| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 18:17 - Apr 5 with 1163 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 09:12 - Apr 5 by StokieBlue |
It was removed from use in 1977 when concerns were raised so I'm not really sure it supports your point.
If anything it shows that science is able to change it's mind, something dogma or conspiracy isn't able to do.
Correct me if this is wrong but you are essentially saying every possible thing should be known about a drug or treatment before it is used - this is clearly impossible and making points using hindsight isn't really relevant.
SB |
How long was it used prior to 1977?
Your final paragraph suggests that you are accepting that, at best, experts are making a best possible guess on outcomes. I can't help but feel that the profit motive might cloud how informed these guesses are especially when so many regulators are 'captured' (see banking and Boeing/American aviation regulator).
Recognition that the pro vaccine stance isn't as clear cut as some make out is all I am looking for......another type of herd dynamic!
The very last sentence seems to say that if in hindsight time reveals unexpected consequences of vaccines, then the makers and those pushing them would be blameless.
....an aside, my daughter has also developed symptoms coinciding with her first HPV vaccine, we are unsure about her having the second one to say the least. |  |
|  |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 18:39 - Apr 5 with 1146 views | StokieBlue |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 18:17 - Apr 5 by BanksterDebtSlave |
How long was it used prior to 1977?
Your final paragraph suggests that you are accepting that, at best, experts are making a best possible guess on outcomes. I can't help but feel that the profit motive might cloud how informed these guesses are especially when so many regulators are 'captured' (see banking and Boeing/American aviation regulator).
Recognition that the pro vaccine stance isn't as clear cut as some make out is all I am looking for......another type of herd dynamic!
The very last sentence seems to say that if in hindsight time reveals unexpected consequences of vaccines, then the makers and those pushing them would be blameless.
....an aside, my daughter has also developed symptoms coinciding with her first HPV vaccine, we are unsure about her having the second one to say the least. |
"I can't help but feel that the profit motive might cloud"
Isn't this the issue though. That is your first thought about virtually every subject due to your personal beliefs. It might be very valid in some cases but not all cases.
"The very last sentence seems to say that if in hindsight time reveals unexpected consequences of vaccines, then the makers and those pushing them would be blameless."
I didn't say that, I said that unknown unknowns cannot be assessed before they are known.
Sorry to hear about your daughter :(.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 18:40 - Apr 5 with 1146 views | Eireannach_gorm |
I am not sure why there is a resistance to vaccination because the percentage of of benefit falls on the having it side. Of course there is no such thing 100% vaccine and all interventions into human biology have complex and unpredictable outcomes.
I would like to challenge your suggestion that vaccination is not a good thing. Going through the links, I have a few observations. From the first link: The school had an enrolment of 2098 students, there were 27 cases of Measles (1.3% ). This is not exactly a damning indictment of vaccination.
Second link is about a single case of one person infecting 4 others. Note the final sentence, “The most important ‘vaccine failure’ with measles happens when people refuse the vaccine in the first place.”
Third link bit you missed.'In one study, in fact, children were 35 times more likely to catch measles if they hadn’t received the MMR vaccine. The reports also confirmed that the less vaccinated a community is when measles arrives, the more people get sick.'
The waning immunity issue is not a reason not to vaccinate but it is a concern. If herd immunity was not a reality why have scourges like Polio, Tuberculosis and Smallpox been more or less eliminated? Would you consider not getting vaccinated in an Ebola outbreak?
My response to your last link is this.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pseudoscience-of-kelly-brogan/ |  | | |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 20:17 - Apr 5 with 1124 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 18:39 - Apr 5 by StokieBlue |
"I can't help but feel that the profit motive might cloud"
Isn't this the issue though. That is your first thought about virtually every subject due to your personal beliefs. It might be very valid in some cases but not all cases.
"The very last sentence seems to say that if in hindsight time reveals unexpected consequences of vaccines, then the makers and those pushing them would be blameless."
I didn't say that, I said that unknown unknowns cannot be assessed before they are known.
Sorry to hear about your daughter :(.
