Protect vaccine manufacturers... or make better vaccines?

The only evidence that would undermine the point that the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out $3.8B in damages would be evidence that the recipients of that compensation werent injured by vaccines and are defrauding the system. Without that evidence, an inherent risk can be provably associated with and attributed to vaccines, as what else would the compensation be for? That level of risk is subjective and is up to each individual as to whether its acceptable, or 'worth it' or not.

And I do not have any evidence that vaccine injury claimants are fraudulent. Do you?

What I can provide, if you require it, are vaccine inserts that the manufacturers provide with their products that claim they come with a risk of various injuries.

 

What about the untold lives saved and suffering ended by vaccines based on these humans not getting a disease including banes of humanity smallpox the one disease we wiped out in nature, polio a disease still crippling humans if they live in many poor regions, influenza an illness we can treat with it and so on and so on. Some tiny number of people might be at risk but the risk is so small as to be not an issue over the benefit of them.

 

Thats certainly a valid argument. But no more valid than the choice to risk an unlikely contraction of a disease to avoid an unlikely risk of an injury by a vaccine.

The point Im trying to make is that if vaccines can be made safer, shouldn't that be something that we explore?

 

What makes you think that this is not already being done ?

 

Its always interesting from a psychological perspective that there are people who come on the forum and despite having enough computer savvy to get on the forum, are helpless in all other regard. You have the worlds greatest resource at your fingertips, but you can't seem to use it. What a waste.

A few of us have inquiring minds and almost always research a subject before commenting. If someone states something I question but I am ignorant on the subject, I first look it up and get educated - after all, they might be correct. You should do the same.

This si a discussion forum. If you want to discuss, then post something worth discussing. If you want to be put in the bin of trolls and people who are a waste of time, then post the "its your claim" cop out.

 

That's the most elaborate and idiotic ad hom I've seen since I've been on this board!!

Especially considering you've failed to address the issue of formaldehyde.

Are you aware of how much formaldehyde is produced by a human body?

 

And to think I've stayed away from foreign distillers and winemakers all these years because they have formaldehyde in their products, when it was no risk at all.

 

Vaccines for children are available in thimerosol free forms, that does not mean thimerosol free vaccines are the only ones administered.

Children get the flu vaccine. Its an annual vaccine, and the multidose vials contain thimerosol.

Of course not, if there were objective, conclusive evidence one way or the other this would not be debated.

And the question can be reversed - why do you believe the vaccination program is safe? Because the pharma companies say it is (guess who pays for the research)? Because the govt says it is (guess who pays the politicians)?

Here is one example which should make you more cautious..

The shingles vaccine Zostovax (Merck) was available in 2006. The govt recommended all people over 60 should get it. But there were problems. In 2014, the FDA required Merck to add a new side effect to the vaccine - it caused shingles. In 2016, the FDA required Merck to add a new side effect - the vaccine can cause blindness.

How effective was Zostovax? Merck and FDA say "At the conclusion of the studies, researchers found that overall (in persons age 60 years and older) the vaccine reduced the occurrence of herpes zoster (shingles) by about 50%." You hear that all the time, 50% - but thats not the real story.

In studies, 3.3% of the control group (unvaccinated) got shingles, with the vaccine its 1.6%. So its a 50% reduction, not 50% of population as the FDA and govt imply.
And Zostovax loses its effectiveness quickly, its down 25% after one year, its not effective at all by 9 years.

Whats the chance of getting shingles from Zostavax? 0.3%.
Whats the chance of keratitis from Zostovax? 0.57%
Whats the chance of getting shingles if you are not vaccinated? 3.3%
Whats the chance of getting shingles if you are vaccinated? 1.6%

So you take a vaccine that reduces your chance of getting shingles by 1.7%, but gives you a 0.87% chance of getting shingles or keratitis. Good odds?

Did you know any of that history?

There are now tv commercials and a govt push to have people revaccinated for shingles with the new vaccine (Shingrix), and the govt recommends all people over 50 get vaccinated. Does it tell you why? No. Does it tell you about the problems with Zostovax? No.

You have to dig to find the history. And why do you trust the govt when it claims the vaccination program is safe?

