Anti-Vaxers - They are everywhere!

[Fickle]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/serious-questions-about-hpv-vaccine-07-07-2008/

Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective, and that they have not found a link to any deaths. They also say illnesses reported after vaccinations may not have been caused by the shot, and that Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with "half the average" reported serious adverse events.

Let's look at this statement logically:
"Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective"
" They also say Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with "half the average" reported serious adverse events"

So it is "safe" with "half the serious side effects" which is an open admission that there are in fact serious side effects and it is not safe in any sense of the word. I have to wonder, are Merck and the CDC just fucking stupid or do they not understand the english language?.

So yes it's perfectly safe because it only kills half as many people as the other vaccines do but only if your an imbecile.

[chill98]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/serious-questions-about-hpv-vaccine-07-07-2008/

Let's look at this statement logically:
"Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective"
" They also say Gardasil appears safer than most vaccines with "half the average" reported serious adverse events"

So it is "safe" with "half the serious side effects" which is an open admission that there are in fact serious side effects and it is not safe in any sense of the word. I have to wonder, are Merck and the CDC just fucking stupid or do they not understand the english language?.

So yes it's perfectly safe because it only kills half as many people as the other vaccines do but only if your an imbecile.

Reminds me of Fight Club math:

Narrator: ... Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

[Hakurei Reimu]

This part is all I need to realize your bias. 

PFFT!

When testing to see if something is a problem for people we often inject non-typical exposures to a questionable substance and watch for the reaction.  If no reaction the substance is declared harmless.

Injecting sv40 into various test animal species produces cancers; the same kinds of cancer found in humans and (roughly) half harboring sv40.

Well, if you inject sv40 into animals, of course any cancers they develop are going to harbor some sv40 stuff. Not sv40 itself, components of sv40. I read the damn research.

For any other substance, the correlation would be recognized.

Eh, no. Substances hazardous to humans are not recognized merely on account of causing cancer in animals. You need epidemiology, too. You also need a clear mechanism of action going from substance to tumor. There are plenty of substances that have a very different effect on rodents than they do on humans.

And again, the epidemiology and the mechanism are exactly what you are lacking. There's no spike in these cancers in exactly the population where there should be such a spike.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/IASLC/53476

Biology is messy.  So are human rights vs making a profit from those humans.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/300aa-22

What is either of these links supposed to prove? Yes, lung cancer is on the rise, but that's because we use our air as the industrial sector's garbage can. The link between is pretty damn clear. As to the limited liability of vaccine producers, vaccines have pitiful profit margins. If vaccine manufacturers didn't have this protection, then no one would make vaccines, and we would return to an era where most people would die of communicable diseases long before they had time to worry about cancer.

Get it? Mass vaccinations are so good at preventing epidemics that in the developed world, that we have the luxury of worrying about chronic diseases like cancer in the first place.

Denmark, not a nation of hysteric's.  Subtitled.

Not wasting 40 minutes of my time. Either give me the run down or walk.

Arguing by labeling someone anti-vax (when they are not) or comparing water to simian viri makes you look immature.

When you have only one half of a correlation, you're the only one who looks immature.

[Fickle]

Hakurei Reimu

As to the limited liability of vaccine producers, vaccines have pitiful profit margins. If vaccine manufacturers didn't have this protection, then no one would make vaccines, and we would return to an era where most people would die of communicable diseases long before they had time to worry about cancer.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/merck-profit-more-than-doubles-raises-outlook-2015-10-27

Along with the results, Merck raised its annual adjusted earnings forecast to $3.55 to $3.60, from a previous range of $3.45 to $3.55. The company also raised the low end of its revenue forecast to $39.2 billion to $39.8 billion from a previous range of $38.6 billion to $39.8 billion.

As you say pitiful profit margins.

Get it? Mass vaccinations are so good at preventing epidemics that in the developed world, that we have the luxury of worrying about chronic diseases like cancer in the first place.

More than a few truly independent studies not done by the drug companies themselves show marginal effectiveness in many cases. You see in real science all biased or preferential studies are rejected thus the drug companies have very few credible sources.

However what is never mentioned is my "odd man out" theorem. Now suppose the chances of a severe or fatal reaction to any vaccine or drug are about ten million to one. Kind of like the odds of winning the lottery and it seems pretty safe doesn't it?. Now let's suppose your own child or family member just won our lottery and has a permanent ailment because of the vaccine or drug. Statistically speaking how fucking smart do you feel?. I mean really?, as you sit there looking at ten's or hundred's of thousands of dollars of future medical bills no one will cover watching the one you love suffer how fucking smart would you feel?.

Thus we come full circle, statistics and studies are great until the moment they effect us personally and then obviously they don't mean anything do they?. How about this... when you or the one's you love are lying in bed suffering then we will have a real debate about profit margins, effectiveness and statistics. I mean I would just love to hear your witty debate on the subject in that context.

