because this is where you get your information from in the first place, or because you know that videos can throw out all sorts of unsourced claims that take longer to debunk?
All I know is that "here's a guy I agree with talking for half an hour" is not substitute for primary sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "I was very pro-vaccine until I saw this one chart"
His description is all that's needed to debunk it, as he's conclusively proven that "amtivaxxism" and "thinking for himself" are mutually exclusive concepts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Mike, could you possibly lock down this thread or something? The sheer number of comments on this article is getting rather unwieldy and cumbersome, and I cannot stop myself from responding to this guy’s ridiculous claims. They’re not even saying anything that hasn’t already been said before in this thread. Nor are they asking any questions we haven’t already addressed.
I was excited at first to post the 1000th comment on this article, but we’re now over three weeks and almost 1400 comments after the article was first posted, and there is no sign that this discussion is even slowing down. If there was something new or interesting going on, I’d be okay with that, but this is going nowhere fast. I’d normally never advocate for shutting down a discussion, but this is getting ridiculous, annoying, and tiresome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We can lead an amtivaxxer to facts, but we can't make them think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have no idea what it's like for users who are signed in, but as I previously indicated I'd much rather this asshole come here and waste his time and think he's being constructive by being annoying, rather than going to schools and preaching to the impressionable.
Realistically the bunch of us who haven't got bored - and the others who occasionally pop in to express how they've lost their patience - can drop by every so often to call the nurgler out on his hate for children who aren't his.
That would be preferable compared to giving John Herrick Smith some ammo to use in his moderation-at-scale argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
Was Wakefield's Congressional testimony on autism retracted?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4550492/user-clip-dr-andrew-wakefield-congressional-testim ony-2000
Dr. Andrew Wakefield Congressional Testimony 2000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn’t matter if it was. The study he published was determined to be bullshit; any of his testimony or statements that referenced his study are equally bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
"The study he published was determined to be bullshit"
Not true.
https://youtu.be/mT0VzAvfnb4
Dr. Andrew Wakefield Deals With Allegations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
And he also invented Email.
Pull the other one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
"And he also invented Email.
Pull the other one."
That doesn't make any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Andrew Wakefield - autism
It’s a reference to Shiva Ayyadurai (probably misspelled that), a guy who (falsely) claims to have invented email and once sued Techdirt for their coverage of the issue.
Toom1275 is essentially saying, “I believe Wakefield on vaccines and autism being linked as much as I do Shiva on who invented the internet: not one bit.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield: fraud
The help you need #1
The help you need #2
The help you need #3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know it’s a bit bullshit to merely quote Wikipedia, but fuck it, I’mma do it anyway. Go there for the citations of facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Andrew Wakefield - autism
Huh? What does that matter?
The only one who can retract his testimony would be Wakefield himself, and as noted, he has a financial interest in not doing so. So asking if the testimony has been retracted isn’t really the proper inquiry.
Besides, congressional testimony has no scientific value. Only studies and data matter, not testimonials.
It’s also worth noting that Wakefield had his medical license revoked for several reasons, including unethical behavior, and his study on MMR vaccines causing autism has been retracted by the peer-reviewed publication that originally published it after several issues with the study were discovered and other researchers tried and failed to replicate his results. As such, any medical testimony he provided is rather suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
"Was Wakefield's Congressional testimony on autism retracted?"
Why are you linking to something from the year 2000 and not the things that happened in the decade since to totally discredit everything he said?
This is like you linking to Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" as proof that his impeachment trial was invalid, or Nixon saying "I am not a crook" as proof that he wasn't lying about Watergate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
"Why are you linking to something from the year 2000 "
Because autism is the elephant in the room.
And everybody knows it is caused by vaccines.
You can put a paper bag over your head, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.
All the denials in the world just make it that much more obvious that everybody knows it. And nobody trusts the government on this.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
•About 1 in 59 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder
https://search.usa.gov/search?affiliate=usagov&query=vaccines+autism
Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC
Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses
The MMR vaccine and autism: Sensation, refutation ...
Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism - NCBI ...
Research on Autism Spectrum Disorder | CDC
Mercury, Vaccines, and Autism
Related Topics | Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | CDC
About CDC's Work on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) | CDC
Thimerosal in Vaccines Thimerosal | Concerns | Vaccine ...
Vaccine Safety | Vaccine Safety | CDC
Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine Safety Studies ...
Science Summary:CDC Studies on Thimerosal in
Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR ...
Multiple Vaccines and the Immune System | Concerns ...
CDC Statement Regarding 2004 Pediatrics Article, "Age at ...
Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based ...
Making the Vaccine Decision: Common Concerns | CDC
autism and vaccines - PubMed - NCBI
Thimerosal-Containing Vaccines and Autism: A Review of ...
Autism | HHS.gov
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program | Official ...
Thimerosal and Vaccines | FDA
The Truth About Autism - New York State Department of Health
Vaccine Side Effects | Vaccines
Developmental Regression and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in ...
Guillain-Barré Syndrome Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC
Frequently Asked Questions about Thimerosal Thimerosal ...
Vaccines and Autism: A Misconception that Persists.
Just-so Stories: Vaccines, Autism, and the Single-bullet ...
Immunization and autism links: Ethics in research
Vaccines and autism in primate model - PubMed Central (PMC)
Immunization and children at risk for autism
Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) | Vaccine ...
Talking to Patients About Vaccine Safety | Vaccine Safety ...
What Every Behavior Analyst Should Know About the “MMR ...
Prepare for Vaccine Questions Parents May Ask | CDC
A Broken Trust: Lessons from the Vaccine–Autism Wars
MERCURY, VACCINES, AND AUTISM, REVISITED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know... copying a site map with a bunch of scary titles with no context doesn't show people that you've done your homework.
It just shows you didn't read beyond what you thought was enough to assuage the bogeyman in your head telling you to scold parents for vaccinating their children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
Ex-Laxxer provides zero facts in his Complaint to support these contentions. Amtifactser's complaint is summarily dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then how come the only scientific study that purported to prove that link was eventually retracted for being a bullshit study full of faulty science from a fraudster looking to make some big dosh off his findings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you keep saying that there "the only scientific study that purported to prove that link was eventually retracted".
There have been loads of studies.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/220807175/157-Research-Papers-Supporting-the-Vaccine-Autism-Link
I have provided more studies in the above comments.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And all of them are either NOT scientific studies or DON'T support your assertions. This has been debunked many times in previous comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many of them had their results replicated by other scientists, studied in-depth for any possible faults in methodology, and ultimately accepted by a majority of reputable medical organizations as something even remotely factual? By all means, show me which ones meet those criteria.
I’ll wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We’ve already addressed those. All of them are either unsound or don’t support your claim at all. You never address our responses that identify these problems. You just start a new thread in the comments with a new source with the same problems or a source that has already been addressed.
Are you just throwing a bunch of studies at us in hopes that one will stick without even bothering to check them yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, they don't, because no study has shown there to be any link between them. You are just assuming it does because you want something to blame for your child's autism other than bad luck. Autism won't go away even if we stopped all vaccinations tomorrow.
Back at you. All you have to go on is one study that was proven beyond any shadow of doubt to have been falsified and done improperly. You have nothing.
I'm sorry, wut? So just because everybody denies something is true that automatically means it is true? You're an absolute moron. That is blatantly faulty logic. By that logic, the moon landings were actually faked, the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat. Those are all things that everybody denies are true. Moron.
A few hundred million people who get their kids vaccinated every year would disagree with you on that.
So?
As for the rest, the first link in that site map you posted says "Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism Concerns". And if you click on it, it takes you to a page that says, in no uncertain terms, VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM.
Stop being a moron and posting stuff that disproves your position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dr. Andrew Wakefield - autism
None of what you just said explains why you chose a congressional testimony from 19 years ago by a doctor who was later discredited, lost his medical license, and no longer has any credibility in the medical community. It only explains why you keep trying to talk about vaccines and autism, which was not what you were asked. You were asked, “Why this specific source for your claim?”, not “Why bring up this specific claim?”
is categorically and demonstrably false. We don’t know that. On the contrary, we have been explicitly denied that. We believe/know otherwise. We have presented evidence refuting the existence of a link between vaccines and autism. We have presented factual reasons that the evidence you presented in support of your claim that that link does exist is all at least one of a) from an unreliable source, b) has been refuted, c) is insufficient (lacks evidence of causation or is anecdotal), and/or d) doesn’t actually support your claim at all. (This also includes the stuff you just gave us; most of it actually refutes or is neutral toward your claim, and the rest is from unreliable sources.)
The only one “put[ing] a paper bag on [their] head” is you. You continually ignore the evidence we’ve provided for you and the problems we’ve identified with your evidence. We’ve actually gone through all the evidence you’ve provided and gave reasons for why they aren’t persuasive or definitive evidence of a link between vaccines and autism.
I don’t think you understand what an “elephant in the room” is. Among other things, it constitutes a refusal to address the “elephant” at all. Denying its existence directly constitutes addressing the topic, so it’s no longer an “elephant in the room”. Not only that, but an “elephant in the room” is something ignored and unacknowledged by everyone in the room. Once anyone brings it up, it ceases to be an “elephant in the room”. So the fact that you, yourself, keep addressing the topic means that it is in no way an “elephant in the room”. Again, an elephant in the room is something that everyone “in the room” is aware of but that everyone “in the room” chooses not to acknowledge or address at all for a substantial period of time. It is not something that some people in the room deny exists, try to disprove, or ignore evidence in its favor. As we disagree as to the existence of such a link and the topic has been addressed multiple times in this thread by just about everyone here, this is in no way an “elephant in the room”.
That’s not how it works. At all. We deny it because we know/believe that it’s wrong, and that people who spread this misinformation are causing real harm.
If you mean that everyone knows that this is a topic that people talk about, then yes, but that doesn’t mean there’s any merit to the claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walker Smith was part of the Lancet Paper
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/07/mmr-row-doctor-appeal
Walker Smith had his license taken away as well as Andrew Wakefield. Walker Smith had the money to go to court and fight the false allegations and won and got his license back. You never hear about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it's irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is not irrelevant. They both had there names on the paper and the both were accused of fraud. Walker Smith fought and won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's irrelevant because the paper was still shown to have been falsified and done improperly. Therefore the paper and it's conclusions are wrong. It doesn't matter who or who didn't lose their license. Wakefield losing his was the nail in the coffin but wasn't needed to show he was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That Walker Smith did not personally falsify results, have financial interest in the results, or engage in any other unethical behavior over the course of the Lancet study doesn’t change the fact that Wakefield absolutely did, or that the Lancet papers have been definitively shown to be false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walker Smith was part of the Lancet Paper
You’ve already said this. He wasn’t in charge of the project; he just worked on it. Also, merely working on a study that is not methodologically or statistically sound is generally not enough to revoke a medical license. You would also have to personally engage in unethical behavior. So the fact that Smith’s license was reinstated doesn’t say anything about the merits of the study at all or whether Wakefield’s medical license should be reinstated as well.
The Lancet study was retracted due to methodological problems, ethical issues on Wakefield’s part specifically, and the fact that, despite numerous attempts, no one else was able to replicate the results. Wakefield’s license wasn’t revoked simply because the Lancet study was problematic and had to be retracted; he also violated several ethics rules in the process. He failed to disclose his financial interests in the results; he performed medically unnecessary and highly invasive procedures; and more.
It is entirely possible that Smith himself did not personally participate in the unethical aspects of the study; that doesn’t change the fact that Wakefield did or that the study was bunk. As such, that whole thing with Walker Smith is ultimately irrelevant. (Note: irrelevant =/= unrelated.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MMR vaccine fails, again
Measles is worse when you get it as an adult. Y'all shou be scared and go get you MMR boosters!
Only drug I know that keeps failing and yet y'all keep vaccinating. Keep drinking the koolaide guys.
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/have-you-had-your-measles-shot-learn-if-you-need-n9 96096
https://youtu.be/GhHd8n8KHgQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MMR vaccine fails, again
Which is why it's generally given to kids so they don't get it when they are an adult.
Why? We got vaccinated, you didn't. The one who should be scared is you. We're immune.
MMR boosters are currently not recommended by anyone as it has been shown to generally protect you for life. Especially the measles portion.
You have provided no evidence that it does, and hard data and statistics say you're 1) wrong, 2) a liar, and 3) an idiot.
Because you're an idiot and wrong and nobody should listen to you.
Says the guy drowning in it.
You might want to actually READ that article. If you had you would see it doesn't support your position. Namely it states that the people getting measles are all unvaccinated and that the MMR vaccine protects you for life.
Random Youtube videos are not a reliable source of information. Especially from non-medical professionals. Get better sources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: MMR vaccine fails, again
Even if the nurgler was taken at face value let's re-examine his claims. Apparently the MMR vaccine is the "only drug" he knows that "keeps failing". So the other vaccines, by his own admission, are okay? But he'll still mock people that take these other vaccines?
And he'll scream at Internet randos for taking the MMR vaccine, but not the parents he advised and are now panicking because their kids have measles?
You seriously can't make this shit up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: MMR vaccine fails, again
It shows how absurd this claims really is in context.
I mean, first of all, as you said, if the MMR vaccine is the “only drug” they know that “keeps failing”, that means that all the other vaccines don’t keep failing, so why do they complain about the other vaccines?
Second, the flu vaccine has a much higher rate of “failure” since you have to take one just about every year or so. No drug is 100% effective in perpetuity. That’s just unrealistic. So clearly that part of the claim is wrong, anyways.
Third, as noted by the other AC, the MMR vaccine is one of those vaccines that actual doesn’t substantially fade in effectiveness over time, particularly the measles portion. Virtually everyone who gets the measles, mumps, or rubella nowadays (especially measles) had not yet received the MMR vaccine at all (or had a weakened immune system for other reasons, reducing the effectiveness of any vaccine) at the time they were infected. So actually, the MMR vaccine doesn’t “keep failing”, so that part of the claim is also false. This is why the CDC does not recommend taking MMR booster shots.
This leads to the fourth point: the CDC doesn’t recommend booster shots, nor do they say that the MMR vaccine reduces in effectiveness over time. Additionally, no school, employer, or government within a first-world country mandates MMR booster shots. As such, we have no reason to get MMR boosters. This discussion is supposed to remain confined to CDC-recommended vaccines and vaccines mandated by a first-world country’s government (or sub-government), school, or employer. Since that’s not the case for MMR boosters, we have no reason to address them here. (This also pokes a big hole in the claim that the CDC is only trying to help make Big Pharma richer. If this was true, you’d expect them to recommend taking a booster shot periodically. Same goes for schools and employers, as they ought to be mandating MMR boosters if the theory was true. Again, vaccines that remain sufficiently effective over an entire lifetime make far less money than vaccines that are more temporary and require booster shots. And both of these make less money than post-infection treatments. IOW, the conspiracy theory is completely nonsensical just based on the fact that it’s less effective at making money.)
Fourth, they presume that we haven’t taken MMR boosters. Now, they may be correct in this particular instance, but this is just another instance of a series of implied assertions that we are somehow hypocritical because they presume we are not getting the proper vaccines. They never provide support for these implications either. Of course, they ignore that a) most if not all of us are getting all the vaccines recommended by the CDC or mandated by our schools or employers or are scheduled to do so in the near future; b) not everyone is able to receive every recommended vaccine at the recommended ages, either for valid medical reasons or because our parents may have prevented us from being vaccinated during our childhoods; c) that doesn’t change the validity of our arguments; and d) not every vaccine is of equal value, as some are not recommended by the CDC (for various reasons, such as safety concerns or lack of a compelling reason for the vaccine) or are only recommended for those under certain circumstances (like the typhoid vaccine for those who are traveling).
Fifth, again as noted by the other AC, the article cited in support of these claims actually says the opposite. And, of course, random YouTube videos from non-medical professionals are useless as evidence, so this source is unpersuasive. Again, this person shows just how bad they are at finding decent evidence from reliable sources that actually supports their claims.
So yeah, this is just ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is an excellent and well written deconstruction of their arguments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More getting hurt from the vaccine than the wild disease.
"In rare cases, the live virus in oral polio vaccine can mutate into a form capable of sparking new outbreaks. All the current vaccine-derived polio cases have been sparked by a Type 2 virus contained in the vaccine. "
https://apnews.com/7d8b0e32efd0480fbd12acf27729f6a5
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda /2019/11/15/779865471/polio-vaccine-may-be-preventing-the-end-of-polio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know this has been said before, but you should REALLY actually READ the articles you post before declaring them to be proof of your argument and taking a victory lap. Plus, this has all been debunked in earlier comments.
The second link especially goes into detail on this.
First, vaccine-derived polio is ONLY from taking the live oral vaccine. The injected vaccine used in the US is made with an inactive version and is therefore NOT CAPABLE of giving anyone polio and does not have this issue.
Second, the number of cases of people getting polio from the vaccine are an extremely TINY fraction compared to the number of people who actually got polio before the vaccine was introduced.
Third, in response to this, Type-2 (the one that people are getting from the vaccine) was removed from the oral vaccine to prevent this. It backfired because now people are getting actual wild Type-2 polio again.
So once again, you're wrong. And not just kind of wrong. You're stupidly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More getting hurt from the vaccine than the wild disease.
It’s rare for that to occur, as made clear in the quote you used.
That only applies to the oral polio vaccine, not the DTaP or the injected polio vaccine we actually use in the US.
All of this was made clear in the sources you provided. Tell me, how much of these things do you actually read before posting. A lot of the time, the claims you’re making are actually refuted by the sources you provided in support. I mean, it makes refuting your point way easier for us, but could you maybe read the whole thing first?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oral polio & DTP too dangerous for the US but not the 3rd world
Oral polio and DPT has been deemed too dangerous to be used in the US. I don't trust an industry that gives something to the third world countries that's banned in the u.s..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enjoy your polio, then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you saying that the people in third world countries who are getting polio from the vaccine deserve it? You are a bad person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you saying that we should stop giving the vaccine entirely and let an exponentially larger number of people get polio naturally and have an exponentially larger number of children be paralyzed and die from it?
Unlike us, you ARE a bad person for advocating this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
otherwording (or in-other-wordsing) — noun — summarizing a point of argument in a way that distorts the point into saying something it does not and attributes the false interpretation to the person who raised the original point; a blatant attempt to make winning an argument easier for someone who is out of their depth in said argument
Example: You will often find the phrases “in other words” or “so you’re saying” at the beginning of an instance of otherwording.
See also: strawman; your post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Are you saying that the people in third world countries who are getting polio from the vaccine deserve it?'
Are you saying that the many, many other people it actually protects from polio deserve to get it when your fearmongering based on outdated information enables the disease to thrive again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Great news then! The US administers an injected form of the polio vaccine that doesn't suffer from the same issues as the oral version and is perfectly safe! We also use DTaP which has been proven to be safe and is approved for use in the US.
Stop cherry picking your facts. That won't work here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oral polio & DTP too dangerous for the US but not the 3rd wo
So what? We don’t use them in the US, so it doesn’t affect whether you should get the DTaP or injected polio vaccine in the US. The fact that DTP and oral polio vaccines are used elsewhere but not here is irrelevant to whether the vaccines in the US are safe or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oral polio & DTP too dangerous for the US but not the 3r
Oral polio and DPT has been deemed too dangerous to be used in the US. I don't trust an industry that gives something to the third world countries that's banned in the u.s. I would think you would care..
You think these companies will hurt other people and not us. Keep dreaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant. There are a lot of things that are banned in the US that are used elsewhere in the world. Hell, there's a lot of things that are banned elsewhere in the world that are used in the US. This means less than nothing.
We do. But just because something is banned in the US doesn't make it dangerous to use period. That just means the US doesn't want to.
None of the companies are deliberately hurting anyone. That is just straight up delusional. The only reason the oral vaccine is being used in third world nations is because there isn't enough supply of the injected version to give to everyone in those nations. But it's still better than nothing. The number of people harmed by the oral vaccine is FAR less than the number harmed by the actual disease. Something you continue to conveniently ignore.
This has been pointed out SO MANY times now my only conclusion is that you just flat out don't care and are ignoring it. That's the only explanation for why you would want to deliberately increase the number of people who suffer and die from disease or vaccines.
The only one dreaming here is you. Now get out. I'm thoroughly disgusted with your deliberate willingness to endanger the lives of millions of people by denying them life saving vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oral polio & DTP too dangerous for the US but not th
I care, but again, that tells me nothing about the safety of vaccines currently used in the US. For the purposes of this discussion, I don’t care about the safety of vaccines in third-world countries; I may care outside of this discussion, but I have no interest in expanding the scope of this discussion, which has been about the safety of vaccines recommended by the CDC in the US and/or mandated by schools or employers. For this discussion, what happens in third-world countries is irrelevant.
And for the record, it’s not a question of whether these companies are willing to supply dangerous vaccines; it’s whether the CDC and FDA are able to prevent them from doing so here specifically. The companies’ trustworthiness is not at issue here. The problem is that there is no evidence that the FDA, CDC, WHO, Big Pharma, and the science-based medical community are all conspiring to allow unsafe vaccines to be administered in the US, despite the fact that there are so many points of failure where leaks could occur but haven’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oral polio & DTP too dangerous for the US but not th
"Oral polio and DPT has been deemed too dangerous to be used in the US."
So have Kinder Eggs.
So?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would be useful in convincing anyone that there's a link between vaccination and autism would be just one fact-based, nonfraudulent studying showing how such a thing can be possible.
To date, though, no such thing has even come close to existing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You'd think that for someone who claims that the facts are "obvious", the science is "solid", the new resident nurgler would be able to provide actual citations for his claims instead of a poorly curated Google dump, which even includes hyperlinks that don't actually lead to the source when clicked because he has no idea how markdown works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
He's panicking. The sources and YouTube videos that he and his fellow cultists believe at face value are being demolished, so he's trying desperately to find something that hasn't been already debunked 100 times in this thread alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You know what if YOU think vaccines are so great than YOU go get them.
Get an HPV shot
MMR booster
TDaP boosters
Shingles shot
Hep A shot
Hep B shot
Meningococcal shot
Rotavirus shot
Pneumococcal shot
And of course a flu shot
And go ahead and get a Smallpox and Anthrax shot because you never know. You should also be ready for biological warfare just like the military.
Paul Offit says its perfectly safe to get them all at one time.
Let me know how you feel afterwards.
Good Luck!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your logic is faulty. You assume that we haven't. Most of us have, a long time ago when we were kids (along with all the recommended follow up boosters). And we are currently better off for it with zero downsides.
Again, faulty logic. Smallpox has basically been eradicated, therefore the chances of being exposed to it and contracting it are virtually zero. There is no need to get a smallpox vaccine unless you are working in an environment where you may be exposed to it, such as a lab. The same goes for Anthrax.
Who? And why do I care what he says?
Why should I listen to someone I've never heard of telling me to get all of the vaccines all at once instead of following the science backed medical recommendations of properly spaced and timed shots to make sure they are as effective as possible?
Well, considering I've had all the relevant shots on that list (which is most of them) and am still a healthy, normal functioning person, I'd say you might want to find a crow and eat it. Let me know how it tastes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Again, faulty logic. Smallpox has basically been eradicated, therefore the chances of being exposed to it and contracting it are virtually zero."
It gets better - it has basically been eradicated BY VACCINES! The reason nobody feels the need to take such a thing today outside of very specific circumstances, is because they've already worked so well that there's no risk of contracting the disease for the majority of people.
He's trying to make out that everybody's hypocritical for not taking a vaccine that's worked so well it's no longer necessary. Meanwhile trying to stop people taking a different vaccine that's prevented generational measles deaths that used to happen every few decades.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And we're very close to similarly eliminating polio worldwide, using the very vaccines this shitwitted pissant decries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We have. Why do you keep resorting to this argument?