SB |
It really isn't my first thought. My first thought is to wonder how they model things like vaccines and potential interactions with all other medicines. I have similar thoughts about pesticides and herbicides in the environment. You are correct that I tend towards favouring the precautionary principle. I am also suspicious of the demonising of antivaccers despite having no firm opinions either way. | |
| |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 01:03 - Apr 6 with 1066 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 20:17 - Apr 5 by BanksterDebtSlave |
It really isn't my first thought. My first thought is to wonder how they model things like vaccines and potential interactions with all other medicines. I have similar thoughts about pesticides and herbicides in the environment. You are correct that I tend towards favouring the precautionary principle. I am also suspicious of the demonising of antivaccers despite having no firm opinions either way. |
It is a more reasonable and logical position to be concerned about the interaction between vaccines and other medications ( or any other substance we put in our bodies ). Vaccines are thoroughly tested on their own but consideration of outside factors are normally done. It would be impractical even impossible to test for all interactions of a vaccine/ drug and all other inputs to the human body. Over time it should be possible to refine vaccinations ( and drugs ) based on statistical evidence.
I do agree with you regarding unforeseen consequences of a cocktail of vaccines, drugs, ( processed and not ) food. As an example I use cider vinegar a lot for several health benefits. Its a natural product with many beneficial properties and it helps me with my ailments. Google it and you will see how great it is however there is also a down side.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/apple-cider-vinegar-side-effects
Look at point 7 and see the danger of combining it with medications.
My point being that once you are aware of the dangers cider vinegar is overall a beneficial product.
The only issue I have with antivaccinationeers is there seems be a conspiracy theory element in not wanting to protect your own and other peoples children. | | | |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 08:18 - Apr 6 with 1024 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 18:17 - Apr 5 by BanksterDebtSlave |
How long was it used prior to 1977?
Your final paragraph suggests that you are accepting that, at best, experts are making a best possible guess on outcomes. I can't help but feel that the profit motive might cloud how informed these guesses are especially when so many regulators are 'captured' (see banking and Boeing/American aviation regulator).
Recognition that the pro vaccine stance isn't as clear cut as some make out is all I am looking for......another type of herd dynamic!
The very last sentence seems to say that if in hindsight time reveals unexpected consequences of vaccines, then the makers and those pushing them would be blameless.
....an aside, my daughter has also developed symptoms coinciding with her first HPV vaccine, we are unsure about her having the second one to say the least. |
The vaccine manufactures are blameless. They cannot be taken to court no matter how much damage they do because their good friends in Government stepped in to protect them and set up the vaccine injury compensation program in around 1986 which is still in place today. Coincidentally they added several more vaccines to the schedule in the US the very next year.
Sorry to hear about you daughter Bankster, and yes you should think seriously about not giving the second and third doses. I will PM you on. |  | | |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 08:46 - Apr 6 with 1010 views | StokieBlue |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 08:18 - Apr 6 by Harry_Palmer |
The vaccine manufactures are blameless. They cannot be taken to court no matter how much damage they do because their good friends in Government stepped in to protect them and set up the vaccine injury compensation program in around 1986 which is still in place today. Coincidentally they added several more vaccines to the schedule in the US the very next year.
Sorry to hear about you daughter Bankster, and yes you should think seriously about not giving the second and third doses. I will PM you on. |
Edit: Doesn't matter, I understand why.
SB [Post edited 6 Apr 2019 8:56]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 08:48 - Apr 6 with 1008 views | StokieBlue |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 08:18 - Apr 6 by Harry_Palmer |
The vaccine manufactures are blameless. They cannot be taken to court no matter how much damage they do because their good friends in Government stepped in to protect them and set up the vaccine injury compensation program in around 1986 which is still in place today. Coincidentally they added several more vaccines to the schedule in the US the very next year.
Sorry to hear about you daughter Bankster, and yes you should think seriously about not giving the second and third doses. I will PM you on. |
Once again you only focus on the damage and not the good done by vaccinations. I understand you have personal aspects to consider but you are once again cherry picking outliers whilst ignoring the vast amount of normal and beneficial results.
What is your end goal? Stop all vaccinations? You've not been clear what you want to happen.
Once again I'm sorry for your individual circumstances but do feel there is a lot of confirmation bias in the sources you cite. That's understandable but should be pointed out.
