are vaccines safe?

[Randall]

They say the anti-vaccine situation has been thoroughly debunked.
Are we really that sure?

 

[Randall]

They say the anti-vaccine situation has been thoroughly debunked.
Are we really that sure?

 

[Ron Away]

They say the anti-vaccine situation has been thoroughly debunked.
Are we really that sure?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

They say the anti-vaccine situation has been thoroughly debunked.
Are we really that sure?

Yes we're sure, because that documentary is garbage.

 

[Red]

Vey odd looks like it removed?

Flu season surge hits WA's hospitals hard

Found it. Looks like you didn't quite get the complete link address.

 

[Randall]

Yes we're sure, because that documentary is garbage.

Maybe you're sure, but I'm not, and I'm fairly sure you don't speak for everybody.

I'd like to see the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that what the whistleblowers and doctors that are quoted are actually fabrications. From what I see it's a lot like the hydrofracking debate, where there's no "scientific proof" that there is a cause and effect relationship between contaminated water ( health problems ) and hydrofracking ( vaccines ), but it's funny how after the hydrofracking ( being vaccinated ) a number of people can suddenly light their tap water on fire ( come down with some kind of health problem ).

To be clear I'm not using hydrofracking as a counterpoint to the issue of vaccinations. I'm only drawing a comparison, so technically it doesn't qualify as a strawman argument. Other people have compared it to the type of arguments the tobacco industry used ( 4 out of 5 doctors recommend Camels ). It also seems reasonable to believe that a number of claims are either true or likely to be true ( particularly the human rights aspect ).

The cases that are too nebulous to definitively prove that vaccines are a causal factor and have not been proven to be outright fabrications do not appear to have proven that they aren't causal factors either, and it is reasonable to believe that in many cases, vaccines were administered, and that the onset of symptoms happened after the injections. Maybe there is no connection, but I don't see how we can be 100% certain in every case.

So maybe rather than simply dismissing it all as garbage, we need better and more independent verification of the various claims made by both sides in the controversy. Simple declarative statements either pro or con don't carry much weight.

 

[Azz7092]

The thing that gets me is why have mercury in some of these vaccines , that stuffs nasty and seen some footage of them removing mercury fillings from patients and Holy Shit they are wearing Hazmat suits ! that shits poison no matter what the "stated dose".

i mean is there an actual logical answer for mercury in the Vaccines.

 

[mike]

The cases that are too nebulous to definitively prove that vaccines are a causal factor and have not been proven to be outright fabrications do not appear to have proven that they aren't causal factors either,

Ive linked to peer reviewed case study after case study from all over the world that prove no causal factors. The original study was shown to be fraudulent and the whistleblower aspect has already been torn down in previous pages.

 

[mike]

Vaccines and Autism
Vaccines do not cause autism.

This statement is supported by the fact that:

• Over twenty articles refute any connections between the MMR vaccine and autism.
• Over 100 studies have shown that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
• A scientific review by the Institute of Medicine, "Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism," concluded that "the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism. The committee also concludes that the body of epidemiological evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism."

• A report by the Institute of Medicine, "Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality," concluded that "few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines" and that "the evidence shows there are no links between immunization and some serious conditions that have raised concerns, including Type 1 diabetes and autism."
• Studies that anti-vax folks use to claim a connection between vaccines and autism either have nothing to do with vaccines, nothing to do with autism, or are easily debunked.
• Andrew Wakefield's study that started this talk couldn't be replicated and was later shown to be both flawed and fraudulent.
• More and more studies are pointing to a genetic basis for autism and that autism likely occurs before a baby is even born

And since vaccines don't cause autism, it shouldn't be surprising that there are unvaccinated children with autism. The only reason there aren't more is that most parents vaccinate their children, so, of course, most autistic children are going to be vaccinated.