I don’t recall off-hand if TDaP boosters are recommended by the CDC, but I do know that MMR boosters are not. The MMR vaccine remains effective for life.
At any rate, I’ve received every vaccine recommended by my doctor and/or the CDC. This includes the flu shot, the polio vaccine, the Hep A and B vaccines (I believe), the DTaP vaccine, and the MMR vaccine, among others. I don’t generally get vaccines that are not recommended. In particular, I don’t feel concerned that I’ll be subjected to biological warfare anytime soon, so I have no reason to get the anthrax or smallpox vaccines. I’m neither in the military nor a war zone, nor do I believe our government is likely to begin using biological weapons against its own citizens within its own borders. (I don’t give him much credit, but I don’t believe even Trump would go that far.) And I have no reason to get an MMR booster as the MMR vaccine will protect me for the rest of my lifetime, assuming I don’t acquire an immune deficiency.
Not every vaccine is of equal value. We aren’t so paranoid as to get excessively vaccinated. We get the vaccines we need and are able to. That’s all that we ask of anyone. I’m certainly not going to take vaccines just because a random anonymous anti-vaxxer on the internet told me to, especially if the only given reason is, “because you never know”.
Again, why do you keep resorting to this argument? You keep assuming we haven’t received the vaccines that we’re supposed to—even after we explicitly state we have—and conflating vaccines the CDC recommends with ones that they don’t. We’re only arguing in favor of vaccines recommended by the CDC. We have no reason to address the merits of any other vaccines, nor do we feel any need to receive those vaccines. This tactic of yours was pointless the first time, and it had already gotten old by the second time. Just stop it.
I know nothing about Paul Offit. I’ve never heard of him before. I know nothing about his credibility, whether he actually made that claim, or the merits of that claim. You provide no source for this assertion. I wouldn’t be all that surprised if it was true, but I simply don’t know. It doesn’t matter anyway as I’ve already received all the vaccines I’m supposed to, so there’s no reason for me to get them all at one time. This point is completely moot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Him bringing up the smallpox vaccine was also hilarious. Anthrax is one thing, but smallpox literally does not pose a significant threat precisely because it was stomped out by vaccines. The only samples that exist left are in labs which terrorists are not going to have the easiest access to. And let's say a smallpox-based attack did happen, did they think the vaccine takers were all going to roll over and not get vaccinated for smallpox?
What does he think society is going to do in the event of an actual bioterrorism event? Die in the thousands, then when scientists actually engineer a solution, refuse the vaccine? That's his ideal scenario? Because I'm pretty fucking sure that knowing that a nation of idiots won't protect themselves against disease will tell the terrorists that a disease-based bio-weapon will be far more effective, not less...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No study shows that DTaP does not CAUSE autism
Vaccines (plural) don't cause autism. Prove it.
There are no studies that show that DTaP or TDaP does not show autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually there are. We've linked to quite a few of them.
Already done. Or did you miss the multiple studies we've linked to and the decided lack of hundreds of millions of autistic people? Seriously, hundreds of millions of people get vaccinated with multiple vaccines every year. If vaccines cause autism, why isn't the entire world autistic by now?
Yes there are, we've linked to several. But here, take a look at the dozens of studies at the bottom of this page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There was not any studies in that link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like your 2012.pdf, genius.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Liar. There are no less than 36 studies listed at the bottom of that page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No study shows that DTaP does not CAUSE autism
Aside from the fact that each of those claims are wrong, and that we already have provided evidence proving that they are wrong, and that you have not actually addressed that evidence, I can’t ignore one thing you seem to be ignoring.
See, the burden of proof is on you to prove that vaccines do cause autism, which you have not done. You’re the one making a positive claim here, not us.
So while we absolutely have provided studies proving that vaccines do not cause autism, technically we didn’t need to; you still haven’t proven that they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Boatmon Case - another vaccine death, another family screwed
Boatmon v. HHS
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/18-2333/18-2333-2019-11-07.pdf?ts=1573142 480
At his four-month well baby visit on September 2, 2011, J.B. was healthy, with normal chest and lungs and no fever, nasal congestion, or cough.
At that appointment, J.B. received vaccinations for diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis (DTaP), inactivated polio (IPV), pneumococcal conjugate (PCV), rotavirus, and Hepatitis B (Hep B).
...
September 3... he was pronounced dead at 4:01 PM.
...
However, we cannot allow unsupported, unreliable theories of causation to provide a basis for recovery in off-Table cases under the Vaccine Act. In this case, the Petitioners failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the vaccinations J.B. received can and did cause or contribute to his death.
...
The parties shall bear their own costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the stupidity continues. Try reading what you post first, it disproves your claim:
The vaccine did not cause his death. Case closed. Next!
Answer this question: If vaccines routinely cause injury, death, and autism, and hundreds of millions of people are vaccinated every year, why is the majority of the population not dead, dying, or autistic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Boatmon Case - another vaccine death, another family screwed
I have no idea what your point is. They failed to prove, even by a preponderance of the evidence (not beyond all reasonable doubt), that the vaccines had anything to do with the infant’s death. They tried to offer unreliable and unsupported theories of causation, but you have to prove that they have merit for them to be close to sufficient. It’s only to be expected that they lost.
If anyone screwed the family over, it was the lawyer representing them, not the vaccines or the court.
Besides, as has already been made clear, anecdotes are not data. You aren’t proving anything with this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Boatmon Case - another vaccine death, another family scr
This is not science - this is majority vote.
The Special Master ruled for the victim, the HHS appeal ruled for HHS, and the victim's appeal failed. This was a gross miscarriage of justice.
And you are blaming it on the lawyer? Are you insane?
This is why nobody can get a lawyer in the first place.
The drug companies are immune from liability, there is no discovery, and there is no jury. You are screwed before you begin.
If this happened to your baby, would you feel like there was justice?
What if the guy who claimed he invented email was above the law?
Someone who has a lawsuit against them can have their day in court.
Victims of vaccine injury can never have their day in a real court, and they are a million times more devastated than someone who gets sued.
Even the Chief is not above the law---
So why are drug companies above the law?
...
"The Special Master found that Petitioners had met their burden and were entitled to compensation.
...
Newman, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
It is the obligation of the courts to assure that the statutory purpose is implemented. Although vaccine injury is sparse, the purpose of the Vaccine Act is to provide compensation in the event of injury that is reasonably attributable to vaccine. The record shows, on undisputed facts that J.B.’s injury and death more-likely-than-not were reasonably attributable to vaccine. My colleagues’ ruling ignores the evidence, negates the statutory purpose, and contravenes the policy of supporting public health and well-being. I respectfully dissent."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The constant jumping between "you guys are idiots because you take vaccines" and "you guys don't believe in vaccine injury, buh huh huh huh" is pretty fucking disingenuous. Nobody is saying vaccine injuries don't exist. What people don't believe in is the sudden jump from "some people are allergic" to "let's all not vaccinate and politely tell the diseases to go away". You've done nothing but spout pseudoscience and peddled lies about a study that has thirty years of research debunking it.
Again, go bitch to the parents who took your advice for being nooblets and not doubling down, daring to get their kids vaccinated for measles. How dare they not act like you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What's the matter? Don't have an answer to my question so you just ignore my comment?
Plaintiff offers no data to back up this assertion and the sheer volume of SCIENCE STUDIES provided by defendants shows he is not living in reality. Plaintiff is wrong and lying.
Yes, because the Special Master improperly lowered the bar for burden of proof. In other words, their evidence was so weak that the Special Master had to bend and twist the law to help them win.
Hold on, didn't you just say that case proved you right? Now you're saying it's a miscarriage of justice? Sounds like you can't keep your facts straight. Regardless of that, the final judgement does a very nice job explaining exactly WHY the Special Master was wrong and backing up their judgement with facts and precedent. You should try actually reading it, since you obviously haven't.
Why not? He put together an argument that wasn't credible and as such lost the case and forced the plaintiffs to pay all the fees. But in reality he should have just told them "Look, you have zero evidence that the vaccine caused your child's death, just hearsay and speculation. I could take your case but you're likely to lose and be out a bunch of money.". That would have been the more ethical thing to do.
I'm pretty sure the real reason is because nobody can AFFORD a lawyer because their fees are so ridiculously high. Not whatever it is you're implying.
No, that isn't exactly true. They are not immune from deliberately making an unsafe vaccine. And they wouldn't be immune in the first place if you idiots hadn't gone off the deep end with your anti-vax BS. So lie in the bed you've made.
Yes. 100%. Because I would recognize that the facts don't fit that the vaccine caused their death. That's even stated by the judges in the ruling you linked to.
Irrelevant, not a comparable situation, whataboutism, and he and vaccine makers are not. Next.
Well, this wasn't a lawsuit but they still had their day in court. They lost. Get over it.
And you are responsible for that. Cry me a river. But that doesn't negate the findings. In fact, the bar for burden of proof would be EVEN HIGHER in a real court. The fact they couldn't even clear the low bar in vaccine court means the case probably would just get tossed by the judge before going anywhere.
Chief of....?
They aren't. If they were "above the law" would imply that they are breaking the law and getting away with it. They aren't. They are fully complying with the law which states they can't be held liable for fraudulent or unverifiable claims of injury due to vaccines.
And it was found the Special Master had improperly lowered the bar for burden of proof. Once the evidence was compared against the proper higher bar, it didn't pass muster and was correctly rejected and his ruling overturned.
About that. One of the other judges felt the need to respond to his dissent to address some of the points the dissenting judge made:
In other words, the dissenting judge had no medical, scientific, or even mildly reasonable factual basis to back up his dissent. He just didn't agree and was upset that the other judges didn't agree with him.
Sorry dude, but unless you have facts to back up your claim that vaccines cause injury, you can't expect to be compensated for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Boatmon case
"I'm pretty sure the real reason is because nobody can AFFORD a lawyer because their fees are so ridiculously high."
Victims do not pay for lawyers in Vaccine Court - the Gov. may or may not pay the lawyers - link somewhere above.
I am not sure about the 2 appeals - good point to bring up.
"Sorry dude, but unless you have facts to back up your claim that vaccines cause injury, you can't expect to be compensated for it."
Sorry dude, because you can't get compensated for vaccine injuries very easily, you can't expect people to want to get vaccinated.
Victims may not be able to prove causation, but they see correlation all the time. Like when the baby died the next day after the truckload of vaccines were given.
We can predict correlation of vaccine injuries and damages in the future, just like we have seen in the last 40 years, and we can predict inadequate compensation for vaccine injuries in the future, just like we have seen in the last 30 years. So sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. But in this case we were discussing non-vaccine courts.
Maybe you should actually read the whole thing then instead of just looking for stuff you think will support your assertions.
Sorry dude but THAT is faulty logic. That assumes that vaccines are inherently dangerous, which if true, would be a better reason not to be vaccinated. Not, get vaccinated, get injured, and get paid. That's just messed up. People get vaccinated because it's way better than getting the actual disease. Even if you were right (you're not) and vaccines cause injuries (they don't), the worst case number of injuries from vaccines is still LESS than the number of injuries caused by the actual disease. No matter which way you cut it, vaccines are a better option.
And correlation is not causation. I don't care if injuries correlate with vaccines until the cows come home, that doesn't mean they were caused by the vaccine. In fact, we've linked to several studies that looked into exactly that and found they didn't cause them.
And you know what? They couldn't find any evidence to suggest that truck load of vaccines was the cause. Not even with an autopsy. So there goes that theory.
No, you really can't.
That's not prediction. That's looking at a historical record. That's the exact opposite of predicting the future.
That assumes that vaccines are the cause of those injuries. They aren't. But even if they were, based on the number of injuries we've seen so far, those would be FAR LESS than the people harmed by the actual disease.
Again, wrong direction moron. And also, there's been FAR LESS vaccine injuries in those 30 years than the number of people who died or were injured by the actual diseases for the 30 years prior to the vaccine existing. You are literally arguing to let MORE people suffer and die, just because you think vaccines are bad.
Your dishonesty and stupidity is the only sad thing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"In other words, the dissenting judge had no medical, scientific, or even mildly reasonable factual basis to back up his dissent. He just didn't agree and was upset that the other judges didn't agree with him.
Sorry dude, but unless you have facts to back up your claim that vaccines cause injury, you can't expect to be compensated for it."
From the Dissent:
As discussed in Knudsen v. Sec’y of Dep’t Health & Hu-man Servs., ... there has been inadequate medical understanding of the causes of vaccine injury. The Knudsen court explained that “to require identification and proof of specific biological mechanisms would be inconsistent with the purpose and nature of the vaccine compensation program. The Vaccine Act does not contemplate full blown tort litigation.”... The court held that compensation is available when vaccine injury is “‘logical’ and legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.” ...
Again in Althen v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., ... the court recognized the dearth of scientific understanding of vaccine injury, and explained that Congress encouraged “the use of circumstantial evidence” and envisioned that “close calls regarding causation [would be] resolved in favor of injured claimants.” ...
This precedent conforms to a goal of the Vaccine Act—to foster public confidence and participation in childhood immunizations—by compensating the rare vaccine injury.
Today’s decision, denying compensation for a highly probable vaccine injury, does not conform to the statutory purpose.
The moral of this story is that the Knudsen Case precedent went down the toilet.
https://openjurist.org/35/f3d/543/knudsen-knudsen-v-secretary-of-department-of-health-and-hu man-services
And the Althen Case went down the toilet.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1108450.html
And HHS does not have to offer an alternative explanation of the death.
And doctors and medical examiners won't write down that a vaccine death was caused by vaccines, because they don't want to lose their license. Instead they write -- we don't know.
And this kind of ruling does not foster public confidence.
And there is no conspiracy - go figure.
The fact is that a 5th grader could figure out that vaccines caused this death.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ex-laxxer states once again their belief that deliberate medical fraud should not be rightfully punished.
Status update on the wetness of water to follow within the hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no decorum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Even if that were true, it would still be objectively far better than having no evidence like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And you have no logical or common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Update: still wet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, idiot, I already covered this but the other judge wrote a reply to that dissent and laid out exactly why he was wrong. Also, it's the dissent. It bears no weight since the actual ruling said otherwise. Quit quoting it as evidence to support your argument.
No, the moral of the story is you're an idiot who continues to ignore the fact that not only was this the dissent and not the enforceable ruling, but one of the other judges replied to that dissent and did a complete rebuttal of why he was wrong. In short, the dissenting judge based his dissent off his offended sensibilities instead of actual facts of the case.
And you're still a moron.
Well, you're actually wrong because they are required to offer an alternative explanation of death. Otherwise judgement goes to the plaintiff. Or at least provide evidence as to why the vaccine could not have caused the death.
Yeah, because they are bound to uphold established science and medicine. And established science and medicine has not found a link between vaccines and all these injuries you claim they cause. It would be like saying a physicist is too scared to say gravity isn't real because otherwise he would lose his degree or tenure.
Only when they truly don't know. And SIDS is a thing you blithering idiot.
On the contrary, it does. That ruling eviscerated the plaintiff's argument for lack of supporting evidence. Public confidence would be shattered if the judges ruled any other way.
No, there really isn't.
THEN. WHY. HAVEN'T. THEY. I'll tell you why, because I could shoot you in the kneecap and you could die 5 minutes later after being hit by a truck and my shooting you would have absolutely nothing to do with your death. To show that vaccines actually caused the death, medical and scientific analysis would have to be done. And you know what? 5th graders don't have that kind of knowledge or training. In this case there was some analysis done and they still couldn't find a link to the vaccine. Even the expert for the plaintiff admitted there was no evidence linking the vaccine to his death.
Educate yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"So why are drug companies above the law?
They aren't. If they were "above the law" would imply that they are breaking the law and getting away with it. They aren't. They are fully complying with the law which states they can't be held liable for fraudulent or unverifiable claims of injury due to vaccines."
They are above the law because the Supreme court held they are not liable for defective products which cause injuries and death. This violates due process of being able to sue them. Vaccine court appeals go to HHS, not the drug companies. After this ruling, they went hog wild on finding a vaccine for every little thing with impunity when it comes to safety studies and injuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruesewitz_v._Wyeth
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. They are not above the law because the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (a law for those who have trouble keeping up) says they are not to be held liable. The Supreme Court case you cite merely clarified some of the details.
The NCVIA LAW says otherwise. If you have a problem with it, I suggest you take it up with Congress and get the law changed. Good luck with that. But as it stands, due process is not violated under this law.
So? That's actually an argument that the drug companies are being denied due process since they aren't even allowed to defend their product.
And yet there are hundreds, THOUSANDS of safety studies done that show ABSOLUTELY NO LINK to all these supposed injuries you claim vaccines are doing to people.
I'm going to ask you again, if vaccines are so dangerous, why are the hundreds of millions of people who get them every year not showing any sign of autism, injury, or death?
Wait, are they actually dead and the zombie apocalypse is already upon us? Quick! Grab your shotgun and chainsaw and defend yourself against the entire American population! Oh no! This means I'm a zombie too since I've been vaccinated! Oh the horror of being dead and not knowing it! Just shoot me now and end my misery!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Boatmon Case - another vaccine death, another family
Then why did you quote from the majority opinion, not the dissent?
At any rate, it doesn’t really matter. It’s still just an anecdote. It proves nothing about vaccine safety as a whole.
I’m only going to discuss vaccine safety and necessity. I have no interest in arguing about the vaccine compensation law. I’ll leave that to others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Boatmon Case - another vaccine death, another fa
" It’s still just an anecdote. It proves nothing about vaccine safety as a whole."
The Boatmon vaccine death was not an anecdote. It was a death. There was a death certificate. The baby had vaccines. There is documentation for that. There is a paper trail. This is called data. A proper risk assessment on vaccine safety is based on proper data. If doctors and medical examiners are scared to attribute injuries and deaths to vaccines and report them, then that affects our ability to ascertain vaccine safety as a whole.
Anecdotes are just as valid as anything a doctor has to say. Have you ever gotten a print-out of your doctor visit? They write down what you say. Is it an anecdote if you tell your neighbor or say it on You tube, but not an anecdote when you tell it to the doctor and he writes it down?
If a patient observes something, it is crap.
If a doctor observes the same thing, it is fact?
That is not how science works. You don't have to go to medical school to observe something. Medical school is not a gatekeeper to observation.
If a baby gets a vaccine one day and dies the next day, that is a fact. And this baby was not hit by a truck. It was probably given Tylenol before it left the Dr. office, in anticipation of a fever. And fevers can be dangerous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boatmon Case - another vaccine death, anothe
Yes? Why is any of this damning? Every person who has had vaccines and died has those records stored somewhere.
What is with this insistence that doctors and medical examiners are scared shitless of reporting when medicines fuck up? Doctors would know that if there is something wrong with a drug, not reporting it is worse. You're seriously claiming that we were all given the smallpox vaccine because it was secretly fatal but we got it anyway because doctors were scared?
No shit? The patient's complaint is going to be a part of the doctor's diagnostic process. That doesn't mean what you say is necessarily taken to be gospel truth. Like people lying that they've got the flu to take an extra day off work.
Because a non-medically trained person is inherently less capable of making a medically informed observation, nimrod. I could probably tell my doctor I have chest pains. He's the one running the tests and telling me "no, based on the breathing tests I've run you're actually experiencing indigestion, here's what we need to do about it". I hesitate to even call it "fact" because it's an observation. Now, 30 years of debunking Wakefield? Now that's fact.
The baby was exposed to other things too. Air pollution. Food. Water. Do you have more data on what caused the death or just pulling it out of your backside?
Ah, so it was the Tylenol's fault, you say! Which is also not a vaccine, so hell knows what point you're trying to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. And none of that data said that he died from vaccines. So, it's just an anecdote.
And that data says people are not being harmed by vaccines.
Projection and assumption. They aren't scared to attribute to them. They are bound by law and oaths they took to report their findings truthfully and accurately. The fact that no one is reporting that vaccines are that dangerous should tell you something.
And what about all the independent studies done that show vaccines are safe. Hm?
Do you even listen to yourself? No they are not! Anecdotes are just that, anecdotes. What a doctor says is based on science, fact, and his training. It is not an anecdote. And you wonder why I keep calling you an idiot and a moron.
Some do some don't. That doesn't mean what you say is correct. I work in IT, I write down what all my users tell me is wrong with their computer. Then I find out what is ACTUALLY wrong with their computer and fix it. 75% of the time they are wrong but what they tell me helps me to find out what the actual problem is. Why? Because I'm trained in computer diagnostics and they aren't.
Yes.
No, it's still an anecdote. It just might help him determine what the actual cause of your issue is when combined with other data.
No, it's not crap, but they are not qualified to make a diagnosis. Observing that you have pain isn't crap. Assuming the role of the doctor and telling him your pain is due to something not based in reality, that is crap.
That depends. What kind of thing are we talking here? Patients can't observe whether a vaccine injures them or not. That requires medical analysis, blood samples, CT scans and who knows what else. It's not as simple as just a timeline of events. Just like getting a cold hours after eating a cookie. Did eating the cookie give you the cold? No. You were exposed to it several days prior and the incubation period just took that long before you started noticing symptoms. The cookie is innocent. Or in this case, vaccines.
You don't even know how science works.
Observing something is not the same thing as doing an analysis on complex biological interactions that you can't see with your naked eye. Yes, everyone can observe things, that doesn't mean everyone can get the proper conclusions from what they observe. Observing a death a day after receiving a vaccine is meaningless on its own. That isn't proof or evidence of anything. There are a lot of other things that happened to him between when he got the vaccine and when he died. Any number of which could have been the true cause.
No, but it is for determining cause of death.
No, that's actually two facts. 1) They received a vaccine, 2) they died. Nothing here suggests the two are related. The baby could have died from any myriad of other causes.
Congratulations, you've eliminated one out of several thousand possible causes of death.
That is an assumption, not a fact. And likely an incorrect one as well, since vaccines do not commonly cause fevers. But if true, then perhaps the baby had an allergic reaction to Tylenol which caused the death. That is a thing too.
Yes. So can stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Boatmon Case - another vaccine death, anothe
No, it absolutely is not. A single death with a paper trail and where the victim had vaccines is not data; it’s still just an anecdote. Anecdote + documentation =/= data.
You have not shown that doctors or medical examiners are scared to report injuries and deaths that are attributable to vaccines. Therefore, your argument, even if technically valid, is unsound as it stems from a faulty premise.
You’re completely missing the point. Anecdotes don’t indicate a trend. No one is disputing the mere existence of vaccine-related deaths altogether. The argument is about relative frequency, absolute frequency, relative safety, and exactly which incidents are actually caused by vaccines. Anecdotes cannot prove vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. You need actual data, particularly but not exclusively statistics. You have to prove both causation (provided by doctors and researchers) and the existence of a trend (which requires data) in order to prove your claim. You have done neither.
Again, you’re confusing two different issues. Testimony—written or otherwise—by anyone about a single incident is still an anecdote. A doctor’s testimony on a medical issue has more evidentiary value than a layperson’s because a doctor has more knowledge and expertise on the subject, but it’s still just an anecdote.
It’s not the observation but the conclusion. A layperson with no medical training or relevant expertise can absolutely observe something (such as correlation). However, any conclusion they draw from their observation generally lacks medical/scientific validity. They generally lack the background knowledge, expertise, and objectivity to draw valid conclusions. And causation is a conclusion drawn from observations, not an observation in itself.
I don’t disagree with any of that. However, what you’ve just described is just a correlation: the baby got vaccinated, then later it died. That is not causation, nor is it sufficient evidence for causation. And you need to prove causation and sufficient frequency if you want to prove vaccines are too unsafe. The former requires expert opinions based on data; the latter requires statistical data from research studies:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Men need to get their Gardicil 9 vaccine
All men should get their HPV vaccine. Now it's approved to age 45. Don't wait! Don't worry it's Safe and Effective!
