Cake
  • Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Yet you cannot claim vaccines are 100 percent safe and this is what we keep hearing day in and day out. Two Merck scientists filed lawsuit in 2010 against Merck for falsification of MMR efficacy. The lawsuit hasn’t yet been dismissed yet you don’t hear about it in mainstream media.

      US military ship has been recently quarantined and cannot get to any port due to its mumps outbreak on board despite all personnel having been vaccinated. Why don’t we hear about this in the news? Maybe because it means that even 100 percent vaccination rate doesn’t guarantee immunity from disease. And getting mumps as adults is way more problematic than getting it as a kid.

      CDC gets 4.9 bln out of their 11 bln budget from selling vaccines. Isn’t that a conflict of interest? Who has patient’s interest in mind when so much money are at stake?

      Would you buy a car from a manufacturer if you know this manufacturer cannot be sued in case of your car’s malfunctioning? If vaccines are 100 percent safe, why did Congress provide vaccine manufacturers complete immunity from lawsuits in 1986? How about getting rid of this clause since their vaccines are safe and efficient and only one in a million can ever have a reaction. If this is so, you wouldn’t need immunity from lawsuits.

      I now understand why it is called herd immunity. They relate to people believing in vaccine safety as if it is a religion. In true science you continue questioning, you never settle especially when so many unknown causes of auto immune diseases and neurological disorders are among younger generation, when this generation for the first time in recent history is expected to have shorter life span than their parents. Despite very high immunization rates, we have the sickest kids. Look at school statistics and check how many kids now have special needs and aides assigned to them. While there are unanswered questions, we have to look everywhere. When we compare vaccines we received as children, it is like comparing apples and oranges. I got maybe three or four vaccines as a child with no more than 12 doses which were well spread. Today’s kids get 65 doses on average with the first dosage administered at the age of few hours after birth and usually 3 to 4 vaccines at a time.

      Now think just logically. Let’s say you got a small pox vaccine in the past. Your body recognized this as a pathogen and got programmed to fight it. It got one and only. I am sure even then were people who reacted adversely but maybe majority benefited from it.

      Now kids get 3-4 vaccines at a time with various pathogens plus adjuvants. The body’s immune system isn’t designed to fight multiple diseases plus adjuvants (unnatural for us) all at once. On top of it, vaccines are nowadays administered even when you fighting cold or flu (in the past it was not allowed), so the body is already fighting some virus. As a result, it often overloads immune system and if you are lucky you develop allergies and if not so lucky, some other severe conditions.

      Just study vaccine inserts, they are available online and see what you think about ingredients. Would you give your baby formaldehyde in formula? How about aluminum, bovine serum, polysorbate 80? Maybe you will be ok with that, but somehow for me it is a big no-no. Even vaccine inserts require that a pediatrician discuss associated risks with parents, yet I was never offered this information.

    • I'm probably one of the last few people who are still following this conversation, but I think it might be time for me to give up on it.

      All of this purely anecdotal stuff, all the references to outdated, taken-out-of-context or potentially even forged studies, all the "look up this information that I'm only hinting at but not providing a link" schtick - it is getting a bit old, to be honest.

      In other news, I got a measles and a hepatitis vaccination last week. I'm still alive. Hooray for science!

    • All of this purely anecdotal stuff, all the references to outdated, taken-out-of-context or potentially even forged studies, all the "look up this information that I'm only hinting at but not providing a link" schtick - it is getting a bit old, to be honest.

      I was also tempted to respond to this conversation, @Factotum . Because like you I feel frustrated for the same reasons. Your response captured exactly my feelings about what this discussion has devolved into. Every time Chris patiently responds with facts to a false or misleading statement, his response feels glossed over and five new statements are made with no support to back up the claims.

      There is a wonderful author by the name of Steven Hassan and he writes about cults and fringe groups: he was high up in the leadership of the Moonies and so speaks with authority of the manipulative practices that such groups engage in to maintain compliance and acceptance of the group beliefs.

