Anti-Vaxers - They are everywhere!

[Fickle]

Hakurei Reimu

No, we're not arguing that the downside "doesn't exist." We acknowledge that there can be severe complications for vaccines, up to and including death. The problem with your side is that this is about what is the smart move. What is the move that, if followed by everyone, would result in the most favorable outcome? It turns out that universal vaccination does result in the most favorable outcome.

I understand what your saying comrade, in your opinion throwing some people under the bus is the smart move.

And yes, some people are going to be harmed by that, but it's not really anyone's fault. There's really no way to know you are going to be allergic to a vaccine (or have any other adverse reaction) until it's given to you. We cannot know who will fall into that category until the vaccine is given. But we do know the odds, and the odds strongly favor giving the vaccines. It's like blaming Hershey's for uncovering your child's chocolate allergy with anaphylactic shock.

Of course, nothing is ever anyone's fault and it must be god or Allah's will. Obviously I'm not even a real person but a number, an odd, a statistical aberration on some scientific chart. Again you make a very compelling argument comrade.

Companies like Merek are shielded from lawsuits because it would be bad for everyone if those lawsuits were to even be brought to court, again because vaccines are so marginal profit-wise (you get maybe five doses of a particular vaccine in your lifetime, compared to hundreds of doses of other drugs). If sued, pharmaceuticals would simply drop vaccines from their product lines, and we'd be stuck with dwindling herd immunity and a triumphal return of the very scourges that we had on the retreat for almost a century.

So your basically saying someone seeking justice or compensation for real damage in a court of law is uhm... "bad for everyone" then?. I understand it must be hard being a communist bound to mind-numbing conformity comrade but here in the modern free world that's just not the way it is. Generally were free to reject psychopaths false ideal's under the guise of profit in our democracy because human nature is always a real bitch. You may want to try democracy...you may like it, even if it is a hard pill to swallow for some.

[Baruch]

Scientists and academics don't like democracy.  Going back to Plato.  They want the dictatorship of the "brights".  No, not Socrates, Plato used Socrates to wipe his ass, but Archytas the Pythagorean, that was Plato's real mentor.  You have been lied to ... but when haven't you?

[Hakurei Reimu]

Hakurei Reimu

I understand what your saying comrade, in your opinion throwing some people under the bus is the smart move.

"Throwing people under the bus" implies I know who's going to be drawing the short straw and can somehow force the outcome. If I had a crystal ball that could tell me who would suffer the adverse reactions of any pharmaceutical, I would be a millionare telling people their drug/vaccine fortunes. But I don't and I can't. I could be the one who is unlucky and has a severe reaction to the vaccine I just got. However, I know both the risk of getting the vaccine and the risk of not getting a vaccine, and I know the perils of a largely unvaccinated population.

I'm taking exactly the same risk that I urge everyone else to take. And I would own that choice if I suffered a negative outcome, rather than whine about how the mean vaccine companies have hurt me.

Of course, nothing is ever anyone's fault and it must be god or Allah's will. Obviously I'm not even a real person but a number, an odd, a statistical aberration on some scientific chart. Again you make a very compelling argument comrade.

The world is full of risk that cannot be entirely dispelled. It would literally take infinite time and resources to explore every avenue to make sure any given product is completely and perfectly safe. No medical product would meet the standard you apparently want to set for vaccines. No product in general would meet that standard. Hell, no action you may take in the real would would meet that standard.

This is what is meant by the aphorism, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." You cannot have even good products or do even good actions if you will only strive for the perfect solution. Perfect solutions don't exist, and while you are chasing after the perfect solution, you perpetually pass over quite good solutions that only ask you to shoulder little risk in comparison to the benefit they provide.

So your basically saying someone seeking justice or compensation for real damage in a court of law is uhm... "bad for everyone" then?.

No. It's simply not justice. Period. Again, it's like blaming a chocolate company for a child's hitherto undetected allergy to chocolate. The child was simply a victim of bad fortune. People in general know that you can be allergic to any food under the sun, but we don't live in a world where the only thing you could buy is basic nutrient mash and I don't think you would want to live in such a world either.

Doctors know that vaccines have risks. It's their responsibility to let the patient know of those risks. If the patient decides to go for it anyway, how is it the vaccine makers' fault if the patient suffers for that? It's not. It's just bad fortune. Unless you can point to a specific defect in the vaccine (like improperly inactivated virus), then your bad outcome is simply bad fortune. If you sue because of your bad fortune, you are simply a whiny baby and not an adult ready to take adult risks and responsibilites.