Do it for you and the herd.
https://www.gardasil9.com/hpv-vaccine-adults/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Men need to get their Gardicil 9 vaccine
Here is what you can look forward to:
Be sure and keep good records and not just have anecdotes.
And be sure to get a good lawyer. Otherwise you may have a headache getting compensation for your injury.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2341.Opinion.6-5-2019.pd f
Before the vaccinations, K.H. was a successful student. After receiving the Gardasil® vaccine she was in so much pain that she was no longer able to attend school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes? Having records to prove you got injured by something is... good general practice.
People do the same thing when they order or purchase something and get a faulty product, so they get compensated.
This doesn't suddenly mean that nobody should ever purchase anything, though, so if you were hoping to use this as some damning point... tough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A good chance of no side effects whatsoever.
Projection. Assumes I'll be harmed by the vaccine. This is given out to millions of people each year. Where's all the injuries?
Yeah, because actually being injured by a vaccine is extremely rare.
Anecdote. But even if true, congratulations, you found ONE person who was harmed by a vaccine. Out of hundreds of millions, if not billions of people who have gotten them over the years. That doesn't sound dangerous to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You'd think that given how legitimate these guys claim their stories are they wouldn't need initials to hide the identities of these hundreds of thousands of vaccine injuries cases. It's almost like... why, it's almost like they don't want anyone to verify that these stories and accounts actually exist. Can't imagine why!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To be fair, this is typical for medical injury cases. They do this to protect the privacy of the individuals. It’s the same for sexual assault cases and other similar cases where the plaintiff/victim’s privacy should be protected, and even for certain defendants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This... is something I find makes no sense here. It makes sense for sexual assault cases, but how does hiding the names of people injured by vaccines due to allergies help anyone? It makes non-allergic, vaccinatable people less likely to believe legitimate cases, and convinces nurglers of a greater conspiracy to hide vaccine injuries.
If anything - and I hesitate to say that this is where I'd point out that I'm in agreement with the nurgler - more people need to be aware of those who can't be vaccinated, so everyone else who CAN be vaccinated, DOES SO to protect those who can't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"but how does hiding the names of people injured by vaccines due to allergies help anyone'
The same way that HIPPA rules are meant to protect the privacy of any medical cases? Should those people lose their right to privacy because some morons think their particular medical issue is some grand conspiracy?
In fact, what would their identities being public change? You seem to think that it would satisfy their curiosity. Instead, I believe they would just be subjected to a terror campaign by conspiracy nuts a la the parents of Sandy Hook. You won't change the minds of these nutters, but you can make the lives of existing victims even worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I concur with PaulT.
Basically, people have a right to keep their medical history private with a few limited exceptions. It makes little sense for them to have to give up their expectation of privacy entirely just because they were (allegedly) injured by some form of medication, medical treatment, or vaccine and want compensation. That would only serve to discourage people from seeking compensation for their injuries, which is exactly the opposite of what lawmakers intended when writing the laws that permit compensation in such cases. And remember, it would discourage the genuine cases at least as much if not more than the mistaken or the cons.
And it’s not like anyone would actually gain anything from making their identities public. There’s no real public interest in something like that.
So basically, unlike in most cases, for medical injury cases, the default is to hide identities because not doing so would reduce a privacy expectation that is enshrined in law (HIPPA, among others), and their is no compelling public interest in uncovering their identities. It may not be quite as necessary as with rape cases in every case, but there has to be more than “curiousity” or “discouraging frivolous litigation” to defeat the legal expectation of privacy we have in our medical records.
Also, as a side note, I’d like to address this:
It’s genuinely possible to be injured by a vaccine for non-allergic reasons. There’s also immune deficiencies or improper administration. I believe that you may know this, but I wanted to make this clear for the record, and your choice of words does not make that clear. As for the main point, there’s no exception for allergies in medical privacy in the legal context, nor do I believe that there’s a compelling reason to make one.
At any rate, the fact that the identities of the petitioners are mostly hidden doesn’t, in itself, make me less likely to believe their cases as that’s actually standard practice for this sort of lawsuit.
As for the last point, in addition to the fact that not every vaccine injury means that person can’t be vaccinated (some vaccines have alternative formulations to avoid allergic responses, some immune deficiencies are temporary, and poor administration of the vaccine generally doesn’t make the vaccine itself dangerous to the patient), the who can’t be vaccinated is less important than the how many, along with “do any exist”. Again, if you conform to the rule of “get recommended vaccines if you can”, that should provide sufficient herd immunity to protect those who can’t. In this particular discussion, at least, “who” is not particularly helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair point. My point was to delegitimize nurglers trying to claim conspiracies as the rationale for their constant pushing of anecdotes. Figures that they fuck up everything they touch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that’s more or less the problem. Some antivaxxers’ paranoia and conspiracy theories aren’t enough to overcome medical privacy. Same goes for some pro-vaxxers’ skepticism or curiosity.
It may make things slightly more inconvenient when debating vaccine safety, but that’s an acceptable cost for protecting the privacy of medical records.
That some abuse their rights doesn’t necessarily justify imposing additional limitations on those rights.
Now, if this was about large-scale, intentional abuse, like with copyright, patent, or trademark trolling or civil forfeiture, then imposing some sort of limitation on the right to reduce abuse makes sense. Not so much with the relatively limited number of vaccine injury cases that largely involve individual plaintiffs acting mostly if not entirely independently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Men need to get their Gardicil 9 vaccine
Since when was it common for everyone to always be having sex with everyone else in the immediate vicinity at all times?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You assume we haven't. Even so, HPV is only spread through sexual intercourse. So, unless we are planning on carelessly having sex orgies, I don't see why we should. Do you think we commonly have careless sex orgies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That would explain the anti-vaxx population at any rate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Have you gotten the HPV vaccine yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not having sex orgies, so no, I don't need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, I’d like to point out something about why HPV vaccines may be required in some schools, despite the lack of sex orgies on school property. After all, the CDC schedule has a lot of people take it well before they would likely be sexually active.
IIRC, the HPV vaccine takes a while to reach maximum effectiveness, so it’s best to take it well before you become sexually active. And of course, even those who aren’t sexually active may be raped, even as a prepubescent child. And HPV causes cancer. This is the closest thing to a virtually complete cure/preventative treatment for any form of cancer. Additionally, the recommended ages for receiving the HPV vaccine are more limited.
Now, personally, I admit that I don’t understand the necessity of requiring it. I’m particularly confused about why it is considered more necessary than the HIV vaccine, another vaccine that prevents an STD that is likely to have severe, long-term effects (in this case, AIDS, one of the most well known cases of immune deficiency and one of the most severe). I suppose, unlike the cancer-causing HPV, AIDS doesn’t directly kill people; if one is able to completely isolate themselves from any harmful microorganisms or viruses, a human can survive without an immune system, I suppose. But still…
But then, I’m not exactly an expert on these matters. The HIV vaccine may have worse or more common side effects that affect the risk analysis. Maybe the HIV vaccine is faster acting. Maybe the chance of HIV causing AIDS is less than the chance of HPV causing cancer. Maybe HIV is less likely to be communicated through sexual acts than HPV. I honestly don’t know. Does anyone know why the HPV vaccine is treated differently from the HIV vaccine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Teens (and some younger kids shockingly) are sexually active and I would imagine it is more common amongst people who go to the same school as they are more likely to have romantic relationships with the people they interact with most commonly. Hence it makes sense to require it to make sure they are immune before catching the actual disease at that early age.
I can see both sides on this, but the gist of it is likely kids will be kids and some of them are likely to have sex with classmates and therefore the possibility of passing on the disease exists.
I believe the reason for this is prevalence. According to the CDC, pretty much everyone will contract HPV at some point in their life, while HIV is more rare. Why the one is more prevalent than the other I don't know but it's something I intend to research now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should girls and boys be required to get the HPV vaccine to go s
Should girls and boys be required to get the HPV vaccine to go shool?
Should YOU be required to get it for work?
Should YOU be required to get the vaccine for the military?
Do the benifits of Gardicil 9 outweigh the risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should girls and boys be required to get the HPV vaccine to
Sure. It'd mean less disease-based consequences, and they'd be able to spell "school" and "benefits" like a functioning human being instead of a bubonic plague rat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Should girls and boys be required to get the HPV vaccine to
Why shouldn’t they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes.
If my employer decides it's required, then yes.
Since you basically sign your life away when you join the military, this question is idiotic and irrelevant. If that's the requirement then whether it should be required or not is irrelevant. You have no say in the matter.
That would be an unequivocal yes.
Any other stupid questions I can answer for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You sound like a communist. You just keep doing what the authorities tell you to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Said the Wakefield fanboy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You sound like a right-wing nutjob. You just keep questioning authorities of all kinds until you make yourself believe you’re the only authority and you start firing a rifle from a large tower in an attempt to get people on your side and whoops there’s the SWAT team with their laser sights and body armor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am for vaccine choice not vaccine mandates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The little black lie you tell yourself so you can sleep at night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are for a choice between a minority of injuries and thousands of dead children, then wonder why people get angry.
I implore you again: go and tell all those parents looking for vaccinations for their measles-ridden kids how they all made a stupid choice, then get back to us about what response you get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No one is forcing you to take any vaccines. We just all think you're stupid not to and won't let you around our kids if you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re free to choose whether you/your kids get vaccines.
And everyone else is free to choose whether they let you/your kids socialize with them if the choice is “no”, you goddamn plague enthusiast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You sound like an idiot. Just keep believing whatever you're told without doing actual research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go get your Gardicil 9 shot and then get back to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I see you haven't got back to us about how being vaccinated against hepatitis B is less sucky compared to the disease... do you not like having a functional liver?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So? What exactly is that supposed to prove? I'm over the recommended age for the shot so it's unlikely they would give it to me even if I asked. But even if I got it, nothing would change. Certainly not my opinion on vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How old are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Older than 26, the recommended age for HPV vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The vaccine is now approved to age 45
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Approved, not recommended. There is a big difference there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The advisory committee of immunization practices and the CDC do recommend the vaccine up to age 45.
Hey if there's a vaccine out there that can prevent something horrible from happening to you wouldn't you want to get it? Vaccines are safe and it's better to get the vaccine than HPV right? You guys are all for little girls and boys getting them but when it comes to you getting the vaccine you never want to roll up your sleeve. Such a f** hypocrite.
Stop telling other people to get vaccines that you won't get!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Funny thing is, he's not wrong in a sense.
If you're allergic to a vaccine you are pretty much dependent on those who can be vaccinated to help you with herd immunity and reduce the odds of you getting a disease.
So ideally people who can be vaccinated should be vaccinated. The hilarious part is this chucklenugget trying to make it out to be some damning point against vaccines for some reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're literally wrong:
It must really suck to have all your lies called out all the time. Why don't you try not lying?
Yes. However in this specific instance, it may not benefit me as I've likely already been exposed and contracted HPV at some point in the past. Therefore I've already developed an immunity and the vaccine is irrelevant to me personally.
Exactly. Sadly it's likely too late for me.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that I've already rolled up my sleeve and gotten many vaccines? The fact that it's pointless for me to get a vaccine that would not benefit me does NOT support your baseless accusation. Just like it's pointless for someone who's already had the chicken pox to get the varicella vaccine.
And you're such a liar and a moron.
I would gladly get the HPV vaccine if my doctor recommends it and/or I would benefit from it. Sadly I'm likely past the age of being able to get any benefit from it. But regardless, by your logic I can still tell you to get the MMR, varicella, DTaP, polio, Hep A/B, Tetanus and other vaccines because I HAVE had all those. So what do you have to say to that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How old are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Older than 26.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a bad person. All I want is the choice to say yes or no to a biologic getting injected into my body. You want medical tyranny. You want to mandate me to take a vaccine design to permanently alter my immune system. You think I'm an idiot for saying NO I do not want a disease injected into my body. You go get the vaccines. I wish you the best.
You believe your CDC bible and I will believe science thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Like I said above: You have that choice. But if no one wants to hang around you/your children because of your plague enthusiasm, you’ll have to live with that…and with whatever diseases you might catch that you wouldn’t have caught if you would’ve received those vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Assserts facts completely opposite those in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Projection. Classic.
Edited for honesty.
Please learn what words mean so you stop abusing them like that.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
That bullshit claim was debunked already.
Why shouldn't we? You've yet to provide any proof othwrwise.
By not getting protected, you're only setting yourself up for the exact opposite of what you claim to want.
Projection. Classic.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the one advocating for letting people die and suffer from horrible diseases that are easily preventable. If advocating for less people suffering and dying makes me a bad person, then you are a monster for wanting MORE death and suffering.
You have that. Stop claiming you don't. There is no law that says you have to get vaccinated against your will.
No, we don't. You claiming we do is just lies and dishonest debating.
No, that is not what vaccines do. That you think they do shows you are an idiot and don't actually understand what a vaccine is. All a vaccine does is get your immune system to make antibodies for a disease that it has not yet encountered. Once it has done so, it's able to fight off the actual disease without you contracting it. In no way shape or form does it alter your immune system. Go learn some science.
Yeah, I do think you're an idiot. But saying that a "disease is inejected into your body" is grossly misrepresenting what's going on with vaccines and shows you don't really care about what's actually better for you or other people. The "diseases" being injected into your body are either weakened or completely inactivated, mostly inactivated, meaning that your chance of getting the actual disease from a weakened vaccine is slim to none and absolutely zero for the inactivated ones.
I've told you a bunch of times now, I have already gotten all the recommended vaccines, which is quite a few of them. I am no worse for wear, and am actually better off because I haven't gotten any of these terrible diseases. So you're 100% wrong.
The CDC data is based off science you moron. Your belief is not backed by science at all. There are THOUSANDS of scientific studies on the safety and efficacy of vaccines and all of them conclude they are safe and effective. You have one falsified study and a bunch of anecdotes to back up your assertions. You don't know what science is, much less believe it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have that choice. We may think you’re dumb for saying “no”, but you have that right. (Again, we’re only talking about first-world democracies.) That doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for that choice. Employers may choose to fire or not hire you or restrict what tasks you’re assigned. Schools may choose not to allow you to attend in-person. They have the right to do that just like you have the right not to get vaccinated. We also have the right to try to convince you to get vaccinated and condemn anti-vaccine rhetoric.
Again, no. We think you’re an idiot for your choices and assert that your claims are false (with evidence), and we believe that schools and employers have every right and good reason to require certain vaccinations to attend/work for them in person. That’s not a mandate. There are other options, such as online schools, working from home, or finding a job/school that doesn’t have such a requirement. That these may be less practical or pleasant for you is immaterial.
As we’ve said repeatedly, vaccines do not alter your immune system. Please stop repeating this PRATT.
Yes, and we’ve explained why: the vaccine is a lot better than the disease. We’ve backed up our opinions and claims with scientific evidence and other reliable sources that you have not actually disputed. Your sources, OTOH, have either been unreliable, purely anecdotal, or don’t actually prove what you say they do.
We already have. Unless you have a valid medical reason not to, you should too, but we aren’t forcing you to nor advocating for a government mandate.
The CDC’s claims are backed up with science, and you’ve been ignoring the fact that all the unretracted, peer-reviewed studies on vaccines—of which there are many—contradict your claims. We’ve provided tons of scientific evidence to back up our claims, and you have not asserted or proven that any of it is unreliable or doesn’t support our claims; you just ignore it. All the studies you’ve provided are either unreliable or don’t say what you claim they say, as we’ve pointed out repeatedly. Don’t go pretending that you’re relying on science and we’re not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Before I ask this, let me make this clear: I am pro-vaccine. I also believe that evidence suggests that Gardicil 9, the current HPV vaccine, is reasonably safe as far as treatments go. Furthermore, I believe that, in general, assuming you’re within the safe age, Gardicil 9’s benefits outweigh its risks.
However, I am curious about a few things.
First, unlike most vaccines, which prevent readily communicable diseases like measles or polio, Gardicil 9 prevents HPV, an STD that is not particularly likely to be communicated among fellow students, especially in younger grades. So why is the HPV vaccine recommended? Is it because it causes cancer, so compared to a number of other preventable diseases, infected individuals are more likely to die or suffer chronic injuries?
Second, there’s also the HIV vaccine. The virus it’s meant for is also an STD, and the disease it causes, AIDS, also has severe, long-term effects (severe immune deficiency). However, unlike the HPV vaccine, to my knowledge, the HIV vaccine is not generally recommended, nor do schools mandate it. Why is the HIV vaccine treated differently from the HPV vaccine in this fashion?
Again, I’m not saying there aren’t good, evidence-based scientific reasons for these differences. I’m just curious as to why, if only to be better prepared against antivaxxer arguments in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good questions.
The CDC has some information on this. One of the big differences is the prevalence of HPV, especially compared to HIV. According to the CDC, pretty much everybody gets some form of HPV during their lifetime, hence the recommendation to get everyone vaccinated. As for getting it earlier rather than later, I believe it's similar to other diseases, the sooner you get the vaccine, the less chance you will contract it prior to getting the vaccine. Because it's so incredibly common, the older you are the more chance you've already contracted it.
And to add to why it's recommended for everyone is because it does prevent some cancers. According to the CDC, there's been some 80% reduction in those cancers since the vaccine was introduced.
That's not a complete answer but it covers the main points.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccines mandates goes against the NUREMBERG code.
THE NUREMBERG CODE
"1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be
so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element
of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion;"
When you tell someone that they cannot go to school unless they get vaccines, that is coercion.
Stop mandated vaccines, stop the coercion.
CDC says they don't know if vaccines cause cancer or infertility. CDC says that they will just keep an eye on the public and see what happens. We are part of the greatest experiment in history. We have been coerced and most of you want to help the government with the coercion by further mandating vaccines. You are as bad a Nazi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, it isn't. It's someone telling you that your kids can’t go to a given school unless you have them vaccinated. You can choose to either find a school that will let your kids in or homeschool your kids.
What you want, on the other hand, is the right to force a school into putting the health of all other students at risk for the sake of “respecting your choice”. For what reason should a school ever put other students at risk to please a plague enthusiast? For what reason should you have the right to force your unvaccinated kids into a school that (rightfully) thinks your kids are a public health hazard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First, it is coercion. The schools are coercing parents into vaccinating. Telling me that my healthy child cannot go to school unless they get disease injected into them is apsolutely coercion.
Second, you say, " putting the health of ALL other students at risk" Come on, you are so stupid. If the vaccines work so well than how could a healthy unvaccinated child put your vaccinated child at risk?
You just keep parroting the news. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid dude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No more than it is coercion to say that they can't come to school with no shirt or shoes.
The only stupid one here is you.
Because there are some children who CAN'T be vaccinated due to various reasons. Age, medical conditions, etc... So YES, your unvaccinated child is putting other children who can't be vaccinated at risk. Moron.
Not really, that comes from scientific studies and data. Not news. The news may have reported on it at some point but we've all ready the science behind it.
Says the guy drowning in quack science Kool-Aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"No more than it is coercion to say that they can't come to school with no shirt or shoes."
So you acknowledge that it's coercion. You just don't care that they are coercing the parents of little girls and boys to be injected with diseases, heavy metals, polysorbate 80, and more.
And, many parents are not financially able to homeschool so to say that they have a choice is apsolute bullshit.
Dude you better wake up because there have already been bills that have tried to be passed saying that homeschoolers must get vaccinated too.
The Nuremberg code states that you are not to coerce somebody into medical procedures and drugs.
Your child is not anymore valuable than mine. I don't tell you guys to stop feeding your child a shitty diet. I could argue that your kids bad diet makes them more likely to contract diseases and therefore spread it to others. You vaccinate your kid, feed them the way you want, take them to the doctor you want, vaccinate them as much as you want just leave us out of it. I mean really, do you want the Government to come in and tell you when and how much to medicate your child in order to go to school or receive certain benifits?
I think it's something like less than 3% of unvaccinated kids in the US. The Government is just trying to get you to help strip the rights away from the kids so then they can come in and mandate lots of vaccines for adults. They will say if we should make the kids get vaccines for school then we should make the adults get them for work.Wake up!
If the government knows that they can get away with mandating 10 vaccines in order to go to school then what's to stop them from mandating 100?
Vaccines kill and injure.
There have been problems with the old MMR vaccine causing meningitis.
Polio vaccine causes paralytic polio and cancer (look up sv40).
Rotavirus caused intussusception.
H1N1 vaccine causing Guillain-Barre syndrome.
DPT vaccine causing deaths.
Countries have banned the HPV vaccine because it caused so many problems.
There has been small shards of glass in the vaccines and they still did not recall them.
I could go on for days with all the problems that have been acknowledged to have been the result of vaccines.
Lets not forget to mention there's never been a long-term double-blind inert Placebo study done in the pre-licensure of any vaccine.
I want vaccine choice not vaccine mandates. Mandates are coercive.
What will it take for you to put down the Kool-Aid, see the bigger picture, and think for yourself.
Pharma owns government and the government owns you especially when it comes to vaccines. Stop falling for the propaganda.
The news has been telling you of all the people that have gotten the Measles but they have not told you the number of them that had gotten a vaccine nor have they told you that the people that got the measles have recovered. Look on the adault CDC schedule MMR is on the list. "1 or 2 doses depending on indication (if born in 1957 or later)". The vaccine is failing that's why you are seeing more measles in the US.
(Note: CDC have not updated the schedule. You can get the HPV vaccine up to age 45)
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/adult.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's obvious you never took my advice and learned to read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if they don’t consider it to be coercion to require shirts and shoes. Also, we don’t care because they are safer than the alternative and there are perfectly good reasons to require vaccines in schools. Also, there are exemptions for those who can’t get all the required vaccines, so that’s also covered.
I believe this was meant to be a response to one of my comments, as that AC never mentioned homeschooling or alternatives.
At any rate, while I admit not knowing much about homeschooling, I did say that not every option I presented was equally viable for all persons/scenarios, so that’s insufficient to refute my point, anyway.
Again, that has nothing to do with the comment you’re responding to.
Also, [citation needed]. I have a counterargument, but I see no reason to mention it if there is no evidence for your claim.
This has already been addressed: no, it does not. That only covers experimental procedures and drugs or medical/scientific experiments. It does not cover well-tested procedures and drugs.
No, but all else being equal, one child is not as valuable as several (say, five) children. Also, your irrational paranoia about your child getting injured by a vaccine is trumped by the actual dangers of not being vaccinated, as indicated by the vast body of research and medical experts that say that being vaccinated is safer than not being vaccinated and that the recommended vaccines are effective far more often than not.
Also, your child isn’t more valuable than mine either.
I’ve already addressed this claim too. Basically, that is not at all comparable to vaccines, and vaccines are far more effective at preventing their specific diseases than a good diet is at preventing any given disease.
I have no problem with that as far as school goes. Other benefits? It depends, and I’m not going any further than that.
[Citation needed]
[The claimant offers no support for their claims, so they must be disregarded.]
I don’t really care about the number. The number doesn’t matter.
No one disputes this. What is disputed here is which and how many people have been killed or injured by vaccines, what preexisting factors are necessary for certain deaths or injuries, which injuries can be caused by vaccines, the duration and/or severity of the injuries, and whether the risks outweigh those of the diseases they prevent.
Even if true, that’s irrelevant because that is not the current vaccine.
(There’s a bunch of other claims here for vaccine-caused injuries and such, which can all be addressed with [citation needed].)
We addressed this repeatedly a while ago. You haven’t even explained why the placebo has to be inert for the study to be valid. Just go back to the earlier conversation on this page for the arguments about this. I don’t feel like relitigating this here.
