The facts are owning this topic. I'm just a stenographer, and not a particularly good one.
Looks like the "vaccine argument" just got a little more interesting.
- Thread starter TheSilencer1313
- Start date
The facts are owning this topic. I'm just a stenographer, and not a particularly good one.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
What are the already "agreed to" side effects of vaccines?
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Haha, since you keep quoting the infamous wikipedia, there's not much use in arguing.
Whereas I have been siting stories backed by doctors.
I don't know what else to say here, because there are millions of errors in wikipedia.
This has been well documented over the years.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rror-ridden-encyclopaedia-dangerous-tool.html
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Those who love consensus science love consensus encyclopedia too. Go figure.
TheSilencer1313
Well-Known Member
Every time you get a vaccine, you get a sheet listing them.
I agree wikipedia is not the best source for highlhy technical, detailed information. However, if it's just a matter of doctors, I can out do you 10-to-1 there. It's better than 100-to-1 in the scientific literature.
I agree there is not much use in arguing, because fact is against you.
Said by the person who doesn't understand how consensus, science, or Wikipedia works.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Says the man linking to to the dailyfail.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Here is the list from the CDC for the DTap vaccine:
What do you consensus science believers say about them facts?
First, "have been reported" puts them well under the 1 in a million threshold. However, I fully acknowledge the serious side effects are possible.
On the other hand, without the vaccine, your probability of getting diptheria, pertussis, and/or tetanus is not only much higher, but so is your chance of dying from those diseases, than is your change of having a serious reaction to the vaccine.
The mild reactions are well worth the protection offered.
As Stroked, I also pierced both of my girls ears within their first three months. Ever try doing that to a toddler? They pull them out and play with them enough that infection is the norm. Besides, they look damn cute with little diamond studs. (like their dad)
As for this ridiculous thread, it needs to be pointed out that Slopper and TehSilencer agree on this topic. I know, I know... it's serious.
I'm kinda (not) surprised that Sily gets hung up on less-than-authoritative sources and is unimpressed with Wiki as less than authoritative.
Here's a fairly well-written summary of the issues of mercury in vaccines:
https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228
not saying the FDA is not going to minimize the dangers of products they have approved. . . .
It is argued, on sketchy studies, that it appears that the ethyl mercury from the breakdown of thimersol may be cleared at a faster rate, and may not be as toxic, even in infants, than the better-studied methyl mercury compounds. What I think is most telling about the credibility of the FDA, is that there have been so few studies done on ethyl mercury. Methyl mercury, on the other hand, is the form most commonly occurring in nature, largely as the result of the presence of inorganic mercury in the environment, where the methyl radical is much more abundant than the ethyl radical, and so methyl mercury has served as a valuable workhorse for the EPA as a reason to regulate mercury pollution.
While we can walk around on the hills all around Utah and encounter natural soil residues of mercury in surface soils, it is always seen by regulators as coming from the relative small areas of disturbed rock overburdens around mines we call "tailings", and overall the natural abundance of mercury in water and soil makes manmade releases only locally significant, it is fashionable to blame it all on man. And spend billions to regulate man.
This is actually a fairly ordinary trend in the politicization of almost any regulatory issue. Hard to regulate mother nature, anyway, while the whole purpose of governmental regulation is to establish some kind of hegemony in the affairs of man which can be exploited to advantage by those who can afford the most lawyers and lobbyists, driving the small fry out of the game.
At any rate, One Brow actually has only a minor case about the relative safety of thimerosol, and the science it's based on is actually compromised as financed by interested money demanding the results they paid for.
I think there is no valid reason to actually believe thimerosol is safe in any vaccine. But the larger and actually valid argument is that vaccines are impure solutions of biologic materials, often including things that can reasonably be expected to produce autoimmune disease.
Autoimmune disease is what happens when our own immune systems react to our own tissue components, usually proteins, in a destructive way. The reason you should expect autoimmune disease to result from the use of vaccines is precisely the whole reason some evolutionary scientists believe life forms have evolved. . . . because we share very similar proteins with practically any other living things. . . ..
If we use rabbits, or eggs, or any kind of culture media where some convenient organism is exposed to a disease enough to develop an immunologic response---- antibodies against the disease---, the harvesting of the antibodies is pretty difficult to make pure. Most vaccines contain many proteins from other organisms, and guess what. . . . our immune systems react to them. . . . and develop antibodies to them, too. Which sometimes results in our production of antibodies that will bind to our own natural proteins, and induce our immunocompetent macrophage cells to also attack our own bodies. . . . .