      One of the biggest challenges in getting someone out of a group is the “vacuum” caused if they leave. If the life they will return to is worse than the group, such as family sexual abuse, they will stay in the group. Similarly, if they leave the group then they have to accept all the harm they caused while in the group. That’s why getting someone to change their anti-vaccine views is so hard: if they decide that they were wrong, then they are also having to admit that they harmed their child by not vaccinating.

      I will continue to follow this conversation because I view it through that lense and find it fascinating. I also find some of the comments made alarming, but that doesn’t reduce my curiosity.

    • So I read the 215 page FOIA. The first thing that jumps out is it's from the 70s when mothers like mine were terrified of measles. A lot of parents had been losing children to it recently (chart below). The FDA was under pressure in those days to do fast approvals (like the agencies are now for cancer), hence only 875 children tested. But they were led by different credible teams like in Children's Hospital Philadelphia. The 8 independent studies were consistent, not done by pharma, and those doctors had no reason to falsify data.

      It's true the upper respiratory infection rate was high post vaccines but from what I can tell it was the normal rate independent of vaccinations for the time and places these tests took place. There were various other complaints like teething, but I don't think anyone thought the vaccines were causing common colds or teething problems.

      It's actually a pretty confidence-inspiring read. We have a modern example of nothing-to-see-here (the Barr letter) but then you read the actual report and get a different picture. This seems to be the reverse. I wonder how many people actually read it.

      I also wonder why it's a thing 50 years later that only 875 children were represented. We've since collected data on millions of vaccinations.

    • Yet you cannot claim vaccines are 100 percent safe and this is what we keep hearing day in and day out.

      By coincidence, I am at an MIT brain science conference this weekend. All the attendees seem to be researchers from MIT, Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Oxford who specialize in disorders like Alzheimer's, Parkinsons, autism, ALS and epilepsy. It's a great group and I'm loving all the tech and science going into it. They're making some pretty good progress in understanding some of the diseases and figuring out prevention and treatment.

      There are many influences on these diseases but the one that's completely absent from the discussion is vaccines. The focus is on genes and environment. These are Phd students, post-docs, professors, Nobel Prize winners — not pharma — many of them funded by philanthropists like the Gates. If they felt there was anything there with vaccines, they would be the first to say so.

    • From an ad in The New Yorker Magazine for the Chernobyl miniseries on HBO.

      What was, in the case of Chernobyl, a steady stream of propaganda from a monolithic source is echoed (and, perhaps, intensified) in today’s online flood of misinformation from numerous wellsprings. And though it is true that organized campaigns and automated bots play a significant role in spreading distortion, computer scientists, data analysts, and sociologists have pointed out that individual users very frequently disseminate misinformation, as they perpetuate falsehoods by creating media, sharing with informal friend networks, and re-posting unverified claims. The subjects of science and health are particularly ripe for such trickle-down misinterpretation: just as ordinary Soviets remained unaware of the workings of the plant in particular, and of the potential danger posed by radioactive facilities in particular, most of today’s Internet users have only a basic understanding of complex scientific topics.

    • Yet you cannot claim vaccines are 100 percent safe

      That's true. But we all have the numbers from decades of research and millions of vaccines to say they are safer for children than eating or riding bicycles.

      We also know from overwhelming data that not feeding or vaccinating children leads to grotesque consequences.

      And yet, all children who get autism are diagnosed not long after eating, so by the very same logic we use for vaccines, eating should be a prime suspect as a cause for autism.

    • The public seems to believe vaccines are profitable for the drug companies. I wish they were. With a few exceptions like the HPV vaccine, they're not even profitable in wealthy countries, making them impossible to develop in poor ones.

      On top of that, anyone trying to save children's lives through vaccines has to face a deluge of attacks:

    • I am just curious about vaccine ingredients and whether you would give them to your children in their food, for example.

      I don’t need to be told about vaccine safety. I was vaccinated as a child and so were my kids until they developed reactions. I also was a believer in vaccine safety and never cared to study this subject further. That’s why, those who kids suffered after being vaccinated will no longer buy arguments about 100 percent safety and mandatory vaccination for all.