[citation needed]
Also, we’ve provided sources not owned by Pharma or the government.
Most of this is irrelevant. As noted, not every person who gets the vaccine is going to get the immunity. It’s relatively few, but they exist. They, along with those who can’t be vaccinated, are why we need herd immunity. The media has reported the vaccination rates of the populations within which these outbreaks have occurred, and they were substantially lower than would be needed for herd immunity. For everything else, [citation needed].
“Can” =/= “should” or “ought to”. Your point is irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No I do not. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's no more coercion than requiring shirts and shoes is coercion. If you consider giving someone the choice of either wearing shirts and shoes to school or not attending school coercion, then yes, it's coercion. But since you do still have a choice, I don't see how that can possibly be coercion. At least not what you are making it out to be.
I do care. Enough so that I did my research on it and found that diseases are either super weak or inactive, and the amount of every single other ingredient is typically less than what you would get just by existing and eating food, or is well under the safety threshold. Not to mention mercury has been removed from most vaccines so once again, you're literally wrong.
I was homeschooled. K-12. It's not that expensive. Your argument is absolute bullshit.
Tried. And failed apparently since parents routinely homeschool their kids SPECIFICALLY to avoid getting them vaccinated. Better wake up moron.
This has been debunked so many times now. No, it doesn't. It only applies to human experimentation.
Correct. And yours is not more valuable than mine. So stay away from my kids.
I don't but that is a valid thing to tell someone if they are. It's not healthy.
You could. If you knew what I feed my kids. You don't so you can't. However, you have already stated you don't vaccinate your kids, so we're telling you, get them vaccinated for their health.
That's fine. But YOU are the one not leaving US out of your mad delusions. How about some reciprocity here?
Is this a trick question? Uh, yes. Doy.
Maybe you should actually look it up then instead of making up numbers in your head.
That actually makes logical sense. Except for the fact that if you vaccinate your kids, a lot of vaccines don't need to be given as an adult.
Ok, boomer.
I don't see the problem here. If they have 100 vaccines for 100 different common disease that they could prevent, why not mandate them?
To date you have provided no evidence that this is true. If it is true, why are the hundreds of millions of people vaccinated each year not injured or dead by now?
Which is why they fixed it in the new version. I see no problem here.
No, it doesn't. Not the one they give out in the US. The oral version can in rare cases but it's not used in the US. Your lies are blatant and invalid.
In far less than 1% of people and is easily treatable.
No, it increased risk, it did not cause it. And the amount of increased risk was still LESS than if you got the actual disease. Because getting the disease increases your risk of GBS by more than the vaccine. And again, way less than 1%.
[Citation needed.] And definitely not in any major amounts. Certainly LESS than getting the actual disease causes. But if you want to make that argument, then you better not take any pain killers for that headache, because painkillers are known to cause deaths too.
So? It doesn't appear to be causing so many problems here. Maybe the problem was with how it was administered? And just because it's banned in other countries doesn't mean anything.
Well, actually they did.
You have. And we've been responding for days with actual scientific evidence and logical reasoning why you're either lying, wrong, or an idiot for each one you bring up.
Yes, there has. We've already provided links to several of them. Not to mention placebo studies are meant to study effectiveness and control for the "placebo effect". They are ill suited to measure safety and other studies are used to measure that.
You have choice. Stop spouting lies.
Actual scientific evidence from reliable sources and studies that were properly performed with sufficient sample sizes that show the majority of people who took the vaccine were either injured or died (definitively caused by the vaccine and not other causes) and in quantities that exceed the injuries or death caused by the actual disease. Provide multiple of those studies and I will gladly jump on the anti-vax band wagon. And before you think of posting that Scribd link again, no, none of those meet the above criteria.
There is no evidence of this.
Last I checked, the choice was entirely mine to receive vaccines or not and I was under no pressure to get them.
Says the guy falling for anti-vax propaganda.
Liar. Yes, they have. Not only that but it's publicly available information that anyone can look up for themselves.
Except for the ones that didn't. And that's only in the US where we have good healthcare to try and prevent people from dying. Other nations that don't have as good of healthcare still see lots of injuries and deaths from measles. You are also ignoring the fact that the vaccine has prevented millions of measles deaths.
Liar. That's only because before 1957 there was no vaccine so people routinely got the disease and got immunity that way. After 1957 we had a vaccine for it so if you haven't already gotten either the vaccine or the disease, you should get the vaccine so you don't get the disease. And most people are vaccinated when they are kids and don't need it as an adult. As the CDC link shows.
Liar. Then explain why only the unvaccinated are getting measles.
Can. It's not currently recommended.
And that schedule you link to purporting to prove your point about adult vaccinations and them losing efficacy? Yeah, you forgot to mention the giant yellow note at the top that says that's only if they don't already have immunity by either getting the vaccine or the disease.
Moron thou art a liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The school isn’t forcing you to make you vaccinate your child. The school is giving you the choice you say you want: Vaccinate your child or keep them out of that school. You’re free to do whichever one you want.
The health of vaccinated children isn’t at risk. The health of unvaccinated children — and adults, for that matter — is at risk. A school has every right to protect the health and well-being of all students, including the unvaccinated. A child that can’t get vaccines for medical reasons deserves the protection of herd immunity. If your child can get vaccines but you refuse to have them vaccinated, your child doesn’t deserve the opportunity to make other people sick. And you don’t have the right to force a plague upon other people because of your own willful ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Vaccine induced herd immunity is a theory. You want me to risk my child tells with a vaccine for a theory? What are you doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Vaccine induced herd immunity is a theory. You want me to risk my child's health with a vaccine for a theory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I trust the herd immunity theory as much as I trust the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution. That is, it’s a hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested and is accepted by the scientific community as accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I didn't say that the school is forcing the child to get the vaccine I am say coercion is involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you’re still fucking wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccines mandates goes against the NUREMBERG code.
Congratulations, you disproved your false narrative with your own citation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This was debunked days ago, but I'll debunk it again.
No, they don't. The Nuremberg code has nothing to do with mandated vaccines.
Deals with human experimentation and what is or is not ethical practice for experimenting on humans. It has nothing to do with post-licensed vaccines.
No more than requiring a shirt and shoes for entering a building is coercion. If you don't like it you can always homeschool your kids.
Good news! Vaccines are not mandated and no one is being coerced into getting them against their will.
After 50+ years of vaccines being given out, if they did cause cancer or infertility, it would be painfully obvious at this point because we would all either be dead or unable to have children. Neither has happened. And no, actually the CDC DOES know whether vaccines cause cancer or infertility. They don't and the CDC has said so.
Also, the HVP vaccine is known to PREVENT various cancers so, yeah, you're an idiot.
You are ignoring the fact that they say that AFTER 50+ years of studies and testing that have proven them to be safe. Nothing is certain so it's still wise to monitor in case there is something we don't know.
You could say that about a lot of things, automobiles, cell phones, computers, space travel, etc... However, this misrepresents that currently licensed vaccines already went through multiple clinical trials and experiments to prove their safety before being given out to the general public. Framing it as you do is just dishonest and fear mongering.
I haven't. No one else I know was either. Where is this coercion you speak of?
For certain things like school? Yes. It helps prevent the spread of horrible diseases and is generally of great health benefit.
And Godwin! Again. But no. A Nazi would haul you in, strap you to a chair and inject you whether you wanted to or not. In the US if you refuse a vaccine they do absolutely nothing. It's your choice. You may not be able to go to public school but nobody is going to forcibly inject you. And no one is advocating for that kind of mandate/coercion. You stating we are or that that is what is happening by calling us Nazi's is just so much lies and bull shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are so stupid. You say, "Good news! Vaccines are not mandated and no one is being coerced into getting them against their will." Vaccines are mandated. Vaccines are mandated for schools and some works. The fact that you don't know that there are mandated across the country shows just how ignorant you are on the subject. And when the school says I must give my child a HPV vaccine in order to go to school that is coercion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, you wanted choice, right? The school just gave you a choice: Vaccinate your child or keep them out of school (and away from people to whom your child could transfer a disease). You said you wanted choice; what makes this choice so untenable for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not everyone is able to homeschool.
Look, we don't ban kids with HIV from school so why would you ban a perfectly healthy unvaccinated child from school.
Are you some sort of a hypochondriac?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are other options besides homeschooling.
HIV can only be transmitted via sex or blood transfusion. It’s also not guaranteed to be transmitted even then. I highly doubt that that is likely to happen at school.
Meanwhile, a lot of highly contagious diseases (airborne, skin contact, etc.) are actually contagious before any symptoms appear, and some infected and contagious individuals never show any symptoms, so even an apparently healthy unvaccinated child may still be able to pass the disease on to others who aren’t immune. This is not the case for those with a vaccine-acquired immunity that is still effective.
Also, a hypochondriac is someone who constantly thinks they’re sick or injured when there’s nothing physically wrong with them. They are not necessarily people who are paranoid about potentially catching a disease, nor are such people necessarily hypochondriacs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not everyone is able to receive vaccines either, but since you don’t seem to give a shit about those people when it comes to choosing whether your child receives vaccines, maybe people shouldn’t give a shit about whether you can homeschool your little disease vectors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently risk-avoidance only works one way, who knew?
Why, because it comes with consequences, and that is just totally unfair! Obviously people should be able to make choices that impact others without the other people in question having any ability to make choices in response, anything less is tyranny. /s
Gotta love how they seem to think that only their choices matter and everyone else should have to accommodate them, as that nicely undermines the whole 'people should be free to choose' argument by only giving any weight to one side and dismissing the other outright. 'You can't tell me to risk my health by doing something I (erroneously) consider dangerous' kinda loses any persuasive power when it's paired with '... but I'm allowed to put your health at risk and you shouldn't have any choice to refuse'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparently risk-avoidance only works one way, who knew?
Oh boy, this attitude isn't aging well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As I said, there are multiple options at your disposal aside from getting the vaccine or not getting an education. If it’s coercion, it’s weak coercion.
At any rate, a school-mandate doesn’t affect your—the parent’s—choice on whether or not you should get vaccinated. It’s about the children. And schools—public or private—are given a lot of leeway about imposing requirements on anyone who wishes to attend. They have to protect the health and safety of every student who attends, not just your children.
Outside of schools or public employment (which are less government action and more imposing rules on customers/employees), no government or government agency in the US mandates vaccines in any sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You assume that an unvaccinated child is a danger. You are wrong. Children who have a disease are a danger. MMR vaccine, DTaP vaccine, and polio vaccine can spread the disease. A recently vaccinated child can spread the disease and be completely unaware of it. While unvaccinated child who caught a measles will get spots on their body and know to stay away from others.
Recently vaccinated children are silent killers.
My kid will get the chicken pox and be good for life. Your kid will get multiple vaccines for the chickenpox and spread the disease each and every time.
When did all of you guys become terrified of the chicken pox anyway? Could it be because you fell for the propaganda. Lol. You guys have been tricked. Sucks to be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, vaccinated children do not act as carriers because their immune systems will completely eradicate the disease before it can be passed on. There is no reason why someone with immunity acquired from having already had the disease in the past would be less likely to pass it on in the future than someone who was gained immunity through a vaccine that is still effective.
Also, many vaccines are scheduled to be administered well before there is any chance to acquire the disease, or at least long enough beforehand to take full effect. And there is no in-between period where the vaccine protects the user from infection but the user still acts as a carrier. If I’m wrong, prove it with evidence.
As for the chicken pox, it can cause shingles later in life, well after the chicken pox is apparently cured. And shingles is very dangerous. Plus, if you get chicken pox when you’re older (like my grandmother did), the chicken pox alone can get quite severe. So yeah, it can be more dangerous than you think.
For the measles, IIRC, it can actually be contagious even before spots start appearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys have been tricked. Sucks to be you.
Why tell us this if we're already screwed?
Why not tell the thousands of parents who are out there right now getting their kids vaccinated after they were struck down by the measles outbreak? Why not tell them that they've been tricked into getting the vaccine?
It's almost like you don't want to face the consequences of your shitty advice...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A disease for which a child can’t be vaccinated (or for which their parents won’t let them be vaccinated) can incubate within the child before they ever show symptoms. And they can spread that disease to people who aren’t vaccinated (for whatever reason), thus making all those people sick as well. Herd immunity tends to nullify such threats. But when immunization rates are lower than necessary for herd immunity to work, we get fucking measles outbreaks in New York City.
Children who have a disease are a threat to public health. Unvaccinated children are far more likely to spread certain diseases. If you have empirical evidence to the contrary, now would be the time to present it.
Their chances of getting shingles will go up, too. But I bet you probably figure you’ll be long dead before that happens to your child so why the fuck would you care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Their chances of getting shingles will go up, too. But I bet you probably figure you’ll be long dead before that happens to your child so why the fuck would you care.
In addition to what you said I feel it's important to highlight just how vile what they just said is. Even if you accept for the sake of the argument that vaccines have a chance of damaging side-effects it's still a hell of a lot better than the guaranteed suffering from chicken-pox and the known increased odds for shingles later on, such that what they are basically arguing is that it's better to let their kids suffer in order to avoid... the chance that they might suffer some other problem.
To call that idea and those that think like that 'sick and demented' is to put it very mildly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not sure how you got brainwashed into thinking that if you get a chickenpox vaccine you'll be less likely to get shingles.
How about you go ahead and cite theis study you guys keep parroting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I did so the last time you made that demand, shithead. Read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. You never provided prove you just made an assertion.
How about you provide a link this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why do you make such blatantly false claims in the very place containing the indisputable proof you're lying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They think we’re intellectually disabled because we got vaccinated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Implied projection, then.
Sonce they never bother to look at coted facts, they assume nobody else would bother to fact-check them.
(and see that not only does his very own link debunk his "vaccines are to blame" fiction, but it was already debunked a month ago in less-truncated citations he laughably pretends doesn't exist.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words, it was a rhetorical question, as they've made it abundantly clear that spreading lies solely for its own sake is their sole function here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they are either a troll or so delusional that they simply cannot see evidence that contradicts whatever crap they're throwing out at a given moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Shingles rates go up because we are not getting wild boosting from chickenpox.
Shingles has increased because of the chickenpox vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/surveillance.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try deliberately lying about what your linked source says like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s the exact opposite of what that link actually says. I know I’ve asked this before, but do you actually read your sources before posting? Because you keep providing strong circumstantial evidence you don’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does effect adults who go to college. It's not just about kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m aware. That particular part of the argument was addressing the fact that the comment I was responding to was specifically about children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You've yet to prove this.
Because it's true.
I've never had a vaccine forced on me that I had no choice but to take. Where is the mandate?
Those are specific scenarios. Vaccines are not mandated just because you live in the US. Which is what you are trying to imply in your scaremongering tactics.
And they are mandated for VERY good reason. One kid with chicken pox going to a school of unvaccinated kids would spread to every kid there. Nobody wants that. And in areas of "works", like the health industry, you are working with people whose immune systems are already compromised, so you don't want to inadvertently kill them because you came down with a disease and passed it on to them. Or catch it from them.
No, that shows you are a dishonest moron. I'm well aware vaccines are required to attend school and some places of employment. However that is not a universal mandate like you are trying to imply. And you still have a choice. If your kid has a valid medical reason why they shouldn't be vaccinated, then they can go to school unvaccinated. Or you can homeschool them. And you can choose to not work in those professions that require vaccinations. The choice is yours. No one here is ignorant. You're just dishonest and a moron.
It is no more coercion than requiring your kid to wear a shirt and shoes. Is that coercion too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccines mandates goes against the NUREMBERG code.
The Nuremberg code governs scientific research and medical studies and experiments on human subjects. It does not govern the use, prescription, administration, or mandating of treatments or medication that have already been researched and proven. In fact, it does not govern anything outside of experimentation at all.
As such, requiring students and faculty to be vaccinated in order to attend or work at a school is not against the Nuremberg Code; the two are unrelated.
If a school mandates vaccinations, you have multiple options:
Get vaccinated.
Obtain a valid medical exemption. (Assuming you have a valid medical reason you shouldn’t get vaccinated.)
Find a different school that does not mandate vaccines.
Get homeschooled.
Attend school from home using live communications. (If this option is available; generally for those who can’t get vaccinated.)
Attend an online school.
Not all of these are equally viable for everyone in every situation, but there are still multiple options for you to attend a school that requires vaccines. You have options beyond getting vaccinated or not getting educated at all.
As for the bit about vaccines causing infertility/cancer, based on 50+ years of research, we’re about as certain as we can be that vaccines don’t cause infertility or cancer; some actually reduce the chances of one or the other, maybe even both. The CDC notes that they continue to monitor the situation, but that’s because it’s fundamentally impossible to prove with absolutely 100% certainty that they don’t; however, we have no reason to believe they might and plenty of evidence that they don’t, as the CDC also says.
And it’s not one great experiment; we’ve tested these vaccines as well as one possibly could and we’ve proven that there is no reasonable justification for doubting their safety at this point in time.
Finally, we haven’t been advocating for mandating vaccines by the government outside of public schools or employment, but even if we were, that has nothing to do with anything the Nazis have ever done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vaccines mandates goes against the NUREMBERG code.
The public is part of Phase IV clinical trials that happen after the FDA has approved medication.
This is one large experiment I hate to break it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vaccines mandates goes against the NUREMBERG code.
Not really. That’s like saying that the public release of a video game is part of the testing and development process. It’s technically true, but it’s also immaterial. Also, by your logic, you shouldn’t take any medication whatsoever, even if medically necessary. Sorry, but the Nuremberg Code doesn’t cover this Phase IV of clinical trials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, if only he’d listen to that advice…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am not sure why this is so hard to understand.. People should not be coerced into takening vaccines. They should be completely free to say no whithout penalty just like with other drugs.
No mandates and no coercion. Where there is risk there must be choice without penalty.
We should be free to say yes or no to medical procedures we should be free to say yes or no to taking drugs and vaccines without penalty.
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp. We allow people to choose without penalty with every other Drug on the market except for vaccines.
Vaccines kill and injure. Health does not have to come through a needle. Stop falling for the propaganda and think for yourself.
If they can penalize you for not taking 10 vaccines then they can penalize you for not taking a hundred vaccines. The door has been open for abuse and now we have all these bulshit vaccines required for school and work.
They have sold you on a theory, the theory of vaccine induced herd immunity. Go look up the injectable polio and you will see it only protects the individual that got the vaccine not others. Many vaccines that children are required to get only protect the individual it doesn't prevent the spread of disease. Even with your beloved MMR vaccine when the individual gets the vaccine they can and do spread the disease it's called viral shedding. You have fallen to the religion of vaccines without even knowing it.
For years they said people need it to be vaccinated to protect other people that have been vaccinated and now the argument is we need to protect the fragile immune-compromised child. Ask yourself how many children are unable to get the vaccines according to the CDC. Good place to look is in California. Are we vaccinating a million people to protect one fragile immune-compromised child? Because I'm immune-compromised and I'm still not exempt from vaccines if I lived in California. My husband had stage 4 brain cancer and they still wanted him to get vaccines. You guys just keep parroting the news and you don't actually investigate what the number is. they want everyone to be vaccinated even if you have lupus, MS, Lou Gehrig's disease, transverse myelitis, cancer. A few people can escape the live viral vaccines but it's rare. And a few people can escape all vaccines if they have had an anaphylactic reaction. How many people get injured by vaccine in order to save a few? I got an autoimmune disorder after getting a vaccine and I can tell you that I am not some sort of unique snowflake this is happening all the time.
Just like there's more than one way to lose weight, there's more than one way to stay healthy and it does not have to come through a needle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re free to say your kids won’t get vaccines. Schools are similarly free to keep your kids out for the protection of the health of everyone else. If you consider “getting vaccinations in exchange for going to school” to be coercion, ask yourself whether there’s a good reason for it — like, say, your children potentially exposing other unvaccinated children to diseases.
If you can’t find a school that will take your little disease vectors, or you can’t homeschool your children, well…tough shit for you. Every choice has a consequence. And you can choose to either live with the consequences of your shitty choices or make better choices.
You’re allowed to choose “no vaccinations” without legal penalty. Social consequences, on the other hand, are something from which you can’t escape. If a family wants your children kept away from that family’s children because your children have become disease vectors, you can’t legally force that family to interact with you. Nor should you have that right when it comes to schools, and for the same reason: You shouldn’t get to decide who runs the risk of catching a disease from your unvaccinated children.
They do so at far, far, far, far, far lower rates than the diseases against which they immunize. Given the risk rates of injury/death between measles and the measles vaccine, I'd give my child the vaccine before I ever let them contract the disease.
You’re missing the point of herd immunity, Ex-Laxxer, but your willful ignorance no longer surprises me. I’m not going to bother reëxplaining how herd immunity works here. You already know how it works; you just don’t give a fuck because it hurts your arguments.
What do you call your fervent, faith-based, science- and fact-rejecting beliefs about vaccines? Because from where I sit, you may as well be saying “God will keep us all healthy without vaccines”.
Please cite the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that backs up this statement.
Far fewer than would be injured or killed by the diseases that would ravage this country like a plague if vaccination rates were even a third lower than what they are now. Better question: How many people were injured by vaccines this year, and how many people contracted/were injured by measles this year?
“I mean, we can catch a disease and pray we don’t die so that our body will know how to fight it again in the future, but people seem to think I’m fucking insane for suggesting that we put our faith in Blast Hardcheese.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Regarding the part about coercion (I’m not going to quote the whole thing), I would like to summarize some counterarguments, many of which we’ve repeated multiple times, but you just don’t seem to understand.
The risk from vaccines is extremely small. Going to school has a higher risk for the vast majority of people than receiving all of the recommended vaccines according to the CDC’s recommended schedule. Additionally, the risk of getting injured by the diseases is much higher than the risk of getting injured by the vaccines. As such, one could argue the risky behavior is not getting vaccinated when one is able. We do regulate risky behaviors often, such as setting traffic laws, regulating who can receive certain drugs, and who can administer vaccines.
(This is a new argument.) There are times where certain medications or other treatments may be legally mandated or otherwise required. The first one I can think of are regarding a parent’s choice to not have their child treated or examined when the child is clearly ill. In such a case, the parent may be charged with child neglect, and the child may be taken away from them. The other is with certain mentally ill persons under certain circumstances may be required to receive therapy, take certain medications, and/or stay at a mental health facility. There is something similar for many drug addicts and people with anger management issues.
Basically, we don’t all agree that requiring certain vaccines in order to attend school or for certain jobs qualifies as coercion or a mandate. We also have no issues with penalties instituted by schools or private employers regarding health issues outside of pregnancy and disabilities. And since neither the US government nor any state government mandates vaccines outside of public schools or government employment (which is entirely their prerogative when it comes to nonprotected classes of people and stuff not protected by the Constitution), we don’t see any issue here. Choice of school and employment are privileges, not fundamental rights. There are other options available, even if not all of them are equally viable for every single person.
Many schools and employers have very good reason for requiring certain vaccines in order to attend/maintain employment. Schools have a duty to protect the health and safety of all students, and employers have a duty to protect the health and safety of all employees and customers/clients to the extent they are able. Requiring certain vaccines in order to prevent the spread of disease and protect those with a compromised immune system falls well within that duty. For them, it’s no different from requiring someone with a contagious disease not to come in person. You may feel differently, but that isn’t our problem.
There are exemptions available for anyone with a valid medical reason not to receive certain or all vaccines.
I’ll address the rest in a separate comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Much of the rest as been addressed before as well, but I’ll single out a few quotes for special attention.
