i think i'm familiar with virtually every argument anti vaxxers trot out because i find it utterly fascinating as a phenomenon. i know what a double blind placebo trial is and that in the case of vaccines its unethical, because they are SO safe and effective that to leave people unprotected from preventable disease would contradict the vow to 'do no harm' that doctors make.
Thank you so much chinup.
This is the type of circular logic that
I find so utterly fascinating:
"We don't need to properly test them for safety using the scientific method because they are SO safe already."
"uhh but how can you prove that they're safe then?"
"Trust us"
"and if it turns out that you were wrong/lying and my child is injured, I cannot sue you and instead have to go up against the DOJ and in the unlikely event that I do win the case, the compensation is paid out by taxpayers?"
"That's right, now shut up and stick this Hep B vaccine into your 1-day old baby".
Absolutely incredible...
You realize that argument is complete BS since there are many parents who refuse to give their children vaccinations who would be more than happy to take part. Or that the CDC would be able to collate the info from a national database of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children and to properly compare health records - yet they refuse to do so when requested. Why would they refuse? Doing so would prove that the vaccinated population is much healthier overall, RIGHT? So the only logical explanation for their refusal is that people will see the truth - that the vaccinated population is FAR less healthy and that's what smaller studies of vax vs unvax populations has shown us already.
EG said:
The Journal of Translational Sciences, compared 261 unvaccinated children with 405 partially or fully vaccinated children, and assessed their overall health. What it found about increases in immune-mediated diseases like allergies and neurodevelopmental diseases including autism, should make all parents think twice before they ever vaccinate again:
*Vaccinated children were over four-fold more likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum (OR 4.3)
*Vaccinated children were 30-fold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children
* Vaccinated children were 22-fold more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children
*Vaccinated children were over five-fold more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children (OR 5.2)
*Vaccinated children were 340 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children (OR 4.3)
* Vaccinated children were 5.9-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children
*Vaccinated children were 3.8-fold more likely to be diagnosed with middle ear infection (otitis media) than unvaccinated children (OR 3.8)
*Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have had surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children (OR 8.1)
* Vaccinated children were 2.4-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children
"I'm sure there's a completely logical explanation for all of this though. It's simply a correlation and there's no evidence that vaccines are linked to any of these conditions."
"can you show us the safety studies?"
"nah we don't do them because they're so safe"
vaccinations go wrong less often than many things you do on a daily basis and this has been shown time and again to be the case. on balance the risk is far, far smaller than that of complications when contracting vaccine-preventable diseases such as polio and measles.
In 2016, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) received
59,117 reports (aren't we told they're one in a million? - what's the population of the US?)
- 432 deaths
- 1,091 permanent disabilities
- 4,132 hospitalizations
- 10,284 emergency room visits
Doesn't it seem unethical to force parents to vaccinate with this type of safety record? The government knows that they're going to create catastrophic brain swelling in children every year (BTW Sweden, when looking at forcing vaccines, ruled their constitution does not allow them to murder their own citizens, therefore they cannot have a forced vaccine program). Whether it's for the good of the whole or not, the Hippocratic oath is to do
no harm, not
some harm.
And yet every doctor will tell you: 'of course some kids will die, some will be injured but that is the accepted casualty of herd immunity'. The CDC head in Washington was asked how many people in the following year they expected to die, or have a neurological event that will damage them for life and she said, "we don't have the data on that". So they state that it is an "accepted casualty" yet they don't know what casualty they're accepting. Is that good science?
But it gets worse. Investigators requested to run data studies on the VAERS system to try and get to the bottom of some major questions and the authorities said "well you can't use VAERS because we don't trust it" - the
only surveillance system they have. They said "because it's under-reported". The US Department on Health & Human Services did their own study of the system (that they're in control of) and they found:
"fewer than 1% of adverse effects are reported" (Source: Report funded by HHS)
Either doctors don't know about VAERS, they're afraid to use it, don't use it or don't want to take the time to so nobody is reporting to this system:
"Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events." (Source: U.S. Congressional Report)
So if we are to go by HHS's
own statement, then 59,000 injuries becomes
5.9 million injuries in the year 2016.
432 deaths could be
43,000 deaths.
10,000 emergency room visits becomes
1 million emergency room visits.
So one way in our amazing technological age to get to the bottom of the autoimmune disease crisis would be to automate the system so that when someone comes in with an injury it automatically logs itself to the national collection of medical data.
In 2010, the CDC hired the Harvard medical team to look into automating VAERS. They asked them to use the Harvard Pilgrim Insurance Plan to see if they could automate the VAERS system inside of that. This is what they found:
"Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified."
^That's not 1 in a million.
That's 1 in 10.
Who would buy a product that injures 1 in 10?? But people simply aren't given this information.
So at the end of the study - instead of the CDC modernizing the national health services online and getting to the bottom of these epidemics - Harvard wrote:
"Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation."
Well that's a shame, again I wonder what the motivation was for that decision.
Meanwhile:
'Hamilton PSW suffers rare, but severe reaction to COVID-19 vaccine'
A little CPR, no big deal!
"When Deborah Tilli got the call last week telling her she’d be one of the first long-term-care workers in Hamilton vaccinated for COVID-19, she felt a mix of emotions.
A part of her was nervous, a part excited.
But what happened in the minutes after Tilli rolled up her sleeve for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on Christmas Eve has her cautioning those with allergies ahead of getting the jab.
“I thought I was doing the right thing,” said Tilli, who is a personal support worker at Dundurn Place Care Centre, which is currently in outbreak with two cases in staff. “Especially for my residents at work.”
Tilli, 27, is one of the rare people to have had a severe reaction to the vaccine — and a week later she’s still not fully recovered."