No MMR-Autism Link in Large Study of Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Kids

 

[mike]

The “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory is based on the story of CDC scientist William Thompson, who in 2013 apparently contacted biochemical engineer turned incompetent antivaccine epidemiologist Brian Thompson to vent about a study he co-authored in 2004 that examined whether there was a correlation between vaccination with MMR and subsequent risk of autism. Not surprisingly, the study failed to find a correlation. However, there was one subgroup, African-American boys, in which the unadjusted data showed a 3.4-fold increased risk of autism. (I’m simplifying for space considerations in providing background, obviously; if you want the gory details, read here and here for a contemporaneous account of the origin of a new conspiracy theory, as well as my review of the book Vaccine Whistleblower and Andrew Wakefield’s fraudumentary VAXXED.) Thompson had had disagreements with how the data were presented and how he thought the CDC has “suppressed” the unadjusted data. Unfortunately for him, Thompson didn’t realize that Hooker was recording their conversations, and Andrew Wakefield found out about it. Thus, he became the “CDC whistleblower” who seemingly validated what I like to call the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement, specifically that the CDC “knows” that vaccines cause autism but covered it up. It didn’t matter one whit that the correlation was found only in a small subgroup (African-American boys)

If the correlation was only found in one small subgroup of African American boys, then its genetic not vaccines duh.........
Brian Hooker proves Andrew Wakefield wrong about vaccines and autism

The CDC whistleblower William W. Thompson: Final (for now) roundup and epilogue

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Up to the family not forgetting the flu jab does not cover all strains of the flu. However, it will become the norm no vaccine no school in the future.
Anti-Vaccine Movement Causes Worst Measles Epidemic In 20 Years

 

[Han]

OI dats my spoon!

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Maybe you're sure, but I'm not, and I'm fairly sure you don't speak for everybody.

I'd like to see the evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that what the whistleblowers and doctors that are quoted are actually fabrications. From what I see it's a lot like the hydrofracking debate, where there's no "scientific proof" that there is a cause and effect relationship between contaminated water ( health problems ) and hydrofracking ( vaccines ), but it's funny how after the hydrofracking ( being vaccinated ) a number of people can suddenly light their tap water on fire ( come down with some kind of health problem ).

To be clear I'm not using hydrofracking as a counterpoint to the issue of vaccinations. I'm only drawing a comparison, so technically it doesn't qualify as a strawman argument. Other people have compared it to the type of arguments the tobacco industry used ( 4 out of 5 doctors recommend Camels ). It also seems reasonable to believe that a number of claims are either true or likely to be true ( particularly the human rights aspect ).

The cases that are too nebulous to definitively prove that vaccines are a causal factor and have not been proven to be outright fabrications do not appear to have proven that they aren't causal factors either, and it is reasonable to believe that in many cases, vaccines were administered, and that the onset of symptoms happened after the injections. Maybe there is no connection, but I don't see how we can be 100% certain in every case.

So maybe rather than simply dismissing it all as garbage, we need better and more independent verification of the various claims made by both sides in the controversy. Simple declarative statements either pro or con don't carry much weight.

The documentary you linked to is garbage - no doubt about it. As Mike said, the evidence is pretty clear and is supported throughout this thread. The people behind that documentary are proven frauds.

 

[Randall]

The documentary you linked to is garbage -

OK I see I've gotten myself into a quagmire here. Some stuff supports your contention. On the other hand I don't blame a number of these parents for suspecting that there's a connection of some kind that science is missing. It's not just about Internet stories that are true or false. I think there are real parents with legitimate concerns because of what they have personally seen happen with their children whom they know better than anyone else.

But to add some balance, here's one article I ran across: A look back at the so called “CDC Whistleblower” story and how Vaxxed is misleading

BTW: I'm not claiming vaccinations cause autism. So that's not the issue. It's whether or not they're "safe" as indicated in the thread title. Here's a list of adverse reactions from one data sheet for M-M-R® II MEASLES, MUMPS, and RUBELLA VIRUS VACCINE

Women of childbearing age should be advised not to become pregnant for 3 months after vaccination and should be informed of the reasons for this precaution.