No one disputes this entirely. We just don’t agree that the risk of death or serious or long-lasting injury increases for those who are vaccinated compared to those who are not. Additionally, in many patients, those who are more likely to receive severe or long-lasting injury from a vaccine can be prescreened as essentially all persons who have received or are likely to receive severe or long-lasting injury from a vaccine did so due to a preexisting condition or because the vaccine was administered improperly. You have not proven otherwise, while we have.
Vaccines are one of the most effective ways to improve health in specific ways, are low cost, pose minimal risk, and require little on the part of the receiver.
I’m pretty sure everyone agrees that the number of vaccines mandated/recommended is completely immaterial. I doubt that you care, and neither do we.
That theory has been rigorously tested and verified and is now largely accepted by the scientific and medical communities. Don’t you know what “theory” means in a scientific context? It doesn’t mean “guess” or “assumption”, like you’re implying.
You clearly don’t understand how herd immunity actually works. At any rate, [citation needed]. You have to prove your claims if you want them to be taken seriously. We won’t be doing your research for you.
Those arguments are both equally true and valid. There are no contradictions here or moving the goalposts. Also, you forgot to mention those allergic to the vaccines.
Well, we’re also protecting the million people and those who are allergic.
[citation needed]
You don’t live in California, so what does it matter to you?
Certain vaccines don’t pose any additional threat to the immune compromised; these use an inert/dead form of the virus which has no chance of causing an infection.
You’ve made this claim before, only then you specified a single vaccine that has no additional risk to a person with stage 4 brain cancer than to someone with no health issues whatsoever. You never mentioned multiple vaccines before, but I’d presume that it’d be the same for them, too.
I don’t know what you’re talking about specifically. What news? What number?
Well, those diseases don’t all increase the danger from vaccines, and none increase the danger from all vaccines.
Because the conditions that can substantially increase the risk from live viral vaccines are also rare. (And the ones for inert/dead viral vaccines are rarer still.)
Also true. Those are the valid medical reasons not to get vaccinated. If they have had an anaphylactic reaction to an ingredient in a vaccine, then any vaccine with the same ingredient should be avoided by them. Again, these conditions are rare.
Well, as I said, it’s a lot more than a few who get saved (after all, those who get vaccinated also receive protection), and the severe or long-lasting injuries caused or contributed to by vaccines are rarer still. We’ve already provided sources for these claims.
No. Vaccines don’t cause autoimmune disorders. (Nor do they cause immune deficiencies, for that matter.) Even if they did, it’d be extremely rare. You haven’t presented any verifiable evidence that they do. So, [citation needed].
Also, how could you possibly have a severe immune deficiency and an autoimmune disorder, particularly stemming from the same (alleged) cause? They’re complete opposites! An immune deficiency is where the immune system doesn’t do its job well at all, while an autoimmune disorder is where the immune system works too well. The immune deficiency should effectively nullify the autoimmune disorders.
I’d also like to repeat a question I previously asked: have you ever sought and/or received compensation for your alleged vaccine injuries? If you haven’t, why not? (Actually, has anyone ever both sought and received compensation for getting autoimmune disorders from vaccines?)
You’ve also been extremely vague about these supposed autoimmune disorders you have. “Autoimmune disorder” is an extremely broad term. Allergies can be autoimmune disorders. They also range in severity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccines mandates goes against the NUREMBERG cod
Wow. Keep up buddy boy. The Nuremberg code states that you are not allowed to use coercion.
Some guy in the comments was trying to say that it only applies to experiments. I then explained they when you give an individual a vaccine that is an experiment both on a individual level and on a massive level such as the phase IV trials and post marketing surveillance. You guys have agreed in many of your post that it is an experiment and that it is coercion and therefore goes against the Nuremberg code.
I don't blame you for being unable to keep up with the conversation when any post that appears to be anti-vaccine gets flagged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can say this all you want. Repeating something over and over doesn’t make it true. If it did, I’d be saying “I fucked Vanna White” over and over and over and…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I notice that you lash out when you can't respond with science or reason. You have very poor coping skills. I am not surprised though many vaccinated individuals have behaviour problems. I feel sad for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
…says the plague enthusiast who has been shitting up the entire comments section of an article that is barely about vaccines themselves, and has been doing so for an entire month, only because they can. How does it feel to be an Internet troll that not even 4chan would claim as one of their own, Typhoid Mary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Projection.
What’s actually happening is that Stephen is getting frustrated with you bringing up the same point over and over again even after it’s been debunked. Also, noting that saying the same thing over and over again isn’t lashing out; it’s actually responding with reason. It’s pointing out a logical fallacy.
[citation needed]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I notice that you run away and refuse to answer simple, basic questions that would prove you wrong. You have very dishonest debate/arguing skills. I'm not surprised though, many anti-vaxxers suffer from ignorance, stupidity, and a fanatical belief that there's no possible way they could be wrong and will deliberately ignore or deny any evidence presented to them that they can't immediately disprove.
I don't feel sad for you. I feel contempt for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccines mandates goes against the NUREMBERG
Only in certain kinds of experiments.
Two, actually. One of them was me.
Apparently, you didn’t read my response because I said that isn’t what is meant by an “experiment” when dealing with the Nuremberg Code. Also, you never said it was an experiment “on a[n] individual level”; only on a massive level. Post-marketing surveillance isn’t experimenting at all; it’s called tracking data. We track data—even scientific and medical data—outside of experiments all the time. To the extent that qualifies as “Phase IV trials”, the same goes for those too.
No, we have not. We have not agreed it is an experiment as meant by the Nuremberg Code. We have not agreed that it is coercion; only that if it is, it a) doesn’t violate the Nuremberg Code (see the previous statement and that that isn’t what is meant by coercion) and b) is completely justified. We also haven’t agreed that your premises lead to the conclusion, or that the conclusion is accurate. Do you actually read what we write, or do you just skim it? We explicitly disputed every aspect of that argument multiple times, often including our reasoning.
We have had no problem keeping up with the conversation, or at least the flagging has not inhibited our ability to keep up. The sheer volume of your comments, their repetitiveness, and their ridiculousness, on the other hand, might be doing so, but not in this case.
You seem to be the one who is having trouble keeping up with the conversation. I specifically addressed your argument made in response to me, and you never addressed my response to that argument. For that matter, you frequently bring up topics and claims that we have already debunked multiple times, and you never address any of those responses either. You also keep trying to derail the discussion to topics we have no interest in addressing, like vaccines that are not approved by the CDC and vaccines no longer in use.
So yeah, maybe you should try to keep up before telling others to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many in the U.S. cannot get a vaccine?
Show me the data. You guys keep parroting the news. We all need to be vaccinated for the rare immune-compromised individuals, right. What's that number?
How many people are there in the US who are unable to be vaccinated for live viral vaccines as well as inactivated vaccines?
(Leave out the children that can no longer get a vaccine because they have been vaccine injured and then add in those people to compair.) You can't have the argument that we all need to get a vaccine because there are children that can't get vaccines because they've been vaccine injured.
You have use the CDC to determine who cannot get the vaccine and then you have to figure out the number of people in the US that qualify.
In California 0.7% of children have gotten a medical exemption and the State has said NO that is too many and will cut back on that number because they say that many of the children don't deserve to have a medical exemption. So they say that it is less than 0.7% of people that we all need to be vaccinating for. So it needs to be an even smaller number of people that get injured or killed from a vaccine for the argument to stand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have. Repeatedly. You’re only interested in data that confirms your anti-vax biases. If you actually, truly, 100% gave a limp-dicked rat fuck about the data that legitimately proves your biases wrong, you’d have gone the fuck away like you should have done when we first told you to go the fuck away. (Seriously, though, why are you even still here? You’re not making converts. Your comments are being hidden. You’re getting more insults than someone at a Comedy Central roast. What the fuck makes you think you’re accomplishing anything other than your own personal mental masturbation or trolling?)
You want data? There’s a thousand other comments to look through. Go read them. If you’re not interested in it, do us all a favor: Shut the fuck up, slither back into whatever maggot-infested shithole you crawled out of, and go back to eating that long-rotted bag of dogshit that you call “medicine”.
I’ve long since stopped being nice to you. Now it’s time to stop being kind. You’re no better than someone who willingly spreads a disease to make other people sick out of spite. Go the fuck away, plague enthusiast, and stay the fuck away for the rest of your disease-ridden life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I will talk to you again when you are not so emotional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nah, you’re gonna keep replying and you know why you’re gonna keep replying: It keeps your stupidity “in play”. That’s why you’re still here demanding data and (hypocritically) insulting others and such. “What good is my anti-vax religious dogma if’n I can’t try forcing it down everyone’s throats even when they tell me to go the fuck away?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...Projects the only one who has offered nothing but emotion here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Aw, they've sunk to tone trolling, how adorable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Liar.
But if that's what it takes to shut you up I can be emotional and unkind to you as well, you uneducated, lying, dishonest, unmitigated moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are a coward. You hide my comment about how emotional you are. You can dish it but you can't take it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How many in the U.S. cannot get a vaccine?
There are five responses that apply to different parts of what you said:
We have provided more evidence than is actually required.
[citation needed]
Vaccine injuries only prevent future vaccinations because they are evidence that the patient has a valid medical reason not to get vaccinated. You have the cause and effect backwards.
You once again ignore those who are vaccinated but don’t receive benefits or downsides, as well as those who are allergic to one or more ingredients of certain vaccines. They exist, too, and they are also protected by herd immunity. It’s not just those who are immune-compromised; that would only exempt them from live viral vaccines, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, because California did away with the personal and religious exemptions so people found unscrupulous doctors who would give them a medical exemption when they had no valid medical reason to be exempt. THAT'S what they are cutting back on. Only valid medical exemptions should be given.
Only for California. There's 49 other states and a few territories you're leaving out there.
And I've yet to hear of a SINGLE person in the US whose injury or death was definitively caused by a vaccine alone. So I would say the rate of injuries or death by vaccine is far less than .7%. I can always go get the publicly available data to show you exactly how wrong you are too. But I mean, you can too.
This also ignores the fact that we KNOW that these vaccines have prevented millions upon millions of injuries and deaths from the actual diseases. So in order for YOUR argument to stand, you will have to show that the number of people injured or killed by vaccines exceeds the millions of people who would be injured or killed by the actual disease. And I'm sorry but I just don't see millions of people dropping dead every year. The earth would have been completely depopulated by now if that were true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Give me the data that shows how many people are injured by vaccines every year. How are vaccine injuries being tracked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You’re the one with the near-religious obsession with vaccine injury data — you tell us, asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You’re the one claiming they are dangerous. You’re the one who has to prove it. Not us. Don’t expect us to do your research for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here you go.
But remember, this is not proof that people were injured by vaccines, just that they managed to submit enough evidence to make it plausible to win a court case.
You know how they are being tracked. You've stated how before. Stop being a lying moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burden of proof
Apparently, antivaxxer kook-aid is served out of Russel's teapot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burden of proof
... And delivered to them on the back of a unicorn running at full Gish gallop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chickenpox vaccine causes an increase in shingles
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3759842/#!po=2.50000
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chickenpox vaccine causes an increase in shingles
Oh look, the only support for the ex-laxxer's disinformation narrative is once again from professional quack frauds with delusions of persecution cherry-picking support for noncausative correlations like every single other of their antifacts citations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chickenpox vaccine causes an increase in shingles
You are crazy. I noticed that you like to say "ex-laxxer" instead of ex-vaxxer. Is it because you don't want people to know that the majority of the people used to vaccinate and now do not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Says the crazy person.
Yeah, it's an insult. You do know what Ex Lax is, don't you?
Dude, that's stupid even for you. The majority of people DO vaccinate. Hence why the measles outbreaks are not bigger than they already are. But I mean, your whole schtick is that people need to stop vaccinating. Now you're saying they already have? Then why are you even here? Come on man, get a brain because you obviously don't have a functioning one.
But if you REALLY want me to show just how stupid you are, I can go get the official vaccination rate for the US off the internet and show everyone what an absolute moron you are, ex-laxxer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You misunderstand me. I will explain again and try to be clearer. The majority of the anti-vaxxers are actually ex-vaxxers. Most of the so called anti-vaxxers were good little solders who vaccinated their kids and as a result their kid suffered vaccine injuries and now they say no thank you to vaccines. I mean wow the audacity of these parents not wanting to vaccinate their kids anymore after they've been injured.
I understand that most people vaccinate and that is fine with me.
I believe in vaccine choice. I believe I should be able to say no to the HPV vaccine and still be able to send my child to school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many of those parents can prove, with a preponderance of actual evidence instead of emotional testimony, that vaccines injured their children?
If your child cannot receive a vaccine for medical reasons? Yes, you should. But if they can receive the vaccine and you choose not to vaccinate them, a school should have every right to tell you that they will not let your child threaten the health of everyone else at that school. (Hell, they should also tell you that they won’t let you threaten your own child’s health, either.) Options exist for people like you; either learn to use them or learn to deal with society not wanting your little disease vector to make everyone else sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Have YOU gotten your HPV vaccine? Because it's hypocritical to say that others should get a drug that you have never received.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are you my fucking doctor? No? Then the answer doesn’t matter and you should stay out of my business, you nosy asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No, actually, it's not. For example, the person could:
A) Have already contracted HPV, thereby making getting the vaccine absolutely useless.
B) Have an underlying medical condition preventing them from getting the vaccine.
C) Be outside the recommended age range.
To just name a few possibilities. There's also the matter of it being backed by science. It's not hypocritical at all to say someone else should do something that you don't do if that is backed by facts. For example, I don't wear a bicycle helmet when I go biking, but it's not hypocritical for me to tell others that they should wear a bike helmet because it's definitely safer.
Stop your dishonest arguing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There's also
D) Never, ever be sexually active with people you don't know and trust, and thus not be at risk of exposure to HPV.
Something which is impossible for diseases like Measles unless one lives in a sterile plastic bubble or out in the wilderness 24/7.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"out in the wilderness 24/7."
...and while that could perhaps work for measles specifically, it may not work for other diseases that can be spread by animals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And Tetanus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Additionally, the specific argument is that schools should be allowed to require students to receive the HPV vaccine in order to attend. So it’s only hypocritical if the Stephen was attending school while unvaccinated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I believe in vaccine choice. I believe I should be able to say no to the HPV vaccine and still be able to send my child to school.
And you would be wrong you hypocrite. You don't get to pull the 'I should be able to choose to refuse what I feel is hazardous to my health' card and then demand that others be prohibited from doing the same in response.
You want to sign yourself or your children up for a darwin award you have that choice, but you don't get to avoid the consequences for doing so, especially when that means putting the health of others at risk without their consent or in spite of their objections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one has misunderstood anything except you. We understand exactly what you’re saying. You got a vaccine at some point and are convinced that it injured you (though you don’t appear to have any proof, as you still haven’t even suggested that you sought or received any compensation for your injury). As a result, you have become overly paranoid over the risks you believe vaccines pose and want to convince everyone to let you not vaccinate your kids while also having them attend a particular school, as well as allow you to work a specific job without getting future vaccines despite the fact that the employer requires all employees must be vaccinated. You are also heavily reliant on anecdotal evidence and arguments from emotion when trying to support your claims.
We are sympathetic towards your illness(es) (assuming your being honest). We are skeptical that vaccines were the cause. We also believe your fears are overblown and can easily be settled through some simple tests. We can test for allergies to different substances, and we can test to see if the immune system is too weak to handle a live viral vaccine. Those are really the only valid medical reasons not to get vaccinated, and they are rare (especially the first one). We also don’t believe you have an inalienable right to put unvaccinated kids in schools without a valid medical exemption when they require vaccines, nor that employers must accept potential employees who are unvaccinated. We also don’t consider those things to be coercion or complete mandates, in part because other options exist. We believe that you already have vaccine choice. We believe you are making the wrong choice, and that your choice may endanger others. Furthermore, we find that the sources you use are flawed, in that they are unreliable or don’t prove what you think they do or are insufficient.
We have made these positions explicitly clear and backed them up with strong, logical arguments and reliable sources, complete with links. We have stated them over and over again.
As for the ex-laxxer thing, we find much of what you say to be BS, and we roll our eyes at the “not anti-vaxxer but ex-vaxxer” thing, which was brought up a while ago, though we fully understand the “logic” behind that choice of terms. Stephen came up with an insult by combining the BS thing (which can be induced using laxatives) and the ex-vaxxer label to create “ex-laxxer”. Toom-1275 liked it and decided to use it. That’s all that is. It’s just them making fun of and insulting you specifically and the anti-vaxxer movement in general, which isn’t composed exclusively of those who have been injured by vaccines, by the way.
Personally, I find it distasteful, unnecessary, rude, and counterproductive. However, you have been prolonging this discussion for an entire month on a site where discussions rarely last longer than a week or so, leading to an article with over 1500 comments on it (which may well be unprecedented on this site), much of which consists of repeating the same old already-debunked claims (along with repeated debunking of those claims by us). It’s getting really old, and you seem to be demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension based on some of your choice of sources and how you interpret some of our arguments, which makes the discussion even more frustrating. There’s also the fact that you seem to think you’re bringing up a certain point, argument, or source up for the first time even though we already debunked it several times before. So I can definitely understand why they’d resort to insulting ridicule after all this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I doubt it, but if I did it was only due to how you worded your statement. Maybe learn better English?
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant and also there is no proof of this.
The audacity indeed of a non-medically trained/qualified person making a determination that not only contradicts what all scientific data, studies, and their doctors say, but is based on nothing more than "well after this vaccine was given, this happened". You could just as easily claim that all these injuries were caused by riding in the car on the way home from the doctor since that also preceded the adverse event. So yes, the audacity of these people.
Obviously not. If you were fine with it you wouldn't feel the need to continue posting on this thread FOR OVER A MONTH NOW about how bad vaccines are. You are a dirty liar.
No you don't. Nothing you've said has implied or even hinted at this. Instead you've argued that vaccines are worse than the diseases they prevent and should be stopped being given out completely.
Then you are doomed to be eternally disappointed. You are within your rights to say no to the HPV vaccine for your kid. You are not within your rights to then send your kid to school and put other kids at risk who can't be vaccinated. Your argument isn't for vaccine choice, it's for the right to gamble and take risks with other people's lives, consequences be damned. And that is NOT ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Chickenpox vaccine causes an increase in shingles
I borrowed "ex-laxxer" from Stephen because that moniker perfectly describes you - constantly dumping incoherent shit all over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Chickenpox vaccine causes an increase in shingle
It just shows that you don't care about people who have been vaccine injured. Would you like to make fun of rape victims while you are at it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m not making fun of people who’ve been injured by vaccines. You’re the one saying, without so much as a lick of self-reflection, that children should suffer (and possibly die) from diseases they could easily be immunized against because of the far, far, far, far, far smaller chance that they might suffer some other problem from the vaccine. Do you realize how vile, heartless, and utterly ridiculous your position looks to basically anyone who isn’t brainwashed by Jenny McCarthy and the “dead kids are better than autistic kids” brigade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, we aren't making fun of anyone who has truly been injured by vaccines. There's just no evidence any of them actually exist.
We make fun of you because you're an ignorant, lying, moron who despite all the evidence to the contrary (and the links that DIRECTLY REFUTE your claims) you still crap all over this thread with crazy claims and then lie about it when we counter with actual hard data.
And no, we don't believe you've been injured by vaccines because you've told multiple lies and been caught in them. Therefore anything you say is no longer trustworthy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"No, we aren't making fun of anyone who has truly been injured by vaccines. There's just no evidence any of them actually exist."
Let's not fall into the same trap this moron keeps triggering, by stating absolutes that are easily disproven.
People who have had severe adverse effects from vaccines do exist. It's just that they're incredibly rare, and that we as a society have decided that it's worth risking the occasional injury from vaccines rather than risk the far greater danger of unvaccinated populations that used to leave millions dead or maimed every generation.
Because we've made that decision, but recognised that it would be pretty bad to not look after the rare unfortunate victims that result, fund and help has been set up to ensure they're looked after. But, because some idiots have no idea of scale or proportion, they've decided that the existence of such help is a sign that everything's a conspiracy and they should be allowed to bring back the diseases that they escape during their own childhoods due to vaccination.
The point is - don't fall into the same trap of absolute statements that these people have. We can mock their ignorance without giving them an out they can use when they realise they've lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is true, and a good point. Thanks for catching me on that.
To further expound on that, it's no different than anyone who has a severe adverse event from taking OTC painkillers. The potential side effects aren't any different and in some cases there are a lot more side effects from OTC painkillers. The rate of incidence of side effects is also about the same or worse than vaccines.
And as far as I'm aware, there is no injury court or fund for any injuries or deaths that occur due to taking OTC painkillers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"To further expound on that, it's no different than anyone who has a severe adverse event from taking OTC painkillers."
Yep, which is why we mock them. They present things that sound scary, but only in isolation. Once you understand the actual numbers and compare them to equivalent warnings in other medicine, you see that there's really nothing for the average person to worry about. Especially in comparison to the effects of the disease itself in unvaccinated populations.
"And as far as I'm aware, there is no injury court or fund for any injuries or deaths that occur due to taking OTC painkillers."
I think that normal legal methods are used for compensation, they just have a high bar as it's hard to prove that the medication itself was at fault if a person is using OTC medicine without seeing a medical professional (which most people don't, hence them using OTC products). Which is why those warnings exist in the first place - they list as much as possible to avoid legal liability if a person manifests a serious problem after taking their product.
The reason why a fund exists for vaccines is because they are administered by medical professionals, yet basic biology and statistics mean that it's impossible to completely avoid all risk. So, because we're not complete psychopaths, we compensate those who are unavoidably affected, rather than risk the lives of millions more by refusing to vaccinate altogether.
Chucklehead here thinks he's in the moral right, but he's calling for some obscene effects on generations that follow him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, from what I've read, the only reason we have a vaccine court and injury fund for vaccines is because people like him were bringing so many false and/or fraudulent court cases against vaccine makers that they began to go out of business. So Congress set up the fund and the court to ensure they wouldn't all go out of business, thereby depriving EVERYBODY of vaccines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that's likely part of the reasoning, but I can imagine other reactions to that which could have simply left victims with no recourse at all. The fact that special funds and procedures were set up to ensure that genuine victims can be compensated is probably the best of the outcomes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're literally wrong.
But just to put the nail in the coffin, one of the authors on that paper you cite is a Computer Scientist. He's not qualified to do medical analysis.
There's also this juicy tidbit at the end:
Oh, look at that. Total quack science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That does not prove his data was wrong. He took his case to court and won.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That doesn’t prove his data was right. Courts routinely fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that courts mess up. You look at the data and you decide. There is a lot of common sense here when it comes to the chickenpox shingles issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You look at the data and you decide.
We have, and we've decided that nurgle cultists are dangerous, deranged fools at best, if not malicious and/or grossly dishonest people who hypocritically demand that they be allowed to refuse what they consider (erroneously) dangerous medicine while also believing that others have no right to avoid actual danger by refusing to let potential disease carriers around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Really? Couldn't tell.
I have and I did. I decided the data doesn't support your fantasies and instead proves vaccines are safe and FAR better than getting the actual disease.
And none of it supports your cockamamey claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, but it proves his analysis and conclusions based on said data cannot be trusted as reliable and therefore must be discarded. So unless you can come up with a RELIABLE analysis of the data, this paper does not support your argument and you are back to square one with no data to back up your claims.
[Citation needed.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
via Wikipedia:
Non-fallacious types
Attack on authority
Translation:
It is not fallacious, when an antivax source is cited as though it were fact, to point out how that source is a professional fraud with zero credibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm not saying you can't vaccinate your kids," said the nurgler, "I'm just going to throw a tantrum and scream into your ears until you admit I'm right."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"I'm not saying you can't vaccinate your kids,"
He's not saying other people can't vaccinate. He's merely arguing that they should be forced to accept the kid he's ensured is a much higher risk for the disease and thus accept the negative consequences of his choice.