I understand it must be hard being a communist bound to mind-numbing conformity comrade but here in the modern free world that's just not the way it is.

Yes, in the free world, you run away from your own bad outcomes that you knew could have happened but don't want to take responsibility for when they happen to you, so you whine and bawl until somebody hands you money.

Oh wait. That's not the way the free market works. In the free market, you make your own choices and take ownership of the outcome, good or bad. Isn't that right, comrade?

Generally were free to reject psychopaths false ideal's under the guise of profit in our democracy because human nature is always a real bitch. You may want to try democracy...you may like it, even if it is a hard pill to swallow for some.

Fuck your appeal to emotion bullshit. There is no justice for a company making a product that they have every reason to believe is the safest product they can deliver under the circumstances, with known risks that are clearly communicated to the customer, and then the customer sues them because they happen to be one of the unlucky few to suffer the ill risk that was clearly communicated to them.

[chill98]

When looking for graphs regarding polio, it is difficult to find a gov source including information for the pre-vaccine incidents.  Most begin at the peak of the 50's epidemic near the introduction of the vaccines.

This img is from a UK post polio syndrome website:


The above is included simply because it is from a website that is not questioning vaccines; an attempt to find an un-biased source of polio incidents.  Just in case the website blocks hotlinking:

http://www.poliosurvivorsnetwork.org.uk/archive/lincolnshire/library/shneerson/poliomyelitis.html

Now moving towards the US version of above graph, I am relying on an anti-vax site - though I am sure they would prefer to be labeled a vaccine awareness site -- .  What is clear is the UK rise in polio is aligned with the US polio cases:



Again, in-case hotlinking becomes an issue:

http://www.wellwithin1.com/pol_all.htm

In the above webpage, the information on DDT is interesting.  I remember these discussions in the late 60s/early 70s regarding the past polio epidemics and questions regarding how much of the paralysis was entirely disease caused.  There are fair questions being asked (imo), did DDT exposure increase the chances of polio becoming deadly and/or crippling?  How many of the polio cases were actually something else unrelated to the polio virus?

Is it true that only (approx) 1% of polio cases in the 50s were confirmed via lab testing?  and if so, then it is true that of that one percent, only 56% of the paralytic cases revealed a polio virus relationship.  Not so unbelievable when we have the current WHO database on India (with +80%) of AFP cases being tested and over 47K being confirmed as non-polio related AFP in a single year, with well over 100K since 2000.

[Baruch]

Better living thru chemistry ;-(  Yes another epidemiological elephant in the room are all the thousands of non-naturally occurring molecules we have dumped into the environment.  That couldn't possible cause damage to genetics, to embryos, to growing children.  Why is there diagnosis?  Because symptoms can have multiple causes ... one has to Sherlock Holmes the various symptoms, to logically rule out all but one cause.  And do more testing if that one cause hasn't been isolated.

[Hakurei Reimu]

First off, if DDT was really the cause of all this illness, why does the polio curve seem to lag behind the production of DDT, and lag behind the deposition of DDT derivatives in adipose tissue?



http://www.whale.to/vaccine/west5a.html (Anti-vax site that I'm using to discredit anti-vaxxers. I like irony.)

Seriously, this graph doesn't make sense if DDT and chemicals similar to DDT were the cause of polio. If DDT were really the cause, the peaks in DDT production should lead the polio cases, and with but one exeption, they don't. The adipose graph is even worse in that regard: here we have a significant deposit of DDT residues long after DDT was discontinued, yet polio cases drop off below earlier levels, where there is no significant accumulation of DDT residues. And it's not like cousins of DDT were not produced after DDT was banned, in which case you would see some continued toxicity after DDT was banned instead of dropping completely to near-zero after the fact.

Furthermore, I suspect your wellwithin graph to be a complete fabrication. See, the graph ahead of the polio gap (1970-1982) is spikey. Polio goes through booms and busts just like you expect an endemic disease to do with no reseviours and with strong immunity conveyed with symtomatic illness. (This is what cholera did: London did not become a ghost town after cholera hit. In fact, London was hit multiple times.) But in the case of a mass poisoning, the effects of a poison should track the amount of poison present in the subjects/environment. It does not.

It also incredible that there could be this large spike in polio-like cases in the post-polio era without there being screams of "POLIO RETURNS!" all over the US in newspapers. Especially since the polio peak was still within living memory.

Also, when checking the bibliography for your wellness source... I find no source for where this graph could have come from.