SB [Post edited 6 Apr 2019 8:52]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 08:58 - Apr 6 with 998 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 18:40 - Apr 5 by Eireannach_gorm |
I am not sure why there is a resistance to vaccination because the percentage of of benefit falls on the having it side. Of course there is no such thing 100% vaccine and all interventions into human biology have complex and unpredictable outcomes.
I would like to challenge your suggestion that vaccination is not a good thing. Going through the links, I have a few observations. From the first link: The school had an enrolment of 2098 students, there were 27 cases of Measles (1.3% ). This is not exactly a damning indictment of vaccination.
Second link is about a single case of one person infecting 4 others. Note the final sentence, “The most important ‘vaccine failure’ with measles happens when people refuse the vaccine in the first place.”
Third link bit you missed.'In one study, in fact, children were 35 times more likely to catch measles if they hadn’t received the MMR vaccine. The reports also confirmed that the less vaccinated a community is when measles arrives, the more people get sick.'
The waning immunity issue is not a reason not to vaccinate but it is a concern. If herd immunity was not a reality why have scourges like Polio, Tuberculosis and Smallpox been more or less eliminated? Would you consider not getting vaccinated in an Ebola outbreak?
My response to your last link is this.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pseudoscience-of-kelly-brogan/ |
Eireannach, there is a resistance to vaccines because people get harmed by them and suffer serious consequences, and also because people research the subject themselves and question the sanity of injecting know poisons like aluminium, mercury, msg, polysorbate 80, aborted fetal DNA and others into their children's bloodstream. Some people also look at the 10 fold rise in chronic illness and neurological conditions amongst children and then compare some of these to the diseases the vaccines supposedly protect against, most of which are fairly harmless in otherwise healthy people.
Regarding your challenges, my first observation is that you have conveniently cherry picked the bits which suit your viewpoint. That's fine we all do that to a degree ( apart from Stokie who is perfect ) however on the first link you are missing the point really, I was demonstrating that the vaccine does not always work and vaccinated children still get the disease sometimes. You would not expect the entire school to fall ill because at the first sign of an outbreak measures are put in place to prevent this.
On the second link the person was also vaccinated so it was just another example that it can happen, nothing more.
The third link is a pro-vaccine piece so hardly surprising you will find some bits to support a pro vaccine stance in there. It was just the irony of this piece that struck me as it again demonstrates that a fair percentage of people who were vaccinated, contracted measles anyway.
As for the Kelly Brogan, if you are looking for critics of her you will not have to look far. She goes against the mainstream thinking on depression and doesn't choose to use toxic medication as a treatment so has upset many people. Her results though speak for themselves. In any case the key take out from this piece should have been should have been that of respected immunologist Dr. Obukhanych.
"Herd immunity is not an immunologic idea, but rather an epidemiologic construct, which theoretically predicts successful disease control when a certain pre-calculated percentage of people in the population are immune from disease". | | | |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 09:19 - Apr 6 with 994 views | Harry_Palmer |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 08:48 - Apr 6 by StokieBlue |
Once again you only focus on the damage and not the good done by vaccinations. I understand you have personal aspects to consider but you are once again cherry picking outliers whilst ignoring the vast amount of normal and beneficial results.
What is your end goal? Stop all vaccinations? You've not been clear what you want to happen.
Once again I'm sorry for your individual circumstances but do feel there is a lot of confirmation bias in the sources you cite. That's understandable but should be pointed out.
SB [Post edited 6 Apr 2019 8:52]
|
And you my friend do the exact opposite, only focus on the good and refuse to investigate or even seemingly acknowledge the damage.
We have an example in this thread of a poster whose daughter has potentially suffered a reaction to a vaccine but I bet if this is reported to his GP they will pass it off as coincidence and still encourage them to get the follow up shots.
It is widely accepted by the CDC and other health authorities that only 10-20% of adverse reactions are ever officially reported so that being the case how can we have fair and transparent data that enables people to make an informed risk verses benefit choice?
The media and health authorities continually tell the public that vaccines are proven to be 'safe and effective', and anybody that questions this narrative is an 'anti-vaxxer' or conspiracy theorist, there is currently a mass censorship campaign going on to wipe out any sort of debate on the subject and to quieten anybody that opposes the rigid official narrative. People like you have been perfectly programmed by this as you have demonstrated in this thread by labelling me as conspiracy minded.