 

Do you have a computer? Yes.
Do you have access tot he internet? Yes.
So why don't you answer your own question and tell us instead of being lazy and dodging with the "its your arguement so answer my endless questions or you lose"?

And its not an "elaborate and idiotic ad hom", people that go to the "you do all the work to my satisfaction" position all have common traits: laziness, trolling, and a closed ind which will not be changed no matter how many questions they ask and are answered. Are you in that group?

 

Mercury in vaccines decreases + number of vaccines increase = no change in outcome. Think about it.

 

I paid $200 out of pocket for the shingles vaccine. Waste of money, I regret it.

 

Actually, I just read an article and do have evidence that the vaccination program is not safe.

Turns out the nation with the lowest infant mortality rate in the world, and the longest life expectancy, is Japan.

And Japan is anti-vax (by your standards).

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/10/no_author/692225-2/

Japan has the lowest infant mortality rate following ban on mandatory vaccinations, they urge other countries to follow this firm stance.

The citizens of Japan are statistically proven to be the healthiest and longest-living people in the world. The country also has the lowest infant mortality rate on the planet. It may come as no surprise to many that the Japanese Government banned a number of vaccines that are currently mandatory in the United States and has strict regulations in place for other Big Pharma drugs and vaccines in general. Japan’s anti-vax policies have long been criticised by vaccine pushers in the US who claim that vaccinating the public “promotes health.”​

Japan has stopped the MMR and HPV vaccines because of severe side effects.

 

But that doesn't make any point at all,as has already been explained in this thread. It illustrates nothing whatsoever about the actual, measurable risk of vaccines, and is merely a hamhanded attempt to appeal to emotion.

 

First of all the MMR vaccine scare came from a guy who purposefully diddled his data in order to "prove" something that he wanted to prove. That was a criminal act, and is well known. Anything traceable to Wakefield has to be entirely discounted, as he IS a known liar with an agenda that has nothing at all to do with science. Regression analyses from Japan indicate no connection between MMR vaccine and autism spectrum disorders, for example. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16865547

Second, Japan stopped REQUIRING vaccinations (due to public pressure), but continues to strongly recommend.

Third, this is the reason for measles being endemic in Japan, but not in the USA.

Fourth, these diseases are serious. The fact that they don't necessarily kill children before the age of 1 year is NOT AN ARGUMENT for ignoring them.

 

"Japan has the lowest infant mortality rate following ban on mandatory vaccinations, they urge other countries to follow this firm stance."

Implying causation when not even correlation has been demonstrated...a favored tactic of charlatans....

 

False. It was completely due to ignorant people being fooled by pseudo-pcientific, fraudulent studies.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/12/1/16723912/japan-hpv-vaccine

 

Your "equation" has been examined over and over and over again.

No connection has been found.

 

It's YOU who is making this argument that there is a problem with vaccines.

Without seeing YOUR argument, there's no way to present to you an adequate counter argument.

 

"Do you have a computer? Yes.
Do you have access tot he internet? Yes."


Haha...yes, let's compare 30 minutes of googling for pseudo-scientific nonsense on the internet to decades of research on and mountains of empirical evidence of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines . This debate will be over before dinner, if that is the arena the anti-vaxxers choose.

 

"Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not and never did contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal." CDC

You are free to select a thimerosal free flu vaccine if you wish. Of course, NO study shows that it makes ANY difference.

There are numerous studies in the USA and across the world showing that you don't have an issue.

- numerous studies show it is safe.
- the diseases that are prevented include significant risk.

This same kind of issue is true for EVERY MEDICATION EVER MADE. It even includes nostrums and home remedies that are outside of medical testing requirements.

In fact, your example shows that problems/limits of vaccines DO get identified and reported.

This is NOT a reason for refusing to vaccinate children against measles, polio, etc.

The CDC site absolutely does state who would benefit and what the benefits are. It also states who should NOT get it.

Again, medical testing isn't perfect. But, as YOUR examples show, there is responsiveness to issues found even after a drug has entered the market.

And, that isn't tied to vaccines - it's tied to every single medical supply ever created.

Do you remember that gloves used to be made from latex?

Is THAT a reason for refusing medications?