[chill98]

Get it? Mass vaccinations are so good at preventing epidemics that in the developed world, that we have the luxury of worrying about chronic diseases like cancer in the first place.
Not wasting 40 minutes of my time. Either give me the run down or walk.

LoL --

If you want to make your own decision without viewing the videos YOURSELF that is fine by me.  Its not my job to read you a bed-time story so you don't have to give up your cartoon viewing...

As I stated when I joined this discussion, I was challenged by someone who believes vaccines harmed one of her children and to make the decision MYSELF. 

The 'anti-vax' people have convinced me, via my own pursuit of these issues that Yes, some people are being greatly harmed by some of the vaccines.

Polio:
QUOTE from CDC:
Up to 72% of all polio infections in children are asymptomatic. Infected persons without symptoms shed virus in the stool and are able to transmit the virus to others.

Approximately 24% of polio infections in children consist of a minor, nonspecific illness without clinical or laboratory evidence of central nervous system invasion. This clinical presentation is known as abortive poliomyelitis, and is characterized by complete recovery in less than a week. This is characterized by a low grade fever and sore throat.

~~  Thats over 90% of people infected with wild polio have no issues at all.  Naturally.  ~~

Nonparalytic aseptic meningitis (symptoms of stiffness of the neck, back, and/or legs), usually following several days after a prodrome similar to that of minor illness, occurs in 1%-5% of polio infections in children. Increased or abnormal sensations can also occur. Typically these symptoms will last from 2 to 10 days, followed by complete recovery.

Fewer than 1% of all polio infections in children result in flaccid paralysis.

~~ One Percent in children.  Older you are the higher the probability of long term paralysis...

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html

HOWEVER ~~~
From Wiki:
In developed countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, improvements were made in community sanitation, including better sewage disposal and clean water supplies. These changes drastically increased the proportion of children and adults at risk of paralytic polio infection, by reducing childhood exposure and immunity to the disease

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#History

Now That is interesting to me.  An unintended consequence for sure!  But it seems to me you haven't the curiosity to continue a pursuit of the topic, preferring to parrot the party line, loving a life of see, speak, hear no evil like a well trained drone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/government-concedes-vacci_b_88323.html
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/data/statisticsreport.pdf

Moved Quote Either give me the run down or walk.

You can watch the videos I posted yourself, or turn the channel.

[Baruch]

"Merck and the CDC say Gardasil is safe and effective" ... this is a commercial and political decision, not a scientific one.  If a perfect "no harm" rule was in place, almost no medicines could be used.  It is necessary to harm some more than others, because that is how reality works with drug X.  In fact one is harming anyone who takes it, but hopefully for most patients there are few "non curative" phenomena.

If we were cleaning up the sewers today, as a health measure, we would be paying the government a special health tax, thru a health insurance company, each time we had a working toilet or faucet water that wasn't deadly.  Capitalism isn't just for Charles Dickens.  In fact, that is why all toilets should be pay toilets ... and the poorest will be forced to defecate outside, where they will be arrested as a public nuisance.  The real heart of the matter is explained in A Christmas Carol.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hakurei Reimu
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/merck-profit-more-than-doubles-raises-outlook-2015-10-27
As you say pitiful profit margins.

You do know Merek doesn't manufacture only vaccines right? This is profit over all products, not just vaccines.

Good grief, I shouldn't have to point this out, but apparently I need to.

More than a few truly independent studies not done by the drug companies themselves show marginal effectiveness in many cases. You see in real science all biased or preferential studies are rejected thus the drug companies have very few credible sources.

Dude, we wiped out fucking smallpox with vaccines. Smallpox, which during the years of WWI wiped out more people than the war itself. Influenza, pertussus, measels, rubella, tetnas and polio were all big killers back in the day, before mass immunization soundly clobbered all of them over the head.

Vaccines are victims of their own success. It is because of the fact that most people are immunized that shields delinquents from harm, as well as people whose vaccinations simply don't take, or people with known allergies to stuff in vaccines (herd immunity). But if everyone followed the advice of the anti-vaxers, there would be no herd immunity at all, with only sanitation to check the spread of diseases, and these diseases would be scourges upon humanity once again. In fact, still are in underdeveloped countries.

However what is never mentioned is my "odd man out" theorem. Now suppose the chances of a severe or fatal reaction to any vaccine or drug are about ten million to one. Kind of like the odds of winning the lottery and it seems pretty safe doesn't it?. Now let's suppose your own child or family member just won our lottery and has a permanent ailment because of the vaccine or drug. Statistically speaking how fucking smart do you feel?. I mean really?, as you sit there looking at ten's or hundred's of thousands of dollars of future medical bills no one will cover watching the one you love suffer how fucking smart would you feel?.