That's the disconnect here - he thinks that his personal choice should override the wishes of everybody else in the school and all medical advice, with no consequences or hardship for him as a result (although if his kid infects other people that should also not be his problem).
Anti-vaxxers are always either pure psychopaths or unable to accept that anything in the world is as important as their own crotch fruit. Their arguments always fall apart when you start looking beyond your own circle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I'm not saying you can't vaccinate your kids," said the nurgler. "But I am saying that you can't make me vaccinate mine, keep them out of school if they get sick, or accept the blame if they cause a plague."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antivaxxers' FUD causes Measles outbreak in Samoa.
False narratives posted by Robert Kennedy's scam site "Childrens' Health Defense along with targeted propaganda attacks confusing people with false anti-MMR-vaccine narrative is most likely cause of lowering vaccination rate from 90% to 31% in five years, allowing a massive Measles outbreak of at least 3,278 disease victims since October 16 (198 new cases just on Sunday) of which 53 have died so far, 48 of them children age 0-4.
Samoan government has closed schools and restricted public gathering of children; government closing from Dec 5-6 so public servants can aid in the emergemcy vaccination campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Remember, kids," said the nurgler. "You can't be autistic if you're dead!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What’s fucked up is there are anti-vaxxers who truly believe they’d rather have their kid die of disease than have a kid with autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Antivaxxism infects insular Jewish and rekigious communities in New York. Followed by Measles.
Plague Cultists manufacture a targeted disinformation campaign aimed at Somali immigrant community in Minnesota.
Measles kills more peoppe more quickly in DRC than Ebola
Antivax scam artist brings lies and death to Samoa. (already linked above)
If anyone is acting Mengelian here, it's the antivaxxers, the way they appear to target the Black, the poor, the immigrant, the liberal, the Jew for their bioterror extermination campaigns.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“Mengelian”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Being like the Nazis' Angel of Death Josef Mengele.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Agreed. As an autistic myself, I find it wholly offensive that people think autism is so much worse than these preventable and potentially fatal or crippling diseases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Diptheria
Polio
Pertussis
Measles
Mumps
Rubella
One thing they all ahve in common is that they are exclusively human diseases; none of them have any animal reservoirs.
Meaning: it's entirely possible to completely eliminate those diseases by creating an immune population, just like we did with smallpox.
So anyone who's truly "concerned" about "protecting" children from the MMR, DTaP, amd Polio vaccines, their first priority would be to get everyone possible vaccinated and immune now so the diseases die off in the wild completely, making a world where nobody (outside of bioweapons lab work perhaps) would ever have a need to receive those vaccines ever again.
Of course, if one's only goal is to cause the greatest amount of suffering among the largest amount of innocent victims, then telling people it's better to not vaccinate is a highly effective method of achieving only such an end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So are chicken pox and Hep A and B not exclusive to humans, then?
I’m just curious about which preventable diseases only affect humans—and thus can be eliminated over time—vs. those which affect other organisms—which probably can’t.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I just looked up the status of those few individually. There's likely many more, but I didn't have the time to look for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good to know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Quick Wiki search:
Chickenpox:
Hepatitis A:
So, there's some risk with animals although the animals themselves aren't always directly infected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So there's a whopping big epidemic of measles in Samoa to the point where over 50 kids are dead, the country is scrambling to vaccinate and daily life has basically shut down while the country is reeling from the disease.
Where's our nurgler now? I'm guessing on a flight to Samoa to beg the parents to let their children perish after the disease runs its course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Either that or he's this guy, who is now in jail. Unlikely though since our resident nurgler seems to live in the US and the guy in jail lives in Samoa.
That said, over 50 children have died in Samoa now from the measles in the last two months. In 2018, 142,300 people died globally from measles, up from 124,000 in 2017. The number of people who POSSIBLY were injured (including deaths) from all vaccines in the US in 2018? Less than 200.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Considering Mr. Samoan Measles got a GoFundMe raised by foreign nurglers to get him out of jail, though, it wouldn't surprise me if our local fucknugget had the disposable funds to not only throw it at this other asshole on the other side of the planet, but fly his nurgling ass over to Samoa to hold a candlelight vigil...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whatever the reason, it is somewhat interesting that our fool here has gone so silent after children have demonstrably died horrible deaths due to a lack of vaccinations. It will be extremely sad if this is the sort of thing it takes to get them to shut the hell up, but at least the risk of them killing more people will be reduced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In more irony, it's sad that the 50 children who died in Samoa got him to shut up, but the 142,300 people who died all over the world last year didn't.
Timing is everything I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not about timing, I suspect. I believe there's 2 factors at play here. One is the obvious cause and effect. He can wave away the effect or otherwise of vaccines in a third world population with generally low vaccination rates. It's rather more difficult to wave away a massive spike in infection and death rates that directly follow a sudden drop in an otherwise high rate of vaccination. I suspect these people will come up with some excuse, but they've been blindsided for now.
Second is the whole empathy thing. The same selfishness that leads them to risk everyone else's child because they're scared for their own will likely lead them to ignore deaths in far away lands. But, while it's not American Samoa that was affected here and it's still some distance, it probably hits a little harder seeing this happen in Samoa that it might in, say, Sudan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally I like how this shitshow has effectively given me a shortcut to the Nunes memo thread, aka Exhibit A of "out_of_the_blue is a lying fucked-in-the-head shitweasel". Just need to type "vaccine" in Techdirt's search, this thread appears at the top, and I find the Nunes memo thread to click report on all of blue's shitposting thanks to my ISP reloading my IP address.
Also blue disappeared about the time the nurgler started competing with him in terms of insanity, so I can guess something happened to blue. Preferably the copyright fucknugget contracted uber measles at a Trump rally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Finally, an end to the fascist injecting our thread with toxic content against our wishes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dead babies - Gender Identity Disorder
Some of the vaccine ingredients come from dead babies and this is causing gender identity disorder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dead babies - Gender Identity Disorder
So much wrong in a single sentence…
I admit, this is a new one. Where the hell did you get that idea? No, they absolutely don’t. Vaccines consist only of weak or inactive viruses, preservatives (which are primarily or solely artificially created), and a solvent of sorts. Maybe some also contain some medication or something, but that’s pretty much it. There are no human cells or anything that could or would feasibly be harvested from a human in vaccines, so this idea is completely ridiculous.
First, do you have any evidence proving any link between gender identity and vaccines? I am unaware of any studies done that suggest that vaccines cause a shift in gender identity, nor does it seem likely from the ingredients and known side effects of vaccines.
Second, even if vaccines contained ingredients that did in fact come from dead babies, how would that relate to gender identity? Considering what we know about what causes some people to have a gender identity that differs from their apparent gender at birth, this seems highly implausible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dead babies - Gender Identity Disorder
Back from Samoa, are we?
It's fine - we can fuck this thread up some more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ingredients
MMR (MMR-II)
vitamins, amino acids, fetal bovine serum, sucrose, glutamate, recombinant human albumin,
neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolyzed gelatin, sodium phosphate, sodium chloride
MMRV (ProQuad)
(Frozen: Recombinant
Albumin)
MRC-5 cells including DNA and protein, sucrose,
hydrolyzed gelatin, sodium chloride,
sorbitol, monosodium L-glutamate, sodium phosphate dibasic, recombinant human albumin,
sodium bicarbonate, potassium phosphate monobasic, potassium chloride; potassium
phosphate dibasic, neomycin, bovine calf serum
MMRV (ProQuad)
(Frozen: Human Serum
Albumin)
"MRC-5 (Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 14 week old aborted caucasian male fetus.[1]"
If you watch the Standly Plokin deposition you would learn how many babies were aborted before they got what they needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ingredients
Setting aside that whole debate, which is far too complex to get into here right now, that doesn’t answer my second question: how would that “cause gender identity disorder”?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ingredients
So the issue of vaccines causing one to believe that they are transgender comes from the fact that the DNA fragments gets inserted into your stem cells. The DNA fragments can land anywhere. Some vaccines have male DNA and some of the vaccines have female DNA. If you talk to people who research gene therapy they will tell you how bad it is to have DNA fragments in vaccines. Entire genomes have been found in vaccines too. Scientists have looked at the chicken pox vaccine and have found that there is more human DNA in the vaccine then there is of the chicken pox antigens. If you look on the FDA website they have done an entire presentation talking about the issue of too much human DNA in the vaccines. Last time I checked the slides were still available to read.
But, there has been no study that I am aware of looking at this issue only scientists saying that it is very possible that the human DNA could make someone believe that they are a girl with the body of a boy and vice versa.
I think you would need a large vaccinated vs unvaccinated study and the government refuses to do this study because they are afraid of what they might find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ingredients
That’s not how human DNA or transgenderism works. First of all, any human cells in vaccines would almost certainly be attacked by your immune system. And DNA doesn’t really transfer from one cell to another, except in certain unicellular organisms and from viruses. Viruses don’t contain human DNA unless we insert it into the viruses themselves, either.
On top of that, for the transgenderism to occur (assuming your proposed mechanism would work at all), a substantial portion of cells would have to receive this new genetic code in a very, very specific way. A few cells aren’t going to cut it. And any side-transfer of DNA among human cells would be incredibly rare. Again, that’s not how our DNA works. We have things like a nuclear membrane specifically to prevent that kind of mutation from happening very often.
Furthermore, there are 0 known cases where a person was once cisgender but later developed transgender characteristics. The current science suggests that it’s a condition that is rooted at birth. While genetics sometimes plays a role, a more significant role is currently understood to be played by the hormones the fetus is exposed to in the womb than the genes in the cells of the fetus. Or, to be more precise, it’s when the genes differ from that hormone bath that leads to them being transgender. Changing the genes after the fact would not be terribly likely to have a substantial effect. It’d basically be too late. Your brain would have already developed enough to “lock in” that sort of thing, as would your body.
Additionally, it doesn’t really make sense to compare the quantities of antigens and human DNA in vaccines.
As for the FDA, provide a link and maybe we’ll check it out.
Your proposed mechanism shows great ignorance in medical science, biology, genetics, and transgenders. There is no good reason to believe that human DNA in vaccines do or even could cause people to become transgender. That’s probably why there hasn’t been a study; no one in the requisite field actually believes that there is any plausible causal connection, and there is no evidence to point toward its existence.
And as for your proposed study, you’d need a clinical study to get valid results, and your proposal would be unethical for such a study. This has already been mentioned many times. The only fear involved is putting people’s lives at risk unnecessarily and unethically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ingredi
To be clear, the porposed mechanism is not my theory. The porposed mechanism comes from other scientists. I was just explaining their theory. I don't really have an opinion on the transgender issue yet.
Insertional mutagenesis does occur. The DNA from the vaccines gets into the stem cells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ing
"The porposed mechanism comes from other scientists"
OTHER scientists? As in you're claiming to be a scientist?
Cool, I'll bite. Which field? Where is your peer reviewed research published?
"All they would have to do is see the health of those who have already been vaccinated and compair them with people who chose not to vaccinate."
However, your spelling and apparent lack of attention to how control groups typically operate don't fill me with much confidence about your answer. But, prove me wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ing
Why does the government have to be involved, then? I’m pretty sure that anyone could look up that information.
Furthermore, we don’t have data on unvaccinated people in the VSD to compare against. I don’t think you understand. The unethical part is having a study where any portion of the participants must be unvaccinated. And we can’t just use existing data on unvaccinated people because we don’t have that data in any sort of central repository or anywhere publicly available (for medical privacy reasons). So we don’t have what would be needed for your proposal already available.
Also, why not just compare vaccines that have fetal human DNA with equivalent ones that don’t? I don’t see why we need to go vaccinated vs. unvaccinated for such a thing. In fact, that would be methodologically problematic since we’d have too many variables involved when the assumed cause isn’t vaccines but a particular ingredient/contaminant claimed to be present in some vaccines. You also wouldn’t have the ethical concerns, and it’d be more practical as well.
Why are you so insistant on a large-scale vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated study to examine this particular issue? Or in general? There are other kinds of studies that can be used for these issues when testing vaccine safety.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ingredients
I just noticed this claim and had to address it:
No. No, they do not. If you disagree, prove it.
Additionally, even if they do, that wouldn’t cause gender identity disorder. That would require a lot more than mere insertion of certain genes into stem cells. They would specifically have to be inserted into brain cells—not stem cells—and would essentially require an entire chromosome be replaced almost entirely.
Here’s the thing about how genes affect sexual identity and sex-based characteristics. Essentially, most of the work by the genes regarding physical characteristics occurs in the womb. That work not done in the womb is regulated by either hormones produced by organs created while in the womb or by commands from the brain, or a combination of the two. (This presumes cisgendered, non-intersex individuals who aren’t and haven’t undergone certain surgeries or hormone treatments. It gets a bit more complicated from certain external factors, but in those cases the genes’ roles are irrelevant. There is no genetic replacement underway there.) How this works is complicated, but essentially all the genes necessary for making someone either a man or a woman are present in everyone, regardless of gender. (Particularly those needed to develop as female, as both genders have at least one X chromosome.) However, the specific combinations of sex chromosomes, not any particular gene per se, are what determines which of those get expressed.
I suppose it’s not completely impossible for smaller-scale gene tampering to have some hormonal effects regarding sex or gender, but it’s highly unlikely. And it would definitely have to occur in very specific cells in the body (the brain, maybe some sex organs) to have any effect on that. Stem cells aren’t going to cut it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read the CDC expedient sheet for vaccine ingredients
"how would that “cause gender identity disorder”?"
What he means is this: after years of being beaten down with actual evidence to counter the admitted frauds upon which the antivaxxers place their entire worth, and several major disease outbreaks directly caused by their lies, they're starting to lose the ability to gain new cult members. So, they've decided to start lying about other things to try and appeal to the more hateful and less educated transphobic/homophobic types.
As with the autism link, any explanation will be full of mumbo jumbo and wilful misrepresentation of evidence, along with a clear lack of knowledge about how gender identity and vaccines actually work. They're just hoping to once again appeal to idiots who want something to blame for the "damaged" (in their view) children out there. Far easier than understanding science and perhaps accepting that everything about human development is less than perfect, and things often go differently to how any parent would prefer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines
This might interest you guys
Open Letter from Dr. Theresa Deisher to Legislators Regarding Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines
https://www.soundchoice.org/open-letter-to-legislators/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines
Got your rabies dog bite yet fam?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines
Considering the mission statement of her organization, I don’t exactly trust her.
However, for the record, this only discusses autoimmune reactions, which aren’t generally long-term, may be desirable, even if undesirable aren’t necessarily dangerous or severe, have not been proven to occur in a statistically significant proportion of vaccine-recipients (so this is purely theoretical), would actually help refute the idea that they might “cause gender identity disorder”, and would not require the sort of massive study between vaccinated and unvaccinated people you mentioned earlier to prove or disprove. Also, “unrefuted” does not mean “generally accepted by the scientific community to be true”, “tested”, or “proven”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines
"Also, “unrefuted” does not mean “generally accepted by the scientific community to be true”, “tested”, or “proven”."
Indeed, it might mean "so obviously wrong that no sensible person would think there was a need to try to argue. Especially at this point, where there is so much obvious bad faith on the part of anti-vaxxers. If you're trying to seriously discuss advanced orbital mechanics, for example, you don't stop every 5 minutes because some flat earther tries to chime in. The fact that astrophysicists don't bother to engage them does not mean their theories are unrefuted, just that there's no use wasting time and energy on them. That's for people like us mocking them on the internet, not for underfunded scientists in the field trying to actually help people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines
Do you deny that there is Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
First off, good lord I thought we were done with this nonsense. I come back after the holidays and find it in full swing again.
Second, in some vaccines, yes I deny that there is fetal cell DNA. Actually there are only a handful of vaccines that are grown in fetal cells. So it's impossible for other vaccines to have fetal cell DNA in them.
Third, DNA is extremely fragile and most of it is destroyed by the other ingredients when creating the vaccines, so the amount of DNA that is actually in any one vaccine you receive is so infinitesimally small that it's not even worth mentioning.
Now go away, or I shall prove you wrong a second time. (Or millionth as necessary.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you provide anything beyond your assertions that it's safe for human DNA to be in vaccines?
Does the human DNA cause cancer in the individual? Is it mutagenic? Does it cause infertility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is a stupid question. Leaving aside the fact that the information on whether it is safe or not is publicly available and attainable with a two second internet search, the fact that hundreds of millions of these vaccines are given out every year and we do not see hundreds of millions of people with severe disabilities, injuries or DEAD means that statistically, yes, they are safe. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should be able to see that.
Here, I've done your work for you. You're welcome.
No, no, and no.
Now go away, or I shall prove you wrong and a liar a third time. (Or millionth as necessary.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are completely within your rights to do so and have your own opinion. That does not mean you are correct and holding to blatantly false ideas means you will be derided and mocked by the rest of society who instead accepts the truth and scientific facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I feel sad for you. You are a bully. You feel threatened and resort to name calling instead of science. Scientists communicate with science. Ignorant bullies resort to name calling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did you miss the part where they cited scientists?
They didn’t engage in name-calling. They said that you should expect to be derided for holding to your own blatantly false ideas rather than accepting the truth and scientific facts. In short, they were accusing you of ignoring the science. This was done after they cited actual scientists to disprove your claims, and you responded with, “I disagree,” but without anything to support it. It sounds like their accusation that you were ignoring the scientific facts was pretty spot on. Their actions are hardly indicative of an ignorant bully.
What they said in that particular comment was rather respectful. I can’t see how it could be considered “bullying”. I feel sorry for you for being so oversensitive.
Also, when did they claim to be a scientist? Are you saying the only people who talk about this are either scientists or bullies? There’s a lot of middle ground you seem to be ignoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't care.
If respectfully pointing out exactly how wrong you are is considered being a bully, then I have no idea how you are going to survive in this world. Most people are not nearly as respectful when point out such things.
And apparently you feel threatened and resort to blatant lying instead of debating the actual points and posting anything resembling evidence to back up your baseless claims. As someone else noted, nowhere, in any of my comments did I call you a name. I did, however, cite several scientific sources and google searches containing scientific source results. So you've lied twice in one sentence.
Thanks for exhonerating me. Since I didn't resort to name calling, I'm obviously not an ignorant bully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am a scientist, of the computer variety, and I have communicated with links to scientific sources and studies backing up my assertions. You have communicated with nothing even remotely resembling science.
Since you have not provided any scientific sources and have called me names, does that mean you meet your own definition of an ignorant bully?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I mean, you can disagree all you want, but that’s a pretty weak response. Did you even read the linked articles? One of them in particular is a pretty detailed refutation by other scientists in the requisite fields of the letter you linked and the references it sites for support, while still being largely understandable by non-experts. Here are some of the issues, in laymen’s terms.
No reference was given for the “unrefuted” claim about the amount of human fetal DNA in vaccines. And again, “unrefuted” claims aren’t good enough in scientific research. You have to provide evidence first before anyone would even bother trying to refute it in the first place.
The aforementioned claim (along with many of the other claims) appears to stem from a study by the author of the letter. This study was found to be highly problematic by many other researchers and such, including methodological issues and the fact that some of the conclusions weren’t well supported by the data and references in the first place. In other words, the “unrefuted” claim has been highly disputed by experts. That’s hardly indicative of an accepted claim.
Additionally, according to analyses, the amount of human DNA in vaccines are nowhere near the concentrations alleged, nor are they even close to the concentrations used in the referenced studies to demonstrate any autoimmune diseases/responses, cancer, mutagenic reaction, or simply the DNA entering human cells in the first place (which was in μg, not ng as alleged to be present in the study). Even in those studies, they were in vitro (a test tube or Petri dish or something) or, in some cases, mice, not in humans.
What human DNA is in vaccines gets largely broken down by other ingredients in the vaccine.
The DNA that contaminates vaccines differs substantially from the fetal DNA in pregnant women’s bloodstreams.
The references used to claim that labor is induced by fetal DNA in the bloodstream are either purely theoretical and speculative or are only about late pregnancies and complications, not the labor in standard childbirth.
Vaccines aren’t injected directly into the bloodstream anyway; they get injected just below the skin or into the muscles, not intravenously as alleged.
Other ingredients in vaccines are far more likely to induce reactions from the specific biochemical mentioned in the letter than human DNA; they are specifically designed to do so.
Free-floating human DNA doesn’t provoke autoimmune responses to begin with. Our immune system—in particular the specific biochemical mentioned—has evolved to not do so with human DNA; only viral or bacterial DNA/RNA does so when not within the cell membrane that generated it.
There are substantial differences between the immune system of an infant or young child (who get vaccinated) and those of either a pregnant woman or a fetus, so any comparison between them is inapt.
Even if fetal human DNA somehow gets taken in by a vaccinated person’s cells, that wouldn’t mean that any of that DNA gets incorporated by the cell. I feel like people forget that, in addition to a cell membrane, our cells also have a nuclear membrane to protect our DNA from external contaminants.
Assuming that the DNA makes it into the bloodstream and could be mutagenic, it would still have to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and be integrated into the brain’s genes to have any effect on things like gender identity or autism.
The specific biochemical at issue here is typically uninvolved in autoimmune responses or diseases. In fact, it actually protects against them.
So yeah, it would appear that the claims made in that letter range from unsupported to strongly disputed to completely wrong. It also seems clear that the human DNA used in creating or that contaminates vaccines does not, in fact, cause cancer, infertility, “gender identity disorder”, autism, or autoimmune diseases. It also appears that that DNA is not mutagenic. But regardless, the burden of proof would be on those claiming that it does/is.
At any rate, what specifically do you disagree with, and why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know. Maybe this comment section should be locked down or something. I definitely feel it should get some sort of recognition for both how long it’s lasted and how many comments are in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fetal Cell DNA in Vaccines
I’d like to amend my statement:
I should clarify: it only is remotely persuasive on autoimmune reactions.
To the extent it claims other effects, it fails on one simple issue: why do they not happen in pregnant women? Assuming that the comparison is valid and that other claims made are accurate, why are we not seeing substantial increases in autism, autoimmune diseases, infertility, gender identity disorders, or mutations in pregnant women, where the concentration of fetal DNA is higher?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will it ever end?
This article now has over 1600 comments and has comments from over the course of three and a half months.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Will it ever end?
So long as it exceeds blue's sad, pathetic efforts to play gotcha with Trump's pitiful attempts at politics and links to Breitbart? I'm game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rep. Adam Schiff censoring
Vaccines are not nutrients.
They consist of pathogens and toxins.
The government is not a gate-keeper to perceptions on how vaccines affect a person's body. Everybody is different.
The administration of vaccines is not personalized, it is standardized.
That is why we just heard of another baby in our area dying from the vaccines. It was listed as SIDS -
Not eligible for Vaccine Court and compensation - based on a recent ruling shown above.
https://aapsonline.org/rep-adam-schiff-sued-by-physicians-for-censoring-vaccine-debate/
Janua ry 15, 2020
Rep. Adam Schiff Sued by Physicians for Censoring Vaccine Debate
In February and March 2019, Rep. Schiff contacted Google, Facebook, and Amazon, to encourage them to de-platform or discredit what Schiff asserted to be inaccurate information on vaccines. He then posted the letters and press release on the House.gov website.
...
On Facebook, a search for an AAPS article on vaccines, which previously would lead directly to the AAPS article, now produces search results containing links to the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rep. Adam Schiff censoring
One month to come back to a dead thread where you were thoroughly owned and this is the best you could come up with? Coinciding with an actual disease breakout no less.