Now, this DDT residuals are probably not doing us any good, but they're not the source of polio. Period. Polio has been known since ancient times.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_poliomyelitis

And polio followed the course of other endemic diseases that became epidemics, where they concentrated in cities (wouldn't DDT poisoning be mostly present where DDT was used most, on farms?), because that's where the people were.

Seriously. You need to do a much better job of presenting your case. The epidemiology doesn't support your case.

[Fickle]

Hakurei Reimu

Fuck your appeal to emotion bullshit. There is no justice for a company making a product that they have every reason to believe is the safest product they can deliver under the circumstances, with known risks that are clearly communicated to the customer, and then the customer sues them because they happen to be one of the unlucky few to suffer the ill risk that was clearly communicated to them.

I would disagree and obviously the known risks are not effectively communicated to the customer. They say it is perfectly safe then one week later little johnny is not himself and he will never be himself again and his parents wonder why. You see nobody told the patents this could happen, they were told it was perfectly safe and this was obviously not true.

What part of "Safe: Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt" do you not understand?. Someone made a medicine which did harm, someone was damaged, and the manufacturer's belief's or intent have nothing to do with it. You cannot just say having good intentions when they did harm excuses them from all responsibility because that is absurd.

[Baruch]

Hakurei Reimu
I would disagree and obviously the known risks are not effectively communicated to the customer. They say it is perfectly safe then one week later little johnny is not himself and he will never be himself again and his parents wonder why. You see nobody told the patents this could happen, they were told it was perfectly safe and this was obviously not true.

What part of "Safe: Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt" do you not understand?. Someone made a medicine which did harm, someone was damaged, and the manufacturer's belief's or intent have nothing to do with it. You cannot just say having good intentions when they did harm excuses them from all responsibility because that is absurd.

Medicine gave up on the Hippocratic oath long ago.  Check out the oath of Maimonides.  A Jewish doctor doesn't promise no harm (that is unrealistic) but that he/she will improve their skills daily.

[Mermaid]

Hakurei Reimu
I would disagree and obviously the known risks are not effectively communicated to the customer. They say it is perfectly safe then one week later little johnny is not himself and he will never be himself again and his parents wonder why. You see nobody told the patents this could happen, they were told it was perfectly safe and this was obviously not true.

What part of "Safe: Free from danger or injury; undamaged or unhurt" do you not understand?. Someone made a medicine which did harm, someone was damaged, and the manufacturer's belief's or intent have nothing to do with it. You cannot just say having good intentions when they did harm excuses them from all responsibility because that is absurd.

It's the law that known risks are communicated. Labels are not randomly generated.

[Baruch]

It is the doctor, in my experience, who fails to communicate.  The pharmaceutical company is open in what they tell the doctors.

[Fickle]

Mermaid

It's the law that known risks are communicated. Labels are not randomly generated.

It is also U.S. and internatinal law that torture under any circumstances is inhumane and illegal however that didn't stop the U.S. from torturing illegally detained people did it?. Now if the government and corporations see no problem with blatant violations of human rights then labelling hardly seems like an issue. It's like saying that guy over there just blew that other guys brains out and took his wallet but he told me he would never do that to me... right.

In any case non-vaccinated people are the least of your worries because most bacteria and virus on the planet will be immune to all known antibiotics within 10-15 years. Vaccines are also becoming less effective due to rapid mutations and nobody has a clue what to do. Maybe you could pray, that might help otherwise your just as screwed as everyone else.

[Mermaid]

...or I could take advantage of modern medicines.

[Baruch]

...or I could take advantage of modern medicines.

Alas, in a battle between tactics and strategy, strategy wins, even if it is bacterial.  Basically we are damned if we do and if we don't.

[Mermaid]

Alas, in a battle between tactics and strategy, strategy wins, even if it is bacterial.  Basically we are damned if we do and if we don't.

Well, I don't think I agree. Infectious disease ceased to be the #1 killer of humans right around the time that vaccines and antibiotics were invented. I'll continue to benefit from them if it's all the same to you.

[Baruch]

Well, I don't think I agree. Infectious disease ceased to be the #1 killer of humans right around the time that vaccines and antibiotics were invented. I'll continue to benefit from them if it's all the same to you.

By all means do so.  I accidentally witnessed a woman in gut pain/nausea in the waiting room today while I was passing thru to check on the status of the pharmacy (your end product).  I hope she got help ;-(  Her misery was horrible.

But in the long run, there is no free lunch.  Human beings aren't clever enough to overcome all obstacles ... particularly the nemesis we generate on ourselves.