Thus we come full circle, statistics and studies are great until the moment they effect us personally and then obviously they don't mean anything do they?. How about this... when you or the one's you love are lying in bed suffering then we will have a real debate about profit margins, effectiveness and statistics. I mean I would just love to hear your witty debate on the subject in that context.

If your criterion for "safe" means that nobody ever suffers side effects, then literally no medical intervention qualifes. That includes "doing nothing." Immunizing your child bears some risk, but not immunizing your child also bears some risk. The reason why we develop these vaccines is because of the consequences of not doing so. Smallpox vaccine was developed because smallpox was a hideously deadly killer. Measels vaccine was developed because measels was also deadly killer (though not in the same league as smallpox) â€" one out of every thousand kids who get measels die. If you are bitten by a rabid animal, you will die unless you get immunized before symptoms show. These are not trivial illnesses; they're serious and deadly and are the root cause of most of human suffering throughout the ages.

So how smart would you feel if your kid dies from measels, knowing that there was a vaccine that, while there was some risk of adverse effects, could have prevented his death? Like with sv40, you are only focusing on the side of what happens when a vaccine fails, and ignoring the side of what might happen if you fail to vaccinate.

The 'anti-vax' people have convinced me, via my own pursuit of these issues that Yes, some people are being greatly harmed by some of the vaccines.

As would any medical invention, including doing nothing at all.

Fewer than 1% of all polio infections in children result in flaccid paralysis.

Over the population of the US alone, that would mean several million people, all of whom would die without continuous medical intervention, to say nothing of underdeveloped countries.

In developed countries during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, improvements were made in community sanitation, including better sewage disposal and clean water supplies. These changes drastically increased the proportion of children and adults at risk of paralytic polio infection, by reducing childhood exposure and immunity to the disease

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis#History

And at the same time drastically decreasing and containing the risk of deadly waterborne infections like cholera and dysentery, which can kill very quickly. And quite frankly I don't think the prospect of swimming in shit is appealing to you or me, or laid out in bed worried you're going to die, and at times worrying you're not going to die.

Read some accounts of the London cholera epidemics. They're horrifying.

Sanitation may be a double-edged sword, but it's a slam-dunk for public health. Vaccinations are also a double-edge sword, but again, a slam-dunk for public health.

You can watch the videos I posted yourself, or turn the channel.

So it's not even worth it to you to post a one statement summary of your point for posting your videos? That shows me how much worth you place in them.

[chill98]

Over the population of the US alone, that would mean several million people, all of whom would die without continuous medical intervention, to say nothing of underdeveloped countries.

Because YOU refuse to read even simple links, AGAIN from the CDC site on POLIO (polio != cholera):

QUOTE -Many persons with paralytic poliomyelitis recover completely and, in most, muscle function returns to some degree. Weakness or paralysis still present 12 months after onset is usually permanent.
end QUOTE.

BTW it wouldn't be millions!

Further down in the VERY same Link you didn't read (or didn't fully process) is this:

The death-to-case ratio for paralytic polio is generally 2%-5% among children and up to 15%-30% for adults (depending on age). It increases to 25%-75% with bulbar involvement.

SO to translate for you:

Of the 1% of polio cases which result in SOME TYPE of flaccid paralysis, approx 3.5% of children (age undefined) and A WIDELY VARIABLE adult fluctuation, may die. 

2009 - children 11 and under - 55 million.
1% of 55 million = 550,000 develop flaccid paralysis
of that 2 - 5% may die.

http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop1.asp

But that isn't even the correct way to calculate the numbers.  That is if EVERY child age 11 and under developed some strain of polio in the same year.  But it does verify that your belief regarding MILLIONS is incorrect.

A quick search reveals in 1988 (as the global polio erradication program began) there were approx 350,000 polio cases world wide.  Even with assuming that 350K was ALL paralytic, it was never MILLIONS dead in the USA as you allege (without support).

So it's not even worth it to you to post a one statement summary of your point for posting your videos? That shows me how much worth you place in them.

As previously posted, its is not my obligation to think for you.  If you find comfort in beeleeving the party doctrine, feel free to let others define what is real and what is questionable for you.  The 40 minute video was too much of a bother for you, the CDC link was an interesting 5 minute read and you couldn't be bothered with that.

Or you couldn't process the info due to your own inherent confirmation bias... whatever.

[Mermaid]

Are you volunteering your kids to contract polio because of what you read on the internet? Your arguments are foolish at best.

[Baruch]

Are you volunteering your kids to contract polio because of what you read on the internet? Your arguments are foolish at best.