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.

Source: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm123789.pdf

 

[Randall]

I don't see any vaccines that don't appear to be toxic or don't have warnings, contraindications, or possible adverse reactions. Yes they might induce immunity for some things, but they're still toxic, so I don't see how they're "safe". I think there's always a risk of some sort of problem even if it's fairly minor. What is being done is that those in favor of pressuring people to get vaccinated by eroding their rights is based on a statistical probability, and that the side-effects should be tolerated because the consequences of being harmed by the disease they are trying to prevent if they get infected could be much worse.

Also, a good part of the rationalization for vaccines hinges on the likelihood of being infected, ( e.g. "flu season" ). One of the biggest causes of the spread of disease between regions comes from people who travel and a lot of travel goes on during "Flu Season". So it's no surprise there's a rise in diseases when travel increases. So at least in part, we're supposed to put up with having to get these toxins injected into our bloodstream to lessen the risk of being infected by people who travel.

"Even in the absence of mosquito control or disinsection on planes, humans were hundreds of times more likely to spread the diseases through travel. Overall, the probability that an airplane traveling from a mosquito-heavy area would lead to infection was extremely low. We expected to find this, but we were surprised by the magnitude,” Johansson said. Source​

 

[Randall]

Looking further into the adverse reactions for just one symptom of one vaccine ( above ) I found this:

"Over the past four decades, intensive national mass vaccination campaigns have dramatically increased vaccination rates among American children who now are getting 34 doses of 10 different viral and bacterial vaccines before they enter kindergarten. Recent published data in the medical literature suggest increasing numbers of childhood vaccines may be playing a role in the big jump in the number of cases of juvenile diabetes." Source
​

Diabetes mellitus is a possible adverse reaction listed on the vaccine sheet ( above ). Here's some info about it:

• Types of Diabetes Mellitus
• http://www.know-vaccines.org/PDF/VaccineInducedJuvenileDiabetes.pdf

Are we still so sure vaccines are "safe"?

If so then maybe read about vasculitis ( another possible adverse reaction ) here: Diseases and Conditions Vasculitis

This documentary seems fairly well balanced​

So the real question it seems isn't whether or not vaccines are safe. They're not. There's always some sort of side effect and some sort of risk. The question is whether or not in the absence of any immediate health problems, individuals and parents should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to tolerate the side effects and the risk of more damaging complications by taking medication for an illness they don't have, and may never be exposed to, but that has been shown to be statistically beneficial for the community at large in the past.

Personally, I think that unless there is an imminent and serious threat to someone's health, that the choice of whether or not to take medication should be up to the individual rather than legislated by the state. A situation that comes to mind are where children of parents who don't believe in transfusions will die if left untreated. Some would disagree with me, but if the state were to disregard the parents and arbitrarily save the child, I'd have no problem with it. I'd even support having the parents charged with neglect. But vaccinations aren't a life or death situation.

 

[marduk]

I don't see any vaccines that don't appear to be toxic or don't have warnings, contraindications, or possible adverse reactions. Yes they might induce immunity for some things, but they're still toxic, so I don't see how they're "safe". I think there's always a risk of some sort of problem even if it's fairly minor. What is being done is that those in favor of pressuring people to get vaccinated by eroding their rights is based on a statistical probability, and that the side-effects should be tolerated because the consequences of being harmed by the disease they are trying to prevent if they get infected could be much worse.

Also, a good part of the rationalization for vaccines hinges on the likelihood of being infected, ( e.g. "flu season" ). One of the biggest causes of the spread of disease between regions comes from people who travel and a lot of travel goes on during "Flu Season". So it's no surprise there's a rise in diseases when travel increases. So at least in part, we're supposed to put up with having to get these toxins injected into our bloodstream to lessen the risk of being infected by people who travel.