    • I am just curious about vaccine ingredients and whether you would give them to your children in their food, for example.

      Be more specific, please. What "vaccine ingredients" are we talking about, and in what quantity are they delivered via vaccine vs. their typical daily intake?

      Most often, there's some hype about one or another aluminum compound used as an adjuvant in vaccines. Last time I checked, a typical dose of a vaccine contained about ~1/10 of what a typical human adult digested of that stuff, daily, anyway.

      Combine this with the fact that most vaccines happen once or twice in a lifetime, and others perhaps once in a decade. Subtract a bit to account for the fact that children aren't adults, and the result will still be that this doesn't matter at all, in the grand scheme of things.

      Would I want my kid to constantly lick the aluminum lid of a microwave dish that has been in contact with acids and salt for a lengthy amount of time? Hell no! Does it matter if my kid does this once at the age of three and then never again in their live? Most likely not! Would I actually ask my kid to lick the lid once in their life if it also increased their health in other, otherwise unrelated aspects? You bet I would!

    • One day many will realize that vaccine manufacturers lied about safety

      This comment has been bothering me for a few days. I'm in a parallel conversation on another site where we're debating whether the earth is flat or round. Because I'm a geophysicist who spent some of my career analyzing satellite data, I have no credibility in the conversation and I'm considered a liar involved in a coverup. Same as NASA scientists and astronauts.

      I can take being called a liar because of my work in geophysics, but it kills me to see the angels who have devoted their lives to developing vaccines for diseases like ebola and malaria to save untold lives thought of liars. Many of them are wonderful mothers just like you, and they have devoted their lives because they personally witnessed unthinkable suffering and death.

      Unlike any of us in this conversation that I know of, they have spent a decade or two or three fully immersed in the data, science and with the families of the victims.

    • Smallpox used to kill millions of people - Estimates are that 300 million to 500 milion people died of smallpox in the 20th century. The World Health Organization estimated that as many as 15 million people contracted smallpox in1967, and 2 million of them died in 1967. In December 1979 Smallpox was verified as eradicated from the globe by the World Health Organisation, by vaccination, as there are no non-human hosts for Smallpox virus. No one is vaccinated for smallpox anymore anywhere because smallpox no longer occurs.

      In 2011 rinderpest was announced to no longer be present on Earth due to vaccination by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation.  The human measles virus is thought to have emerged from rinderpest virus between 1000 and 1100 AD

      The complete elimination of small pox and rinderpest are true miracles - million and millions of lives and dollars saved, every year, on into eternity.

      Most of modern medicine is concerned with helping one person at a time recover from illness or disease. Vaccination allows whole populations of humans to never fall ill to an illness, that might indeed be disabling or even fatal to some of the population.

      Some vaccinations do carry some risk and are only suggested by the medical community to folks known to be at serious risk - rabies comes to mind. There is NO CURE for rabies in humans, but humans vaccinated for rabies in a timely manner almost always survive without complications, as opposed to dying a horrible death AND exposing all of their health care personelle with the risk of exposure to rabies.

    • that is totally your right and no one takes it away from you. You can vaccinate any way you like and as many times as you like. You choose to take this risk because for you benefit outweighs the risk. For me benefit no longer outweighs the risk as my kid gets further damaged. I do not need to be told about safety for others, I am making decision given that my kid shows reactions to vaccines. Even according to vaccine insert, it is a contraindication and further vaccination should be either stopped or used with caution. My pediatrician advises against it given our particular situation. I don’t believe in one fit all approach and I don’t attack others who vaccinate. After all I was one of them.

    • Chris, it is hurtful and insulting for me to read when you compare a valid argument about safety of a pharmaceutical product with the Earth being flat or round. When people run out of arguments, they often attack a character or intelligence of an opponent and that is some low tactics. This starts to feel like cyber bullying.