That is what they said about Dr Jenner ... and the whole idea of immunization in the beginning.  A few must be sacrificed (particularly back in his day since they didn't know how to stop the virility of the injected virus) so that the majority may gain.  A fundamental social principle.  Yes, absolutely, I was willing to sacrifice my child to immunizations ... on a general principle ... and that the percentage of bad reaction was low.  If the percentage of bad reaction was high, I would reconsider.

[Fickle]

Hakurei

If your criterion for "safe" means that nobody ever suffers side effects, then literally no medical intervention qualifes. That includes "doing nothing." Immunizing your child bears some risk, but not immunizing your child also bears some risk. The reason why we develop these vaccines is because of the consequences of not doing so. Smallpox vaccine was developed because smallpox was a hideously deadly killer. Measels vaccine was developed because measels was also deadly killer (though not in the same league as smallpox) â€" one out of every thousand kids who get measels die. If you are bitten by a rabid animal, you will die unless you get immunized before symptoms show. These are not trivial illnesses; they're serious and deadly and are the root cause of most of human suffering throughout the ages.

Don't get me wrong I agree with you. However we have two sets of rules here, one for drug companies selling vaccines who assume no liability and purposely mislead the public concerning the real risks involved. As well as a second set of rules for everyone else who are held personally responsible for any action which may do harm.

I agree vaccines are needed and save lives, I disagree that the authorities are lying to people about the real risks involved and offer no compensation when they do harm. In the real world the corporations leave those effected for dead for no other reasons than profit margins and obviously this is morally wrong... isn't it?. I'm not arguing vaccines are bad, that is absurd, I'm saying people are being harmed in the process and nobody has the balls to take responsibility or tell the truth.

[Mermaid]

Hakurei
Don't get me wrong I agree with you. However we have two sets of rules here, one for drug companies selling vaccines who assume no liability and purposely mislead the public concerning the real risks involved.

This is false fundamentally.

[Fickle]

Mermaid

This is false fundamentally.

I don't believe it is. Do you think the upper management and lawyers of the drug companies pay out everyone a drug or vaccine has ever done harm to?. In fact they would seem to do just the opposite and deny every case until the media exposure forces them to do something. All those internal emails, the conversations behind closed doors nobody hears... what do you think they talk about?. In fact most all the facts we have would suggest they are cowards hiding under their corporate skirt not unlike mischievious little children. What matters is what we do in reality... the rest is fluff.

The fact is nobody can say something is safe when it does in fact do harm, that is called a lie by anyone's definition. You see I'm all grown up and if I ever did something that did do harm to someone else then I would take responsibility because that's what grown up's do. I also find it strange that so many find this simple concept strange when it should be normal. The lesson is simple, if people want to be treated as a responsible adult then maybe they should start acting like one.

Let me put it in simple terms, if someone asks you if you are responsible and you say "no" but you are in fact responsible then you are a liar and immature. Simple concept and no real debate is even necessary on this matter in my opinion.

[Baruch]

This is false fundamentally.

Mermaid ... given The Pill Book and the Internet aren't suppressed ... I have to agree with you.

Finkle ... the FDA doesn't work for you, it works for the government (and the drug companies).  Just like the generals work for the government (and the defense contractors).  Life isn't fair, and nobody is going to arrest/lawsuit everyone every time harm, even the statistically unlikely, happens.  Not even in the case of obvious harm like cigarettes.  Integrity is admirable, but is only a goal, not a reality.

[Mermaid]

I can give you the perspective of a scientist who develops stuff like this. We are carefully and strictly regulated in the US by the FDA, EPA and USDA. We also have ethics and families and we get sick, too. I don't get paid to deliver unsafe and ineffective drugs.

The reality is that there is NO drug that does not have adverse side effects. Even aspirin. The best we can do is to fulfill regulatory guidelines to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs and vaccines. There are no absolutes, just statistical significance. If it doesn't hit a certain threshold, it is not approved. Believe me, don't believe me, whatever. But that's the reality.

It's a symptom of the success of modern medicine that this anti-vaccine movement has so much momentum. 100 years ago, infectious disease was the leading cause of death. That's not the case anymore thanks to the success of vaccines and medicines.

Poliomyelitis was very nearly eradicated from the map in recent decades, but an anti-vaccine movement caused people in a couple of countries in the African continent to stop getting the vaccine, and outbreaks returned. Because it doesn't have a high fatality rate doesn't mean it's not seriously bad and something we need to prevent. People say the same thing about the flu, which causes 200,000 Americans to be hospitalized every year, and causes thousands of deaths. Oh, it's just the flu. It's very easy to be cavalier.

Be happy you have the luxury to complain about vaccines and evil Pharma. That means dangerous infectious diseases aren't running rampant through our populations like they used to. I expect that will change if this trend continues though.