Shidoshi Wrote:Also, studies can never have a zero control group. You can't deny access to proven medicine in order to conduct a study, it's unethical.
.

Shidoshi Wrote:Each individual can't take their own decisions regarding this since it's something that affects more than just himself. You can't take your own decisions regarding murder for the same reason. Also the general population is dumb and uninformed.

I don't know why you are bringing side-effects, of course there are many evil things caused by vaccines. It's simply that the probability of them happening multiplied by the damage caused by them is less than the probability to get the disease it protects from without the vaccine multiplied by the damage caused by that disease. It's the lesser evil, there is no miracle cure.

Quote:The problem of cell-culture contamination has long plagued vaccines. For instance, the polio vaccine given in the late 1950s and early '60s was found to be contaminated by a carcinogenic monkey virus, SV40. All existing stock of the vaccine was allowed to be used up, rather than "erode confidence in the vaccine" by recalling it. Some time after that polio vaccine was introduced, cancer rates in children rose. SV40 is also now showing up in tumors, including cancerous ones.

Quote:“the odds of transmitting the virus after receiving the nasal spray are about 2.5 percent,” with children the most susceptible.

“It has been documented that the live viruses from the vaccine can be shed (and potentially spread into the community) from recipient children for up to 21 days, and even longer from adults. Viral shedding also puts breastfeeding infants at risk if the mother has been given FluMist,”

According to the Mayo Clinic, the swine flu scandal of 1976, when more people died from the vaccine than the actual virus, was what caused the live virus to be removed from future vaccines. However, it is admitted that FluMist contains the live virus.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:People can consent to not take medical treatments. In fact several communities in this nation refuse to take vaccines every day including the Amish. This is not unethical.

Also, there is more than one side effect, and there has been no proof that the swine flu was an effectve vaccine (in fact it was rush onto the market).
http://www.naturalnews.com/026866_swine_flu_flu_vaccine_swine_flu_vaccine.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/031075_vaccines_seizures.html
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/09/10/swine-flu-vaccine-may-have-caused-narcolepsy.aspx
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/flu-vaccination-ban-goes-national-after-fever-convulsions-in-children-20100423-tglp.html?from=age_ft

This is just a handful of side effects.

Personally, i think each individual should make their own choice regarding vaccinations and determine for themselves whether the risk is worth the vaccination rather than let a government agency that clearly caters to the drug companies decide for you.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:I must ask a question. If vaccines are so safe, so perfect, then why has the federal government protected vaccine producers from bing sued and other legal sanctions? If vaccines are so safe, there would be no need for such protections.

Kabanaw Wrote:Do you just ignore the posts that give decent arguments against yours, or are you just too stubborn of a conspiracy theorist to change your mind?

As Devil's Sunrise said, drug companies would make more money on people getting sick than preventing sickness, and I believe it. Let's just say we live in a hypothetical universe where vaccinations do work; one shot could prevent you from contracting a disease, which means the drug companies get to sell one shot. But if people just got the disease instead and had to be hospitalized, they would be given so many more drugs there.

And if you're so adamant about results being scientifically proven, then stop posting 1:x ratios of people with autism to people without autism in amish societies, because there is a bigger difference between Americans and the Amish than the vaccines they are given. And if you even look into the reference given for the 1:10,000 statistic, you'd see that not only do they say that the results are not substantial enough to prove vaccinations cause autism, but that there is also one neurologist studying these 10,000 people, half of whom HAVE BEEN VACCINATED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

And let's take a look at a disease besides smallpox. How about Polio? The number of cases worldwide starting increasing around 1910, and thousands of people because paralyzed because of it. In the early 1950s tens of thousands of Americans were diagnosed with Polio. The Polio vaccine was released in 1955. In 1957, there was about 5,600 reported cases. In 1961, only 164 cases were reported.

Can you honestly say the standard of living between the 1950s and 1960s changed so greatly that it nearly entirely eradicated a disease?

A lot of your points go off the idea that there are no good people in power, and everybody involded in drugs and government are self-serving swine. How can you be sure not one of the people you referenced wasn't self serving?

Edit: And take a look at the chance of the H1N1 virus spreading from those with the nasal spray 1 out of 50 people? That's absurd. hundreds of kids in my school got the nasal spray last year. You know how many spread the swine flu after getting the vaccination? None.

Quote:In summary:
1)The number of polio cases was declining before the widespread administration of the Salk vaccine.
2)Cases which had previously been reported as polio are now reported as meningitis.
3)The risk of contracting polio from the live virus vaccine is greater than the risk of acquiring the disease from naturally occurring viruses.