Vaccines are not safe and effective in everybody, I want to put the other side of the story across, which is actually supported with science by the way. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies out there that demonstrate this viewpoint and I will be sharing some of these in the future.
There are already plenty of people already waxing lyrical about the benefits of vaccines, I am trying to provide balance in a world that is trying to eradicate the other side of the story. I must bid you farewell as I have a busy day ahead. | | | |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 09:19 - Apr 6 with 994 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
0.6% of women will develop cervical cancer, I believe it is 0.1% that will potentially not develop cancer as a result of this vaccine. In this instance I am not convinced that the toxic load risks and potential interactions outweigh the rewards. Furthermore will the protection from genital warts encourage a reduction in the practice of ptotected intercourse? | |
| |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 09:47 - Apr 6 with 988 views | StokieBlue |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 09:19 - Apr 6 by Harry_Palmer |
And you my friend do the exact opposite, only focus on the good and refuse to investigate or even seemingly acknowledge the damage.
We have an example in this thread of a poster whose daughter has potentially suffered a reaction to a vaccine but I bet if this is reported to his GP they will pass it off as coincidence and still encourage them to get the follow up shots.
It is widely accepted by the CDC and other health authorities that only 10-20% of adverse reactions are ever officially reported so that being the case how can we have fair and transparent data that enables people to make an informed risk verses benefit choice?
The media and health authorities continually tell the public that vaccines are proven to be 'safe and effective', and anybody that questions this narrative is an 'anti-vaxxer' or conspiracy theorist, there is currently a mass censorship campaign going on to wipe out any sort of debate on the subject and to quieten anybody that opposes the rigid official narrative. People like you have been perfectly programmed by this as you have demonstrated in this thread by labelling me as conspiracy minded.
Vaccines are not safe and effective in everybody, I want to put the other side of the story across, which is actually supported with science by the way. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies out there that demonstrate this viewpoint and I will be sharing some of these in the future.
There are already plenty of people already waxing lyrical about the benefits of vaccines, I am trying to provide balance in a world that is trying to eradicate the other side of the story. I must bid you farewell as I have a busy day ahead. |
I don't think the two positions are equatable. You are giving false equivalence to majority and minority results which is a strange way to interpret things.
Nobody said they were 100% safe but in the general case (which is the benchmark one) it's better to have vaccines than not. This isn't really disputed by science. Sure you can highlight the outliers and should but it's not bringing balance as you claim, it's skewing the results and presenting edge cases as just as likely. You need to look at the balance of probability. Presenting them as equally weighted as you seem to do is a false equivalence and pretty irresponsible in my view. Sure highlight the small chance of issues but in the general case it's better to be vaccinated, something you don't seem to accept.
You can't say there is a mass censorship campaign and not expect it to be labelled a conspiracy. You've presented absolutely no evidence for this campaign so by definition is a conspiracy. To then label me brainwashed in those circumstances is ridiculous. Take a step back and digest what you wrote.
I look forward to seeing the papers. Nobody disputes there can be issues from vaccinations but it needs to be seen in context of the percentages. Nobody will disagree that is horrible when something does go wrong though.
If your position is to ensure people have more information then that's a good one. I just hope that is balanced, the risks are not equal.
Enjoy your day!
SB [Post edited 6 Apr 2019 9:56]
| |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 10:06 - Apr 6 with 970 views | Withnail |
Well after reading this thread, I'm not allowing my kids to be vaccinated with that sh1te.
Thanks for highlighting. |  | | |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 11:34 - Apr 6 with 930 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| Breaking news: Vaccines still don't cause significant harm on 10:06 - Apr 6 by Withnail |
Well after reading this thread, I'm not allowing my kids to be vaccinated with that sh1te.
Thanks for highlighting. |
You may have read this thread but based on the tone of your post, you seem to have had your mind already made up.
In a way vaccination is a victim of its own success. Because the diseases that they inoculate against have become rare people have become blasé about protecting themselves. It is really a First World problem because most sensible people get shots when going to disease ridden parts of the world. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