    • I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as a personal insult. I'm so involved with people who believe the flat earth theory that I'm very used to them wanting to be taken seriously, just as you expect to be taken seriously. They have an annual convention, they do scientific experiments, their numbers are booming, they have podcasts and videos, and they even have a cruise scheduled for this year to travel to the edge. Most of them agree with you wrt vaccinations and expect to be taken seriously about that too.

      The point I was trying to make is there are parallels in the way of thinking between both camps: the mainstream press won't cover their point of view, governments and companies are lying, the only way to get the truth is via alternative sources, they get attacked for their views.

    • From the article: Cervical cancer is NOT a public health threat.

      My mother died of cervical cancer. It took about 3 years and was a cruel way to go.

      Reading through that article, it looks like it's made up by an unknown source, at least to me. @tornadik , who are they?

      It looks like something @Pathfinder could investigate and report. Maybe YouTube would take down the video if they knew about it. My mother had schizophrenia and had no defenses against made up stuff like that.

    • I am just curious about vaccine ingredients and whether you would give them to your children in their food, for example.

      Interesting you were also curious about vaccine ingredients on March 16th.

      How many of you would buy baby food that has formaldehyde, aluminum and lead and feed that to your beautiful, healthy baby?

      And then on the same day @Chris took the time to basically explain to you what @Factotum reiterated today.

      The dose of aluminum salt in a vaccine of less than 1 mg is so small it can't be measured in blood or urine tests. It's microscopic in scope since we get so few vaccines compared to the aluminum we take in every day.  (Source: Post #128)

      You never responded to Chris’s explanation that disputed your claims. And then seven weeks later you are again raising the exact same claims.

      It’s almost as if you are just repeating the same talking points that your group tells you. And then completely ignoring evidence that disputes it. I don’t think Chris is ignoring your evidence: I was gobsmacked beyond belief when he said that he had read a 215 page FDA study from 50 years ago because you said it was evidence worth reading.

    • I was surprised I read the 215-page report too! I was at the brain conference and one of the speakers, Joi Ito, head of MIT’s Media Lab, whom I respect greatly, argued for how important history and philosophy classes are in science education. Historians understand context.

      So I thought huh. I got fascinated by the context of the FDA approval and tried to put myself in the context of parents and researchers in the early 70s. So I had to read about the period and fortunately at the conference I could talk to researchers and psychologists who were there then.

      The context is parents were terrorized by diseases like measles then, but vaccines are victims of their own success because no one in America sees their children die of measles anymore. They do in countries where the Taliban kills medical workers who administer vaccines.

    • Chris, it is hurtful and insulting for me to read when you compare a valid argument about safety of a pharmaceutical product with the Earth being flat or round.

      The thing is: you might not experience it this way, but both are very similar when looking at them from the outside. In both cases, you have:

      > overwhelming scientific evidence for one thing ("the earth is round"; "vaccines are safe").

      > people in closed groups arguing the opposite ("the earth is flat"; "vaccines kill people").

      > the same people dismissing expert opinions exactly because they are experts ("NASA is part of the conspiracy"; "big pharma just wants to make money"). Actually, as this conversation shows, no amount of reasoning at all really gets through.

      > the whole thing leading to splits in society and a general distrust towards science, in the democratic process and even between random people in general.

      > most of it playing out on "social media", where no one knows what bad actor might actually be responsible for the whole thingamajig:

      (part 3 of a series, you should really also watch parts 1 and 2: https://youtu.be/1PGm8LslEb4 https://youtu.be/V-1RhQ1uuQ4)

      So, while I'm definitely not here to deliberately insult or "troll" you - if you absolutely must feel insulted and want to pretend to be some sort of victim here, I really don't care.

      When people run out of arguments, they often attack a character or intelligence of an opponent and that is some low tactics. This starts to feel like cyber bullying.

      This, however, is just an annoyingly tone-deaf thing to say in a conversation with currently 171 posts, many of which are valid counter-arguments to your claims. It shows that you are not actually interested in discussing things with an open mind.