Quote:Wiznitzer admits to Amish vaccination rates being around 50% but others have reported very much lower rates.

Quote:but others have reported very much lower rates.

DarkQThunder Wrote:Let's say 10% of unvaccinated people would catch the disease and die, but 0.1% of those vaccinated have serious side effects. If the government doesn't protect the vaccine complanies, those 0.1% would sue the company, possibly making it go out of bussiness and causing 10% of the entire population to die because no company will produce vaccine in fear of being sued.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Maybe if youd provide factual evidence that vaccines were effective I might change my opinion, but even the evidence you posted on the polio vaccine is flawed:
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/kent.html


Also this is the statement you are referencing.

A statement that does not reference the types of vaccines and it does not mention a specific Amish group. It just says Amish and the article contradict this man's statement:

Also keep in mind that Wiznitzer is on the side of drug companies. Making them look good, especially in court, is his job. You'll need to take what he says with a grain of salt. Especially since he doesnt mention the types of vaccines or the Amish vaccine schedule for the supposed 50%.

Regarding your claim of the nasal spray, didnt you vaccine supporters say that nothing is definite? 2.5% doesnt mean ever 50th person will spread the disease. Also some people claim to have had children suffer from fevers after the vaccination: http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/74518.page

And give me a reason to believe that the scientists I referenced where self serving. I already posted and referenced reasons to believe people in the CDC have reasons to support vaccines, even dangerous ones.


So the minority doesnt matter? The people that had their children die, be paralyzed or disabled permanently as a result of vaccines dont deserve justice? With all other forms of healthcare, you can sue for damages that occur to your body as a result of malpractice. Also, many drugs can be detrimental to human health, but drug companies dont go out of business from being sued. Your concern about vaccine companies is not backed by precedent in this country.
Also, I love the imaginary statistic.

Quote:Oh, and vaccine producers removed thiomersal/mercury from every vaccine but tetanus and flu between 1999 and 2001.
Bad news though, autism rates continue to rise despite the fact thiomersal is no longer a common vaccine ingredient

Anonymous Moose Wrote:So the minority doesnt matter?

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Also, I love the imaginary statistic.

Kalovale Wrote:So the majority doesn't matter? By choosing to opt out of vaccination, those minority people are consciously targeting to make the rest of humanity more vulnerable to vaccine-preventable illnesses, because, goddamned, one can talk all he wants but once he stops producing antibiotics, chances are he's going to get raped by the viruses, whether the vaccine which he so vehemently abhors actually works or not.

Vaccination is not a saint, this world is not a rose-embedded carpet. People died due to illnesses. Would you, if you happen to be the unlucky minority, want to bring the rest of the world with you just to be fair? Just so that everyone matters? You can't develop enough vaccines to cover everyone on this planet, no one can, in fact. So the most productive and acceptable (or the least unethical) is to go with what saves the most people; instead of, say, eliminate vaccines altogether so that everyone can be equally lucky (not really, even).


It's still statistic, and it keeps the point relevant in case it proves (near) accurate; much better than exploiting people's paranoia to present (or mispresent) a fact (read:mercury).

Oh, and, generalization at its best. A few vaccines don't work as expected (whose expectations anyway?), bam, vaccines in general are a waste of money or even a conspiring plot. This is even more stupid than "screw dem jews".

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Is there any proof that non-vacinated people are a danger to vacinated people? Is there a real study out there that proves this so called fact? I'm personally annoyed that people would defend criminals that are responsible for at least reckless endangerment over unproven vaccines.

And honestly, many vaccines are not necessary. For example, Hep B. is only transfered through the exchange of bodily fluids (STD), so prevention should be as easy as avoiding situations that involve the transfer of bodily fluids. If fear contaminated blood from the hospital or fear someone forcing the transfer of bodily fluids or simply wish to conduct risky behaviour, then it should be your choice to to get the vaccine. But people that believe they dont need it shouldnt be forced to obtain.

Then we have flu vaccines, vaccines that work against retroviruses which evolve so quickly that no one vaccine can protect a person for long, assuming it works. Every year people have formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, and several other substances that are detrimental to your health for a completely unproven vaccine. Worst of all was the first H1N1 vaccine, which was even sited for causing more cases of H1N1 than the wild virus.

Then of course, I've cited several viruses that have begun to decline before the introductions of vaccines, and interestingly enough statistics show that with the introduction of the small pox vaccine, small pox rates increased temporarly. Same with the polio vaccine.