"That is why we just heard of another baby in our area dying from the vaccines"
Citation needed. Although, either way - does this outweigh the many more children who have provably died from a lack of vaccine access? Is the blood of those kids OK on your hands if you can point to a single outlying case on the other "side"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rep. Adam Schiff censoring
Never mind that, I'm more interested in the fact that in a community where nurglers like him have a stranglehold on information, somehow a baby died from a vaccine on their watch. So... what, did the nurglers not yell at the parents enough?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rep. Adam Schiff censoring
Well, a lot of medicines and such don’t include nutrients. No one has claimed that vaccines are nutrients. That’s completely irrelevant.
The pathogens are either to weak to cause disease in humans with a reasonably healthy immune system or are incapable of causing disease due to being dead. There are no toxins in vaccines, at least not in any doses capable of harming people who don’t have allergies to them.
The perception is irrelevant. The reality is that vaccines are safe and very, very few recipients have experienced severe and/or long-lasting side effects from vaccines.
It’s preventative, and its efficacy and safety aren’t terribly reliant on individual factors. In most cases, standardized causes no problems, and for the edge cases, they either don’t get vaccinated or do get personalized vaccines. Not every medical treatment needs to be personalized in order to be safe and effective.
Again, that’s how it should be. If you can’t prove that vaccines caused the injury—even if that injury is death—then you shouldn’t receive compensation.
I don’t have any problem with a congressman encouraging platforms to reduce the visibility of or counter inaccurate medical claims.
Since AAPS consists of quacks making false medical claims, I have no issue with this, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Rep. Adam Schiff censoring
Gah! The first sentence after the second quote should be:
“The pathogens are either too weak to cause disease in humans with a reasonably healthy immune system or are incapable of causing disease due to being dead.”
I can’t believe I made such an elementary mistake!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Vaccinations save lives (and I know some anti-vaxxers reading this are foaming at the mouth to scream at us in the comments, and let's just be clear: you're wrong and you should stop it before you kill more people)."
What an incredible act of bullying. You should say that to anyone whose actually been harmed from a vaccine in some way sometime and see what they say in response. It's cut from the same dismissive cloth as say someone who says "the news told me that no veteran ever went ignored by the Veterans Administration" and then even if some veterans try to tell you what happened to them you just wave your hand and move on without caring because you aren't affected by it so it's no skin off your back. Say that to a mother whose kid was fine then after the third round of shots "they knew their kid changed" and then they talk to other mothers who experienced the same thing. Especially if it happened to more than one of their kids, ie first one seemingly injured after vaccines (fine before, screwed up after), second one seemingly injured, so they decide they aren't going to let it happen to their third kid.
You slander anyone with skepticism or experiences that don't match your view of events by acting like anybody that says something that creates cognitive dissonance is a liar or just plain crazy.
Are you really going to tell me that you believe that there's no such thing as a vaccine which is not perfectly effective and perfectly safe? Or that a corporation would never exaggerate or lie about effectiveness just to make a profit? Or that there is no such thing as regulatory capture negatively affecting the objectivity of various government or NGO agencies in charge of health and that it's just a coincidence if there's a revolving door between big pharma corporations and those agencies certifying everything as perfectly safe and effective, nothing to see here, just move along?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"You should say that to anyone whose actually been harmed from a vaccine in some way sometime and see what they say in response"
Whatever they have to say is irrelevant in the face of the overall picture. If you find us one of these rare creatures for us to speak to (and one that actually exists, not the half-baked examples you people usually bring up where someone is desperate to blame vaccines for things they did not cause), then the reaction to anything they have to say is this - while it's unfortunate that you were personally affected in a negative way by vaccines, your situation is incredibly rare. Meanwhile, outbreaks of diseases that can be prevented with vaccines have maimed and killed millions in every generation before vaccinations were invented. Your personal sob story is a bad thing, but given the choice between your individual pain and the alternative, nothing about vaccines will change.
Now, what are you anti-vaxxer fools going to say to the people who have been maimed or killed by the diseases you promote? "Sorry, but we'd rather have you and your family die of measles and other preventable diseases than risk have a kid that's less than perfect ourselves"? "My right to infect you trumped your right not to be infected"?
"You slander anyone with skepticism or experiences that don't match your view of events by acting like anybody that says something that creates cognitive dissonance is a liar or just plain crazy."
No, we say that on the rare occasions where you're not wilfully misinterpreting data or outright lying, the stories you tell don't usually match with the reality of what happened.
"Are you really going to tell me that you believe that there's no such thing as a vaccine which is not perfectly effective and perfectly safe? "
Yes, because there's no such thing as anything that's perfectly effective and perfectly safe. You're living in a fantasy world if you believe that such a thing can exist. But, we don't hear calls for home plumbing to be banned because people drown in bathtubs or for electricity to be banned people people die of electrocution. Sane people understand things like risk and statistics and don't base their world view on things that almost never happen.
The rest of your conspiracy nonsense needs evidence, of which you typically have zero, or at least requires a fundamental misunderstanding of the evidence you try to present.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Considering the global climate right now, what are you guys going to do when the coronavirus hits your little enclaves? Are you going to stand in the streets and scream, "All you idiots just need herbal treatments, fuck the coronavirus cures"?
Funny how every time there's a mass breakout of disease you guys don't ever want to take credit for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What will you do if you get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Get treated for it by medical professionals. I’d also likely get quarantined in order to not infect anyone else. I certainly wouldn’t leave the house, and I certainly wouldn’t just hope it goes away on its own unless a licensed professional says otherwise, nor would I expect to handle it on my own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't be an anti-vaxxer get your adult vaccines
Cdc put out their 2020 adult vaccine recommendations.
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2760656/recommended-adult-immunization-schedule- united-states-2020
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't be an anti-vaxxer get your adult vaccines
I did. Killed any children lately, plague rat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One in a million
Here is your one in a million side effects.
3 percent of the population has brain damage from vaccines, but the claim of injury is 1 in a million.
No, the 1 in a million is the chances of getting compensated for a dead child.
Add to 3 percent autistic brain damage - allergies, gastro and chronic diseases, and the chances of damage from vaccines is more like 80 percent.
https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/data/data-statistics-vic p.pdf
According to the CDC, from 2006 to 2017 over 3.4 billion doses of covered vaccines were distributed in the U.S. For petitions filed in this time period, 6,595 petitions were adjudicated by the Court, and of those 4,539 were compensated. This means for every 1 million doses of vaccine that were distributed, approximately 1 individual was compensated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One in a million
The chances of getting compensated AFTER even getting into Vaccine Court in the first place is 1 in a million.
The chances of a doctor admitting an injury was caused by a vaccine in the first place, and finding a lawyer who is willing to take the case, and having an injury on the approved Table of Injuries, or providing the medical and scientific proof to support an injury not on the Table such as allergies --- the chances of this happening are 1 in a trillion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, because there is no proof vaccines cause injuries.
Because most doctors are smart enough to know the science behind vaccines and know they don't cause injuries.
See same reasoning for doctors.
It must not be all that common then if it can't even make it on to the list of "well, it's PLAUSIBLE that a vaccine COULD have caused any of the things in this table, but the evidence is still pretty weak but just to be safe we'll go ahead and pay out for these, barring any other triggers that could have caused the condition" table.
Well if there's no proof to support the injury then why should it be compensated? Seems to me then that this is proof that vaccines do not cause widespread injury, allergy, brain damage, and death.
So what you're saying then is for all intents and purposes, vaccines are safe.
Thanks for playing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, vaccines do cause injuries. There’s just no evidence that they cause injuries more than, say, one in one million times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The package inserts say injuries are more than 1 in a million. The FDA, CDC, and HHS also say that injuries are more than one in a million.
GO READ A PACKAGE INSERT!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I’ve said multiple times, most people don’t have package inserts lying around. Show us where to find the package inserts.
At any rate, I’m saying that there is no evidence that serious and/or long-term injuries from vaccines are significantly more common than one in one million. From what I can gather, all the more common side effects for vaccines recommended by the CDC are minor and short-lived. I don’t consider them to be injuries worth worrying about no matter how frequently they occur.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dude the fact that you don't know how to find the package inserts to the vaccines shows just how uninformed you are. I have provided numerous links but here it is again. I give you props for asking.
Here you go. A ton of package inserts for all kinds of vaccines. Look at the DTaP and Hep B. Merck was allowed to omit data for the MMR shot so you will have to look at that through a foia request.
If you don't like this site for some weird reason just Google package insert and the vaccine you want.
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, I’m not seeing anything cited as a negative side-effect (as opposed to an adverse event) that qualifies as both relatively common and either serious or long-lasting IMO. Thanks for the info, but I don’t see anything too concerning here.
At any rate, the “one in a million” was just a rough, off-the-cuff estimate. My point was that severe and/or both long-term and significant negative side-effects from vaccines, based upon the information we have, occur in substantially less than 1% of all patients receiving a vaccine that is recommended by the CDC. (Or rather, there is no evidence that they occur substantially more frequently than that.) Basically, there is no evidence that a large enough proportion of the vaccinated population experience negative effects that are severe or long-lasting enough to either be all that concerned about or to outweigh the benefits of vaccinating the vast majority of the population, at least when dealing with vaccines authorized by the FDA, recommended by the CDC, and legal in the US. The precise number isn’t that important to my actual claim.
Additionally, from what I can tell, most if not all of the severe/long-lasting injuries that are known to be caused by recommended vaccines fall into one or more of the following categories:
The patient had a preexisting allergy to one or more of the ingredients in the vaccine(s).
The patient had a compromised immune system since before the vaccine was administered (a condition which was still present at the time of the vaccine) and a live (though weakened) version of the virus was used.
The doctor/nurse/whatever improperly administered the vaccine in some way (which means it wasn’t technically the vaccine’s fault per se).
Basically, most or all of it is stuff that can easily be avoided, worked around, or taken into consideration by a trained medical professional, so the vast majority of people have nothing to worry about it. If you have a compromised immune system, don’t take any live vaccines, but inactivated ones are still fine (though if your immune system is practically nonexistent (not just compromised), I suppose that even vaccines that aren’t dangerous to you would probably be a waste of time). If you’re allergic to one of the ingredients, avoid any vaccines that use that ingredient and—when possible—try to find alternative formulations that lack that ingredient. Of course, in these cases, not every vaccine has an alternative that would work for such conditions, so some vaccinations are to be avoided by such persons. Additionally, it is possible to determine whether an allergy or immune-deficiency exists prior to receiving the vaccine, using tests, personal medical history, or family history as a guide, so most of the time, such injuries can be avoided.
As for improper administration or a bad batch, those are inherent risks to any medication or treatment, and the best you can do is to ensure that whoever gives you the vaccine is well-trained, educated, and trusted, while also paying attention to any reports of a bad batch. That said, these fall under human error rather than being an inherent part of the vaccine itself.
Now, just as a reminder, an “adverse event” from a drug, vaccine, or treatment is anything remotely negative that occurs after the drug, vaccine, or treatment, regardless of severity, duration, plausibility of causation, or the availability of other potential causes. Get hit by a car after getting a vaccine? That’s an adverse event of the vaccine. Get a papercut after a vaccine that quickly heals without intervention? That’s an adverse event of the vaccine. Feel slightly irritated after getting a vaccine? That’s an adverse event, too. Lose your job after getting a vaccine? That, too, can be considered an adverse event. Have a preexisting but rare condition that makes you bruise easily, then get a bruise easily after receiving a vaccine? That is an adverse event. Notice some signs of autism after receiving a vaccine, even if the autism itself might have predated the vaccine and despite the fact that vaccines have been proven to not have any connection to vaccines? Even that is still an adverse event.
I’ve actually discussed on several occasions how the fact that “adverse event” is so broadly defined helps explain why some studies say that adverse events of drugs and/or vaccines are severely underreported: they include things that most people don’t consider worth reporting and things that no sane person would believe are actually caused by the drug/vaccine (including things that the person actually knows were caused by something completely unrelated). Combined with the fact that a number of adverse events that do get reported are clearly false, and you can see why people like me don’t consider the number or relative frequency (actual or projected) of adverse events (reported or not) from vaccines to be all that indicative of the actual safety of the vaccines themselves. This is why I’m primarily concerned with the frequency and nature of proven side-effects that are severe and/or long-lasting. Anything else, no matter how common, wouldn’t really change my mind about vaccine safety at all, whether it’s because it isn’t an injury worth worrying about or it’s not necessarily or even all that likely to have been caused by the vaccine at all as opposed to some third event or factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A ton of package inserts for all kinds of vaccines"
...which state very rare potential issues that are no different from those inserts in any other kind of medication.
Why do you people insist on shouting about evidence that everybody else knows exists as proof of something new?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"GO READ A PACKAGE INSERT!!!!!"
We do. We also understand them and compare them to the inserts for other types of medication.
Your "evidence" does not say what you wish it did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Poor wording on my part. Thanks for the clarification.
As an addendum, I would also add that there is no proof that they cause some of the kinds of injuries commonly being claimed, i.e. autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, because there is no proof vaccines cause injuries."
Don't give these idiots ammunition by overstating things so much that they become false.
In reality, there is a known, non-zero chance of injuries and other issues relating to vaccines. It's just that the risk of these happening is way lower than the risks associated with the diseases they prevent. So, society has agreed that while vaccines are necessary, some way to compensate the rare victims of these issues is also appropriate. Sadly, the moron brigade has latched upon these as some kind of conspiracy rather than the honest help it actually is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, bhull already corrected me on that one too. It's a good point and a poor wording choice on my part.
In my brain I was thinking of injuries such as autism that studies have found no evidence to suggest they have any causal relationship too, but I was not clear enough in putting fingers to keyboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One in a million
Huh? How do you figure? Based on your previous math, the chances of someone getting into Vaccine Court and getting compensated given that they had received a vaccine dose is one in one million.
In symbolic terms, if A is the set of everyone who has received a vaccine, B is the set of everyone who got into Vaccine Court, and C is the set of everyone who got compensation for a vaccine injury, then your previous comment says that P(C|A) is about one in one million, while this comment says that P(C|B) is about one in one million. The only way that could be true is if P(B|A) is close to one. That is, just about everyone who received a vaccine has gotten into Vaccine Court, which is absurd. (Alternatively, for every person who receives a vaccine but does not get into Vaccine Court, there is approximately one person who has not received a vaccine but still gets into Vaccine Court. Again, this is obviously not actually the case.)
Since the previous claim is based on statistics that come from a reliable source, while this claim has no citations or evidence at all, this claim is clearly false.
[citation needed]
Also, if you cannot provide evidence that the vaccine could cause the injury, then there is no good reason to believe that the vaccine did cause the injury or that the claimant should be compensated in Vaccine Court for it. Basically, even if this claim is true, I have no reason to think that this is a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously? You're still on about this?
Do you have data to support this wild and baseless claim? Thought not.
But just for funsies lets look at some hard numbers. The population of America is approximately 326 million. That's 326,000,000. You claim 3% of that number has brain damager from vaccines. How many people is that exactly? Well, if you do the math: 326,000,000 divided by 100 = 3,260,000. 3,260,000 times 3 is 9,780,000. So your claim is that at least 9,780,000 people in the US have been brain damaged by vaccines. That's almost 5 times more than the actual, total, recorded number of people brain damage reported each year, not just from vaccines, but also from falls, other diseases, and other blunt force trauma.
Also, 9,780,000 is not an insignificant number, that's almost 9 times more than the number of people who die in car crashes every year. Given that, why don't we hear about it on the nightly news? Or at all? Or know someone who has been injured by vaccines?
No, actually, the claim of injury is far less than that. Like WAY less.
That's because deaths caused by vaccines are extremely, extremely, rare; if they exist at all. You can't just show up in court with a dead child and say that you should be compensated because two days earlier they got a vaccine. Timeline alone is proof of nothing. You have to have medical and scientific evidence that the vaccine is what caused your child's death. That's something that remarkably few people are actually able to come up with.
Oh yes, nevermind the fact that all of those things have other, far more common and well known triggers. Nope, we're just going to blame it all on vaccines, because, why not? This is the reason nobody takes you seriously. Well, one of the reasons. All of those diseases and allergies have well known, documented triggers and causes NOT related to vaccines, so it is dishonest and false to lump them all in as being caused by vaccines. Stop lying.
Yes, and? This doesn't support your assertion. Rather, this proves you wrong and us right, that of the billions of vaccine does given out, not even 1% of them caused any damage at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One in a million
[citation needed]
Vaccines don’t cause autism or allergies, and I’m unaware of any evidence that they can cause gastrointestinal issues. As for any other chronic diseases, it is extremely rare for a vaccine to cause them, if at all.
As for the 80% statistic, again, I’m gonna need some citation for that.
As that is around the expected proportion of vaccine doses that would cause serious and/or chronic injuries after factoring everything in, that suggests that the system is working pretty darn well, actually. Again, you haven’t actually provided any evidence that more than one in one million individuals should be compensated for a vaccine injury, so we have no reason to believe that number is too low or that something should be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One in a million
"I’m unaware of any evidence that they can cause gastrointestinal issues"
Even if they did, any sensible person would choose those over the major negative issues associated with the diseases they prevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets reported. VSD shows injuri
Remember, “Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. […] Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.”
https://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upg rading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/#sthash.CAzclM5D.dpbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets reported. VSD shows in
Remember, “adverse events” =/= “injuries potentially caused by the vaccine”. All it takes for something to be an adverse event is for it to happen afterwards, even if it was clearly and definitely caused by something completely unrelated to the vaccine. It also includes minor and short-lived injuries that people don’t consider worth worrying about. So actually, that statement doesn’t actually say that fewer than 1% of vaccine injuries get reported as not all adverse events would be considered vaccine injuries.
Sure, adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but that’s because drugs and vaccines are common, and so are injuries. If you get vaccinated, then later (say, within a week or so) get a papercut that heals quickly, that’s an adverse event from the vaccine, despite the fact that no one would think that the vaccine caused the papercut and it was a minor injury that healed on its own within hours with no lasting effects. And this is a statistically likely chain of events. Obviously, no one would report that.
Additionally, some of the adverse events that do get reported are obviously fraudulent, such as one who claimed to be turned into the Hulk, and others have been investigated and proven to not actually be caused by the vaccines. So there’s also some overreporting to be concerned about.
At any rate, unless you have a better way to report adverse events, this doesn’t actually prove anything about the actual rate of vaccine injuries since most adverse events are not actually caused by the vaccines or are too inconsequential to be concerned about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets reported. VSD show
Can you please cite the data/study that proves that vaccine injuries are "rare" i.e. one in a million? You keep asserting this but you can't cough up the data. Is it because you know you are lying? My money says that you will not provide the study. My money says that you will respond with something stupid like "Go find it yourself". You know that data does not exist which is why you will never cite your source of "vaccine injuries are one in a million" and other BS variations of this assertion.
Stop with the assertions and show me the data otherwise stop spouting out this ridiculous lie of vaccine injuries are "rare". And for peek sakes read the package insert it's right there in black and white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets reported. VSD
Actually, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate they are common. The default assumption is that they are rare or nonexistent. Again, prove that the problem exists.
In fact, that particular comment didn’t say that they are rare. I said that your source doesn’t prove that they are common. So yeah, I wasn’t making the assertion you claim I was.
And as for the “package inserts”, like I said, show us the goddamned inserts. The one time you showed any to us, it actually proved that the serious and/or long-term injuries were rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets reported.
You are lying. The inserts don't prove that vaccine injuries are rare. The inserts show that they are common. Either you choose to be a liar or you are just to ignorant to understand what the insert says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets report
Inserts indicating vaccine injuries exist is not a sign that they are rare or common is the point, you daft numpty, which is why more data beyond what they write on package inserts was requested of you since you claim to be sitting on a fucking goldmine of the stuff.
Saying that package inserts means vaccine injuries are common is like saying that any building that has a fire alarm and emergency firehose is likelier to burn down in a fire than one without any fire protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets report
"You are lying. The inserts don't prove that vaccine injuries are rare. The inserts show that they are common"
I do love the fact that you accuse someone else of lying, then immediately follow that up with a barefaced lie.
"Either you choose to be a liar or you are just to ignorant to understand what the insert says."
Then attack someone for not understanding the information that you wilfully misrepresent in pursuit of said lie.
All of this so that you can infect, main and kill innocent children with diseases that your own parents' and grandparents' generation fought hard to eradicate from you own life. Pure evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Less than 1% of vaccine injuries gets report
Are we looking at the same inserts? Or do you have extremely broad definitions of “common” and/or “serious and/or long-term vaccine injuries”? When I read the inserts, all the stuff that are said to be (relatively) common are what I would consider to be minor and brief, while all the serious stuff appears to be rare. I said the same thing months ago.
Why don’t you specify how the inserts supposedly show that the injuries worth worrying about are common? Maybe then we can get into specifics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We have. Multiple times. Scroll up through the now over 1700 comments and you will find multiple links to where this exact data has been provided. Continuing to ask for it is disingenuous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Administered
Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Administered
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccine-injuries-ratio-one-for-every-39-vaccine s-administered/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Administer
As mentioned earlier, the Children’s Health Defense is not a reliable source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Admini
Go read the Harvard Pilgrim study. Your beloved CDC funded the study. Debate the study and the data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This was already addressed and debunked in a previous comment. Ctrl-F with "harvard" should find it for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Admini
Prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Admini
"As mentioned earlier, the Children’s Health Defense is not a reliable source."
Prove that Children's Health Defense is not reliable. Don't just assert it. What have they lied about? Cite your data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccines Ad
“As mentioned earlier,” means, “We’ve already discussed this in this thread, so I’m not going to go into further detail yet again when you can just go back to that part of the thread and look at those arguments.” Basically, I’m not going to argue about this again in the exact same thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vaccine
There was no argument thats why you say you aren't going to talk about it. You have nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39 Vac
It was over two months ago. There was an argument presented as to why the Children’s Health Defense is not a reliable source. That you cannot find it is not my problem.
Really, I spend too much time as it is on this months-old, 1600+-comment thread. Many of these points were discussed months ago. There’s only so much I’m willing to relitigate (often for the umpteenth time) in the same goddamned thread that should have ended over a month ago.
If an argument is presented that has already been discussed in this thread, I reserve the right to just restate the conclusion without having to cite the reasoning again on the basis that it was already presented. I don’t have to talk about something that was already addressed earlier in the same thread. A simple, “We’ve already been over this,” often suffices in such situations.
Look, this got tiresome and repetitive after the first month, and this isn’t adding anything new to the discussion. If I’m being short, it’s because I’m no longer as interested in humoring you and discussing old points yet again. My patience has its limits, and this discussion has gone on for far too long here. If you have anything new that is worth addressing, then I might do so. However, don’t complain if I don’t discuss old topics at length in this monster of a thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Every 39
"It was over two months ago. There was an argument presented as to why the Children’s Health Defense is not a reliable source. That you cannot find it is not my problem."
You had nothing and you STILL have nothing that's why you ramble on about nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Ever
The same way you have nothing to defend about the Samoan measles outbreak. You and your lot killed children by lying about measles. Enjoy that distinction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for
Your ignorance of Measles and vaccines is sad. You clearly have no idea what happened there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And obviously, neither do you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One
Contrary to what you'd like to believe, what happened in Samoa is actually very well documented. Two nurses fucked up their vaccination procedure, and your ilk capitalized on that to claim that all vaccines kill, no questions asked. So when a measles attack did happen, your decisions led to a fucking lot of dead children.
So one of your activists got jailed for killing kids and lo and behold, you idiots continued to fund his defense based on junk science and pseudo-vitamin medicine. I shudder to imagine what would have happened if you were in Wuhan, China.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio:
"Two nurses fucked up their vaccination procedure"
More importantly - they fucked up the dilution and administration of a medicine. The fact that it happened to be a vaccine is actually irrelevant to what took place. The same mistake could have been made with any medicine that required dilution by the same incompetent nurses. On top of that, the situation would have bee resolved very quickly, only the nurses panicked and tried covering up their mistake, which is what led to the idiot brigade picking up on it as a cause.