 

Well, I have no idea what the limits are for formaldehyde in the US or any other country - or what the CDC and others say about it.

 

You didn't do your research.

Wakefield has nothing at all to do with Japan dropping its MMR mandate.

And Japan dropped its MMR mandate not because fo autism but because of convulsions, seizures, deafness (nerve damage), and some other severe adverse reactions. Reactions were 2,000 more frequent than projected.

Japan also switched from the mmr (3-in-1) to individual dose vials for each vaccine. Why? Because its safer, there are fewer adverse reactions. In Japan, if you want the Rubella (the R in MMR) vaccine then you can get it without getting the "MM". Rubella is a somewhat significant illness, mumps and measles are not.

What happened to "will read more"? You asked for evidence, I gave you a link with links in it, and you dont even read it.
<>

he NCBI says the MMR is safe - the same orgnization that said Zostavax was safe.

And as stated, Japan Ministry of Health did their own studies based on their populations adverse reactions, Japan is very good at keeping records. Not a sampling or a survey of the extremely ineffective VAERS (estimates are that 1-10% of adverse reactions actually go into VAERS) as NCBI did.

I never claimed otherwise. But you are wrong on one point - Japan stopped requiring vaccinations due to its Ministry of Health and Welfare studying the positive and negative effects of vaccinations.

And thats the point - in Japan, based on the science, parents decide what is best for their child. In the USA, its the govt and Pharma who mandate whats best.

Measles still occurs in the USA, even among vaccinated people.

And that brings up another concern. With all the vaccinations, there is concern that children's immune systems do not develop properly. Those harmless childhood illnesses (chicken pox, mumps) produced a robust mature immune system in people. What happens when you vaccinate for dozens of illnesses? Children dont get those illnesses, they get just enough to to develop some immunity (and not usually life long, CDC estimates most vaccinations wear off in 5 years), their immune systems may not develope robustly. What happens when a new illness comes up?

No. Some are serious, most are not.

Look at HiB. Before the vaccine, its incidence was 20 per 100,000 children under the age of 5. Of those 20, 0.8 would die of HiB - thats 0.8 deaths per 100,000 children. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6301a1.htm

Measles and mumps are not significant particularly in developed industrialized nations. You get the illness, you miss school for a week, you go on with your life. Chickenpox is not significant except in a few children the pox will leave scars.

Hepatitis B can be serious - if you get it. You get it from contact with blood and semen, that means sexual contact or sharing needles. A MD or nurse working with those types of people would be wise to get vaccinated. The general population, let them decide for themselves.

And even for the serious ones, let parents decide the how and when of the vaccinations. Allow fewer vaccinations at a time, and allow children to get older before swamping them with vaccinations.

 

No, based on public opinion, their government made vaccination optional - leading to endemic measles, which is a disease that requires hospitalization by more than a quarter of children who contract the disease, with many contracting pneumonia.

True. It isn't perfect! There is no medication of any kind that is perfect.

Yes. Vaccines increase the immunological response to disease.

This isn't a logical argument direction for a discussion thread.

Like all pharma products, there are benefits and there are risks. It's NEVER perfect.

That isn't an excuse for ignoring pharma products.

No. Measles is endemic in Japan, because too few children are vaccinated in order to stop the endemic.

I have NO idea why you added this Hep B blurb. This vaccination is not suggested for those under 11 years, for example.

 

See what i mean about this charlatanry? Nobody claimed that NO instances of measles exist, so this counters nothing anyone has said. Furthermore, the intellectually honest and curious person would examine how many instances of measles there are in the US, and what effects vaccines have had on this number. The charlatan anti-vaxxer attempts no analysis, not just because he is a dishonest actor in this discussion, but also because any such analysis would be conclusive anathema to his pseudo-scientific horsesh1t.

 

There are too many items to address, but I will address one.

Hepatitis B vaccine is required for children in most states. I'll use Florida as an example - HepB vaccination is given at age 1-2 months. Look it up.

HepB is acquired through sexual contact (semen) and blood (needles). Are those likely activities for babies?


Your comment on HepB indicates your knowledge of the vaccination program is shallow. Maybe you should read a wider range of material.