"Even in the absence of mosquito control or disinsection on planes, humans were hundreds of times more likely to spread the diseases through travel. Overall, the probability that an airplane traveling from a mosquito-heavy area would lead to infection was extremely low. We expected to find this, but we were surprised by the magnitude,” Johansson said. Source​

I think there's a vast difference between vaccinating for the flu (that you'll get over) and vaccinating for MMR (which can kill if exposed to infants) or Polio.

There is nothing that is guaranteed safe. That is our lot in life. One must always balance probabilities.

Once you're balancing probabilities that can kill my offspring because you don't want to take a small risk, or want the 'right' to make irrational choices, your rights end as far as I'm concerned.

 

[marduk]

Looking further into the adverse reactions for just one symptom of one vaccine ( above ) I found this:

"Over the past four decades, intensive national mass vaccination campaigns have dramatically increased vaccination rates among American children who now are getting 34 doses of 10 different viral and bacterial vaccines before they enter kindergarten. Recent published data in the medical literature suggest increasing numbers of childhood vaccines may be playing a role in the big jump in the number of cases of juvenile diabetes." Source
​

Diabetes mellitus is a possible adverse reaction listed on the vaccine sheet ( above ). Here's some info about it:

• Types of Diabetes Mellitus
• http://www.know-vaccines.org/PDF/VaccineInducedJuvenileDiabetes.pdf

Are we still so sure vaccines are "safe"?

If so then maybe read about vasculitis ( another possible adverse reaction ) here: Diseases and Conditions Vasculitis

This documentary seems fairly well balanced​

So the real question it seems isn't whether or not vaccines are safe. They're not. There's always some sort of side effect and some sort of risk. The question is whether or not in the absence of any immediate health problems, individuals and parents should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to tolerate the side effects and the risk of more damaging complications by taking medication for an illness they don't have, and may never be exposed to, but that has been shown to be statistically beneficial for the community at large in the past.

Personally, I think that unless there is an imminent and serious threat to someone's health, that the choice of whether or not to take medication should be up to the individual rather than legislated by the state. A situation that comes to mind are where children of parents who don't believe in transfusions will die if left untreated. Some would disagree with me, but if the state were to disregard the parents and arbitrarily save the child, I'd have no problem with it. I'd even support having the parents charged with neglect. But vaccinations aren't a life or death situation.

Frankly I'm surprised by your reasoning. 'Safe' is not an absolute, has never been, and is irrational thinking.

Are seatbelts safe? Elevators? Commercial air travel?

Seatbelts are 'safer' than not wearing seatbelts. Elevators are 'safer' than taking the stairs. Commercial air travel is 'safer' than driving.

Vaccines are 'safer' than the diseases they help prevent.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Frankly I'm surprised by your reasoning. 'Safe' is not an absolute, has never been, and is irrational thinking.

Are seatbelts safe? Elevators? Commercial air travel?

Seatbelts are 'safer' than not wearing seatbelts. Elevators are 'safer' than taking the stairs. Commercial air travel is 'safer' than driving.

Vaccines are 'safer' than the diseases they help prevent.

You said exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Randall]

Frankly I'm surprised by your reasoning. 'Safe' is not an absolute, has never been, and is irrational thinking.

Are seatbelts safe? Elevators? Commercial air travel?

Seatbelts are 'safer' than not wearing seatbelts. Elevators are 'safer' than taking the stairs. Commercial air travel is 'safer' than driving.

Vaccines are 'safer' than the diseases they help prevent.

Hey don't blame me. Are Vaccines Safe? is the question posed by the title of the thread. I didn't pick it. I'm just answering that question as honestly as I can given the evidence I've experienced or run across while searching for it online, and actually, if you read this post ( here ) you'll have noticed that I say something pretty much along the same lines. For your convenience:

"So the real question it seems isn't whether or not vaccines are safe. They're not. There's always some sort of side effect and some sort of risk. The question is whether or not in the absence of any immediate health problems, individuals and parents should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to tolerate the side effects and the risk of more damaging complications by taking medication for an illness they don't have, and may never be exposed to, but that has been shown to be statistically beneficial for the community at large in the past."​