There are too many questions brought up by historical statistics to say that vaccines are effective, and not enoough scientific research (give me a double-blind placebo controlled study proving the claims regarding vaccines.

Regarding you claim on a statistic, you've got to be insane to accept a completely arbitrary set of numbers with no proof to back them up.
And as I said, his concern is baseless. Drug companies (lets take Merck) have been sued several times over the past several years over their drugs. Are they out of business? No they are not.

@corn: when did presenting facts and demanding people to prove their claims become trolling?

Kabanaw Wrote:You're asking people to prove their claims? They have been, and you've been ignoring them.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Is there any proof that non-vacinated people are a danger to vacinated people? Is there a real study out there that proves this so called fact? I'm personally annoyed that people would defend criminals that are responsible for at least reckless endangerment over unproven vaccines.

Quote:Every year people have formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum, and several other substances that are detrimental to your health for a completely unproven vaccine.

Quote:Then of course, I've cited several viruses that have begun to decline before the introductions of vaccines

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Link to the double-blind placebo controlled study please.
And refuting points is not ignoring the points.

Shidoshi Wrote:Do we need to say again that it's unethical to conduct medical studies with a placebo group?

Quote:What You Can Expect

• We will answer any questions you have to make sure that you understand everything involved with participating in our trial.
  
• You will receive a physical exam that includes blood tests.
  
• Over the period of the study, you will receive four shots. These shots could be the research vaccines, or they could be placebos. Half of the participants will receive the vaccines and the other half will receive placebos.
  
• You will be asked to keep a record of any physical reaction you have to the vaccine.
  
• Your follow up visits every three months will include an interview, an HIV test, and risk-reduction counseling.

Kalovale Wrote:What exactly is there to prove? That a patient is a container of viruses? That transmission of said viruses does happen from person to person? That vaccinated people are still, at a low rate, subject to contracting illnesses when exposed to viruses (in this case, via non-vaccinated people)? Even if the vaccine has a 30% success rate, not taking it still means you are MORE likely to contract such disease, adding another threat the unprotected people (who are unlucky enough not to have the vaccine work for them).


Does any of your "studies" specify how much these amounts would be within any or each vaccine dose? Which? At which period of time? How exactly dangerous they are? Or perhaps just mentioning the names of mercury, formaldehyde and aluminium would be enough to make a point?


What does this even mean? That no vaccine is needed if the disease is already on the decline? And you were defending the minority unlucky people over there.

Quote:Although couched in scientific language, Hewitson's findings are explosive. They suggest, for the first time, that our closest animal cousins develop characteristics of autism when subjected to the same immunizations – such as the MMR shot -- and vaccine formulations – such as the mercury preservative thimerosal -- that American children received when autism diagnoses exploded in the 1990s.

Quote:#1) It is "unethical" to conduct placebo-controlled studies on seasonal flu vaccines to find out if they actually work.

#2) But at the same time, it is entirely ethical to give these shots to hundreds of millions of people, even while lacking any real evidence that they are safe or effective.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:There is a lot to prove. For example I'd like to compare non-vacinated people and occurence of diseases with those of vacinated people. Why wont you just point out a study that proves vaccines are effective?

And I'll give you an example of a study that uses the exact same vaccines given to humans. The only difference is that it is on monkeys our closest relative in the animal kingdom. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sick_monkeys.html

I'll let you decide if they provide evidence or just shout "mercury a proven neurotoxin is bad for you."

And if a disease is in decline, which is the case for many diseases supposedly eradicated by vaccines, then that brings doubt to the official claim that vaccines killed the diseases. You also are ignoring the fact that records show an increase in cases of small pox after the introduction of the vaccine.


Regarding Ethical issues, I have to ask one thing. What is more unethical, testing a vaccine and using a placebo on some individuals in a double-blind study, or releasing the vaccine to be tested on the public instead?
http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html

And I'll say it once again, give me a few links to some real studies so that I could research them. If I find that vaccines are effective thanks to double-blind placebo based studies, then I probably would change my mind on vaccines after enough research. Although, that still doesnt dismiss the other health concerns raised by vaccination and I definitly will continue to believe in the freedom of choice.
Currently I question the effectiveness of vaccines, especially because of suspicious public policy, definity conflict of interests and evidence that contradicts official claims.

Eosian Wrote:They're doing it right now with the HIV vaccines.

http://www.hopetakesaction.org/volunteering/index.html



In fact they've always done vaccine studies with placebos because it's the only way to tell if you're having any statistical effect over doing nothing at all.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Why wont you just point out a study that proves vaccines are effective?