But, here's the thing to remember - while the 2 deaths caused by bad administration of the vaccine are tragic, it's led to convictions, apologies and studies and introspection from the medical community as to how to prevent such things in the future. Yet, the toll from the measles outbreak is much greater - 83 deaths and nearly 6,000 known illnesses caused mainly by people being convinced to avoid vaccines. I've never heard a single anti-vaxxer even admit they caused problems, let alone these deaths.
Therein lies the difference. When faced with claims about problems with vaccines, the medical community perform full investigations, evaluate the facts and take common sense action based on the evidence. When faced with unproven claims about vaccines, these psychopaths take action that directly cause injuries and deaths, then claim that any attempt to address those is a conspiracy. I think I'll stick with the former for my info on this stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Ever
I and someone else already presented an argument months ago about this. Neither you nor anyone else made any attempt to refute us. If you consider what we offered earlier to be “nothing”, what is the problem, and why didn’t you point this out way earlier.
Again, this was supposed to be settled a long time ago. If you consider my argument weak, I don’t really care. You haven’t offered anything better, anyways. It’s all been information from unreliable sources and/or sources that don’t support your claims, and your current arguments were already discussed a long time ago and offer absolutely nothing new to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Vaccine Injuries Ratio: One for Ever
Your inability to read =/= "bhull has nothing"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Children's Health Defense
Please see (the wikipedia page)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Health_Defense] on that organization. It sued NYC regarding mandatory vaccines, and its brief (according to the judge) amounted to "unsupported, bald faced opinion".
If CHD was a reliable source, they'd have brought verifiable fact to the court. They did not.
As one AC to another, do your flipping research before you put your opinions in print.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, aside from their claims that vaccines cause autism, they have also lied and claimed that RF signals cause all kinds of health issues. Despite the fact that the RF from technology that people are exposed to on a regular basis is typically less than what they are exposed to from, oh, say, sunshine and cosmic background radiation.
If RF radiation from your phone was THAT dangerous, the sun would have wiped out humanity centuries ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The vaccine safety report that the lie industry doesn't want you to read
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Empty Stroller Memorial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URqF_0MFdgE&feature=youtu.be
Empty Stroller Memorial on the Capital Steps in Mississippi
Vax Not
Published on Mar 4, 2020
Parents in Mississippi placed their empty strollers on the Capital steps with notes stating how many days following vaccination there child died. Parents were there to support the effort to reinstate the religious exemption to vaccination that Mississippi removed several years ago.
Search - "empty stroller" vaccines
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Empty Stroller Memorial
Oh dear Lord… Where do I start?
Well, first of all, as we’ve stated multiple times here, the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, and correlation does not prove causation. This doesn’t constitute proof that vaccines cause deaths in infants at all, let alone the uncontested fact that vaccines—at least on very rare occasions—cause deaths. It certainly doesn’t constitute proof that death-by-vaccine is sufficiently common to avoid vaccinations without more.
Second, none of those infants’ deaths constitute a reason for a religious exemption from vaccines. It shows nothing about religious beliefs at all. If vaccines are so dangerous, why does someone’s religion matter? The implied premise does not demonstrate the conclusion.
Look, children die, sometimes soon after a vaccine. That does not prove that they died from the vaccine, that vaccine-caused deaths are sufficiently common and nonmitigateable to make their risks outweigh their benefits, or that there is a good reason to allow for religious exemptions from vaccines. Nothing about this story is remotely persuasive. Honestly, while I feel bad for these parents’ losses, I also think that they are being incredibly ignorant, and I find their stories are insufficient to change my claims or beliefs in the slightest or to support the legislation they want.
Finally, can you just let it go!? This comment section is already ridiculously long, this discussion has already gone on for far too long a period of time, and absolutely no one here who wasn’t already part of the anti-vaxxer movement has ever found any of the anti-vaccine arguments made here to be remotely persuasive or convincing in the slightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Empty Stroller Memorial
One of the problems with people who believe in things like science and evidence is that we're generally above emotional stunts like the above. Maybe that needs to change. Instead of cherry-picked half-truths aimed at ensuring more kids die, we need to borrow their tactics. Respond with a similar stunt, but show the number of empty baby items left by the kids who died of smallpox, polio, measles, etc. over a similar time period before vaccines were available. Follow that up with the iron lungs and wheelchairs needed by the kids who survived but were permanently crippled.
I'm sure they'd still find some way to deny it, but I guarantee the picture would be a lot more crowded than what they showed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FOI for CDC Autism studies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS4_jN4j-so&feature=youtu.be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
That the CDC doesn’t have those studies doesn’t mean the studies don’t exist.
The burden of proof is on those who assert that vaccines do cause autism. There are no published and unretracted studies that do so (or even demonstrate the possibility of such).
The person talking doesn’t understand how studies actually work. There have been many studies into whether vaccines can or do cause autism. They have either disproven that a particular theory for causation is plausible or were unable to find sufficient evidence to support a claim that vaccine use does or could cause autism. Strictly speaking, neither of these sets of studies technically would include studies that, individually, disprove the claim that vaccines could somehow cause autism. However, taken as a whole, they could still be taken as evidence that they do not cause autism because, even after a lot of testing, we have yet to find any evidence they do and have ruled out pretty much every suggested theory of causation thus far.
Autism is generally difficult to impossible to be detected prior to 6 months old, so it’d be rather challenging to determine whether a particular infant had autism prior to the vaccines given at that age or developed it later. That said, it’s highly unlikely given that there is no known plausible theory of causation for infants (or anyone else) to develop autism from any vaccine, and there is still no evidence to prove that they do, could, or even might cause autism. Again, the burden of proof is on the ones claiming causation here.
There isn’t even any known correlation between vaccines and autism that would suggest possible causation. Sure, both have been on the rise for years, but the rise of each started independently of each other (at the time diagnosed autism began rising, there was no change in which vaccines were used, who was using them, or in any practices regarding vaccines, and no change in vaccine use, rate of change in vaccine use, or makeup has coincided with a change in the rate at which people have been diagnosed with autism), and the rise of diagnosed autism can easily be attributed to better understanding and knowledge of autism.
I continue to be greatly offended by the idea that some people would rather their children (and any children near them who are unable to be vaccinated) suffer from a fairly dangerous (possibly even fatal) disease that is easily preventable rather than risk the possibility of their children possibly develop autism, a far less serious condition and one which can actually be useful. It’s even more offensive given that there is no evidence to suggest such a risk actually exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Honestly, I'd rather you didn't give these videos any views, especially when this jackass can't even be bothered to support the link. But, point 6 is the most annoying here. Whatever else these people are saying, they are literally saying that they would rather their child be killed, blinded, crippled or suffer other horrifying consequences from preventable disease than risk them being anywhere on the spectrum. That's sick, even if there were an actual link.
These people are not only delusional, but the best case scenario is still that they're monsters even if they were somehow correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Agreed on all counts. TBH, I didn’t actually watch the whole video, or any of it, really. I just looked it up via search, confirmed the URLs match, and then addressed the primary argument from the description (or something like that). It’s a workaround that lets me figure out what point they’re trying to make but doesn’t add any views… or at least it wouldn’t have had I not then accidentally clicked the link when trying to click “reply to this”! Whoops!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
And yes, I also believe that point 6 is definitely the most aggravating part of this whole thing. When they argue about whether or not vaccines cause nerve damage, severe allergic reactions, or death and do so frequently enough to be a significant issue, at least we can all agree that those allegations—if true—would be perfectly good reasons to question whether vaccines are truly worth the price, even if what they’re claiming is exaggerated or unproven at best and often completely wrong. The whole autism thing is just plain insulting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
You are mistaking. I think you should look in the above comments because people have provided many, many studies on vaccines and autism. I think you should also go and watch the FULL hour plus episode of the HIGHWIRE video because you made some points that were deeply flawed. So many that it would take me an hour to type out. Maybe if you watch the whole thing you would understand better. But only if you care to get to the bottom of the declining health in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Maybe you should read the comments, because those claims were already refuted. Every single peer-reviewed study into potential links between vaccine and autism that was published in a respected medical journal or similar outlet and was not later retracted has failed to find any evidence of any possible link at all between vaccines and autism, let alone a causal one. Additionally, many particular possible theories of causation have explicitly been proven false or even impossible. We addressed the studies you mentioned; each of them either did not actually support the hypothesis that there is a link between vaccines and autism, did not go pass through peer-review or get published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, was later retracted, or were otherwise problematic. So no, there aren’t any studies that actually demonstrate such a link. We already discussed this. Why you think I didn’t read those comments despite the fact that you can just as easily find my replies to those comments is beyond me.
You have also not convinced me that vaccines causing autism is indicative in any way of declining health, nor have you established that health in the US is, in fact, declining at all (the coronavirus notwithstanding, in part because that has no connection to vaccines or autism), nor that such a decline could not be explained by the fact that vaccination rates are in decline in some parts of the US, nor that such a decline is, in fact, caused by vaccine use rather than some other factor wholly unrelated to vaccines. Basically, you haven’t given me a reason to think there’s anything to get to the bottom of or that there’s even a reasonable possibility that what’s at the bottom even involves problems with vaccines.
Also, if you are unwilling to spend an hour typing out an actual rebuttal, why in the world should I have to watch an hour-long video to find whatever flaws you think are in my argument? I only made roughly 7 points to begin with, and you say that only some of the points I made are deeply flawed, so why would it take an hour for you to type out a rebuttal? It took me less than fifteen minutes to actually type out those points. That you can’t be bothered to actually address anything I said isn’t my problem.
Finally, since when is Highwire a reliable source about medical information?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Seriously, though, even if there is a link, I find it offensive that you consider autism to be a bigger problem than the diseases vaccines are meant to prevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
Right, it couldn't possibly be poor nutrition habits, a shot education system or heavily sedentary lifestyle, obviously it must have been the one jab that prevented you from getting shingles as an adult.What's next? Vaccines caused the 1906 San Andreas Fault earthquake?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
"I think you should also go and watch the FULL hour plus episode of the HIGHWIRE video"
This is why you people have zero credibility. You insist others waste an hour of their time on a source you've not proven to be trustworthy, but fail to offer any reason to do this.
Sorry dude, the rest of use will read reliable scientific reports that take less time while conveying more accurate information.
"But only if you care to get to the bottom of the declining health in the US."
The cause for this is the high cost and low coverage of healthcare access, combined with a gullible population easily swayed by woo and red scare merchants.
You demanding that formerly eradicated diseases be reintroduced to your children because some random YouTuber told you something is part of the second problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
I do love it when you people resort to posting random uncited YouTube videos. It's a sign either that you're so tired of having your ass handed to you when you make specific assertions that you just want to make them waste time trawling through video instead of text, or a sign that you're so stupid that this is how you got your information in the first place.
Since you didn't attempt to state why the video you posted is relevant or why the person who made it has credibility, I will return the favour and give it the amount of views it thus deserves - zero. I hope others reading your desperate distraction give it the same amount of attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: FOI for CDC Autism studies
It's an explicit admission by them that they're utterly incapable of evaluating the integrity of sources. (which is a large part of why they're an antivaxxer in the first place)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CDC vaccine and autism
https://www.icandecide.org/ican_lawsuits/stipulated-order-proving-cdc-has-no-studies-to-support-clai m-that-vaccines-given-in-first-6-months-of-life-do-not-cause-autism/
This is a big win for us! If the CDC keeps telling Americans that "vaccines don't cause autism" then they will be sued in federal court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDC vaccine and autism
Yeah, that’s not how it works. Again, without evidence to prove otherwise, we assume that vaccines don’t cause autism. Plus, what would even be the cause of action here? Besides, the law doesn’t have any say in scientific facts. Vaccines don’t cause autism.
Lastly, how is this a “big win” for anyone other than the lawyers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDC vaccine and autism
This only proves that anivaxxers have nothing for their side than basic fallacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDC vaccine and autism
Please, by all means, put your money where your mouth is and publicize yourselves.
That way when the parents, angry that their kids contracted measles because of your shitty advice, need to look who's responsible - they'll finally have a name and address to a face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CDC vaccine and autism
Please, sue them for not proving a negative. Hopefully that means you'll be forced to admit you have no evidence to support your own argument, and the burden of proof means you have to do that in order to have a case.
You'd maybe understand this sort of thing if you spent less time watching hour-long YouTube videos and more time reading up on the basics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, this isn't a win for you and you are greatly twisting what happened.
ICAN submitted a FOIA request for the following: "All studies relied upon by CDC to claim that the DTaP, HepB, Hib, PCV13 and IPV vaccines do not cause autism". (emphasis mine)
Some typical bureaucratic nonsense then followed and finally the CDC said basically this: "We don't have any specific studies for the specific vaccines you mentioned showing they don't cause autism, but based on these studies of all these OTHER vaccines that have shown they don't cause autism, we have no reason to believe the ones you listed cause autism either".
And remember, a lack of studies studying whether these vaccines cause autism, is not evidence that they do. It just means those specific vaccines haven't been studied. And based on statistics and other data, there is no evidence to suggest they do and therefore no reason to engage in what is likely a pointless study that will waste time and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
These antivax scammers are just pulling the "show me the missing link fossils between the ones you just found or else evolution is fake!" bullshit of their fellow cultist zealots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Viruses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viruses
"Explain to me, please, if a virus is NOT ALIVE"
Erm, viruses are alive, although this can be the subject of some debate.
"NOT an ANIMAL"
Fungi and plants aren't animals either, but they are alive.
"the precise mechanism of how it finds, attaches itself to, and starts replicating in, a cell"
Is Google down where you are?
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/virus-human.htm
"Perhaps viruses are part of the immune system"
Why would an invading organism be part of the host it's invading, let alone part of the mechanism that fights said invaders off?
"(Chicken or egg first?)"
Egg. The first organism that could be identified as a chicken must logically have hatched from an egg.
"How can you make a vaccine for parts of a dead bit of DNA/RNA?"
I won't Google for you this time, but did you ever consider that if you typed your dumbass questions into a search engine rather than a comment thread, you'd get educated on the subject much more quickly?
"Where is the HIV vaccine given that HIV has been around for decades?"
In development. Unfortunately, science is an ongoing process and simple will to create such a thing does not make it magically appear. These things take time, but perhaps if more people supported medical science than "questioning" everything they do, it would be a quicker process?
"Or SARS-CoV1 vaccine?"
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00533741
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Viruses
Now that death tolls from the coronavirus are rising, it must suck to be an anti-vaxxer. Their rhetoric can't be holding up very well when people are literally dying - so they've moved on from calling people idiots (well, at least a little) to trying to throw fear around the science involved.
I have no idea what the whole "alive" shit is supposed to prove. Cyanide sure as fuck isn't alive but it definitely will kill the fucker if he swallows some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Viruses
This really depends on your definition of “alive”. Most biologists define “organism” (and, by extension, alive) using several factors, including the ability to reproduce (at least as a species) without the assistance of another organism (with some other caveats, details, and exceptions not relevant to species that reproduce asexually like most microorganisms). Viruses cannot create new viruses on their own, requiring another organism (or, in a few cases, another, larger virus) to make copies of it for it. As such, technically viruses aren’t organisms, meaning they aren’t technically alive.
Still, most would say that viruses are alive (they can die and have a genetic code that can be replicated to produce new viruses), and it’s really just semantics we’d be arguing. It also has nothing to do with vaccines or any of the other things you talk about, really.
Also irrelevant, but basically, the way “animal” is defined includes some factors that wouldn’t apply to viruses, including the aforementioned ability (or inability) to reproduce itself. That said, not being an animal isn’t the same thing as not being alive by any definition. Plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria are all alive, and none of them are animals. Some (but not all) of each are also capable of causing disease and/or otherwise harming humans, are single-cellular and microscopic, and/or can be treated and/or prevented with medication or similar treatments, much like viruses. They are also perfectly capable of reproducing.
Seriously, I have no idea why it matters that viruses aren’t animals.
PaulT gives a resource that explains this already, so I’ll just summarize the relevant facts involved:
A virus finds a cell (hereinafter “the host”) and either injects its genetic materials and possibly some proteins into the host from the outside or enters the host. then injects genetic material into some organelle directly. Afterwards, the virus dies and/or leaves the host, no longer playing a direct role in the process.
The injected materials essentially “reprogram” the host to begin producing numerous copies of the virus, replicating the DNA or RNA as well as the proteins that make up the virus. (This involves modifying the genetic code of the host.) The host then does so.
I know this is far from a detailed explanation, but it helps provide a basis for subsequent answers, and PaulT already gave a decent answer anyways. Importantly, none of that requires the virus to be “alive”, per se. In fact, it’s the reason why some consider viruses not to be “alive”, at least in the scientific sense of the word, in the first place. So, I guess I’m confused about why this is confusing you. That it lacks one quality of being “alive” (in at least one sense of the word) doesn’t mean it lacks any of the other qualities. It is also irrelevant to how vaccines work, as they are meant to give our immune system the ability to recognize and kill the viruses before they can reproduce.
First, to be clear, not all viruses cause disease in humans, and not all diseases are cause by viruses. You probably already know this.
More importantly, how do we know viruses cause disease and aren’t just part of the immune system? Simple; they kill the host cells in the process of reproducing. Even if they don’t, they generally interfere with the host cells’ ability to perform necessary functions, such as reproducing themselves. In the case of diseases, these cells are part of our body, often a necessary part. This means that they are harmful to us. When something microscopic causes physiological harm to an organism, we call the harm a disease. The fact that these viruses that cause diseases in humans are targeting human cells and generally don’t target invading organisms or foreign substances any more frequently means they aren’t part of our immune system. In fact, some viruses (namely HIV) actually infect the white blood cells that comprise our immune system (in the bloodstream, at least), which is definitely not something the immune system should do.
Now, some viruses can actually be helpful, targeting harmful bacteria or even viruses. However, clearly there are viruses that cause diseases and are definitely not part of our immune system. We know this not just because of a correlation; we’ve observed the process through which these viruses cause disease.
Furthermore, with regard to the specific diseases known to be caused by specific viruses, we may also observe at least some individuals who have the virus but not the symptoms of the disease (they are asymptomatic), but never individuals with the disease but not the virus. This is consistent with the virus causing the disease but not with the disease causing the virus. Even when looking just at the correlation, this is clearly not a chicken-or-egg scenario.
Let me just start by saying that DNA/RNA in general are not and cannot—in and of themselves—be alive or dead. Most—if not all—viruses are made up of more than just their genetic material; there is something else that separates the material from the “outside” at least. Similarly, a dead virus generally includes more than just DNA/RNA, but I suppose that can work.
Second, all a vaccine needs to do is prepare the immune system to fight off a specific virus. Given how our immune system works, this often basically just involves introducing a dead, inert, or weakened version of the virus to act as an example (like a target dummy or a photo) to allow the white blood cells to recognize that particular virus in the future. Depending on the virus, I suppose it’s possible to do this using just the genetic code, but it generally involves more than that. It doesn’t really take that much for the white blood cells to recognize the virus in the future, though bare genetic material may not be stable enough to be able to get to where the immune system can recognize it in the first place. Exactly how much of the virus is needed to get the best effect, what else might be needed, how to get the dead/inert/weak versions, etc. vary between viruses, which is one reason why designing vaccines takes some time.
Regarding HIV, that virus directly targets the immune system, so just training the immune system to recognize it (which is basically all that vaccines do) wouldn’t really work very well. Vaccines work only when your immune system has at least some minimal ability to fight off diseases in general. (How much is needed varies depending on the virus.) Since HIV targets the immune system specifically and directly impairs the immune system’s ability to fight off anything, a traditional vaccine wouldn’t really do anything. Something else is needed. There is an HIV vaccine in development, but it's not nearly as simple or fast as most vaccines would be.
As for SARS/CoV1, PaulT provides a hyperlink to info on that. I’ll just point out that the disease and virus were only discovered relatively recently and didn’t really spread much beyond China’s borders, so the need for a vaccine wasn’t as urgent here as for a vaccine for the Swine Flu or COVID-19.
Basically, how vaccines work is kinda like architecture or rocket science: the fundamentals are simple, but there are a bunch of complicated details that need to be factored in in order to actually create something that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clueless editorial non-medical verbiage
How many DIE from vaxx?
How many in India GOT POLIO from Vaxx in last decades? WHO will tell you.
You do not have any clue how dangerous or not Vaccines are and that is because they have been dodging mandated testing.
but your un-medical editorial board does not know that seemingly. you know what CNN and the WHO and CDC tell you.
pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: clueless editorial non-medical verbiage
What impresses me is that even after a long winded, long dead conversation where every one of you laughable idiots got shot down, here you are 4 months after the last comment on the thread and you haven't even bothered trying to make yourself look literate, let alone knowledgeable.
Keep it up! So long as you disease enthusiasts continue to act in this way, you will introduce no new death dealers into your cult!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm personally more impressed he thought that the "I know something you don't know" approach was actually going to work. You would think the crowd that constantly, consistently claims that WHO stats are wrong would be able to point to alternative statistics, inasmuch those stats are very heavily cherrypicked and exaggerated.
But nah, David here has opted for the "I'm going to assume you're all WHO sheeple and instead of trying to correct you, clearly mocking you for your ignorance over and over again is the best way to win you over" method... because reasons!
It's funny he decided bringing up polio in India as an example, though, because India used to be heavily polio'ed before the vaccine came along, not that this dumbass will admit to that. Honestly with COVID levels in the country as high as they are, they're easily racing to US infection levels, and that's not a competition anyone should be winning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, facts are not on the side of these people. So, the next best solution is to pretend that all known facts are part of some conspiracy of misinformation, and the random YouTubers he gets his information from are just trying to tell people the "real" facts that are being suppressed by the conspiracy.
"It's funny he decided bringing up polio in India as an example"
Not really. It is true that there have been some faulty vaccine batches that have caused some regrettable problems. So, this becomes one of the few verifiable facts available to them, and while normal people would view the larger picture and see that even this risk is preferable to leaving the disease unchecked and demands even higher standards for vaccine manufacture to be in place, it becomes a lynchpin of their conspiracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's all the more tragic when you think about it. Vaccine safety is something worthwhile, but upon sitting down with one of these rubes it becomes clear that that's not what they're campaigning for.
"We should question the drug companies!"
"Okay, let's demand even stricter standards for vaccines."
"Nah, I think we'll tell everyone not to vaccinate and scream at the idiots who already did instead."
I hesitate to even call it a lynchpin of their conspiracy because they literally do nothing to demand and fight for the greater security that they claim is missing. They'd rather insult everybody like edgy 4chan teenagers who think Nazi swastikas in HabboHotel was funny as shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It comes down to whether or not you're able to apply logic to actual facts. Anti-vaxxers lack both of these.
These are the kinds of people who assume that these diseases aren't really deadly (because they and everyone else in their generation was vaccinated for them), and so would rather let them thrive rather than risk the much tinier problem of negative reactions to the vaccines. If only it were they and not their children and their peers who would suffer I'd say let them at it, but as I say they're almost certainly vaccinated themselves so it's not they who are going to be blinded by measles, put into an iron lung by polio, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
A large difference exists between a mere questioning of the efficacy and safety of vaccines—which is fine and proper and scientific, even—and anti-vaxxers pushing the dangerous idea that vaccines are inherently and improbably more dangerous to everyone than the diseases those vaccines mean to prevent. You not being able to see that difference is a personal problem; good luck in solving it.
made the Last Word by Gary