But back to the reason for thimerosol and other preservatives that are capable of killing bacteria. . . . There have been some spectacular cases where vaccines caused fatal outbreaks of contagious disease. If there is nothing in the vaccine that can keep bacteria from growing, you run the risk of "mainlining" infectious disease.
Recent flu outbreaks have been linked to the use of flu vaccines. . . . by popular observation at many workplaces where the vaccines are made available, folks are making jokes about how those who got the vaccines were the ones who got sick that winter. . . . .
It's a sort of damned if you do/damned if you don't sort of thing. We need vaccinations in our tool chest to prevent serious propagation of some diseases, but there are definitely those who experience ill effects from the vaccines. But if nobody was getting vaccinated, I'd want to be. Because the diseases we vaccinate for are sometimes pretty horrid. And lethal.
Last edited:
Don't forget thee are very deep pockets that, if vaccines are dangerous, are on the hook for paying the medical care required (health insurance companies). If vaccines really were dangerous, Aetna and Anthem would be screaming it at the top of their lungs.
On the other hand, there is no evidence it is dangerous.
For the most part, we don't harvest antibodies. We actually grow the disease itself, and either kill it (if we grow the wild form) or maim it before we grow it (if we have such a form). We relay on the body to itself to build antibodies to the disease fragments. The advantage of a vaccine is that once the body has learned to respond to a specific set of disease proteins, it will respond to that set more quickly.
There is no evidence vaccines increase autoimmune disorders.
Selective perception. Any cold becomes the flu. he real question is, did those folks get the type of flu being vaccinated against?
Much more like damned if you don't, and a tiny little bit gosh-golly-geed if you do.
I worked for a couple of years "harvesting antibodies" and then using them to purify their corresponding antigen epitopes. If your idea of "vaccination" is to administer the actual disease, why would you need to prepare anything. Nature will do it for you, in the course of time. . . . some of the earliest "vaccines" were actually just milder related diseases where exposure to the less virulent achieved resistance to the more virulent.
Creating impaired strains of disease is something that is done. . . . with the risk of some amount of unimpaired or potentiated form of the disease as well. . . . requiring some testing of the strain to see if it is "safe enough". I use such strains in my work even now. . . . and I do rely on vaccines quite a lot. There are actually quite a few variations in use that are called "vaccines", all of which are designed to minimize certain known risks and achieve a strategic advantage in combating the disease.
however, all of these strategies in practical terms do. as far as vaccines go, involve injecting foreign but analogous protein into the human.
Saying there is no observed risk of autoimmune disease is like saying, in a war, that high velocity lead does not cause injury because no one can see it in trajectory. Autoimmune disease takes years in many cases to become evident. It takes many forms that pass for normal aging or the simple advent of some disease that is generally thought to be not caused by an autoimmune process.
I have a brother who has been diagnosed with diabetes believed to be the result of autoimmunej process. . . . multiple sclerosis has long been studied as having an increased risk subsequent to measles vaccination. . . . the list is practically infinite. And practically unstudied. . . .
You are just blinded by your ardent reliance on "establishment" rose-colored glasses, not even open to the suggestion that we don't know enough to make such statements.
Some people think aging is all "autoimmune" process incident to the way we live, and that with some study we could greatly extend our life span by caring to avoid as far as possible our exposure to the stuff that ages us. . . . or to repair the proteins that become damaged in stress, or altered in age by several known natural pathways, say producing some conformational change which exposes some "strange" portion of the protein which the aged and impaired immune system mistakes for "foreign".
I don't think health insurance companies have near the presence in our grant administration agencies that our pharmaceutical companies have, and for the most part they are just going to run the risk statistics and adjust their rates.
Creating impaired strains of disease is something that is done. . . . with the risk of some amount of unimpaired or potentiated form of the disease as well. . . . requiring some testing of the strain to see if it is "safe enough". I use such strains in my work even now. . . . and I do rely on vaccines quite a lot. There are actually quite a few variations in use that are called "vaccines", all of which are designed to minimize certain known risks and achieve a strategic advantage in combating the disease.
however, all of these strategies in practical terms do. as far as vaccines go, involve injecting foreign but analogous protein into the human.
Saying there is no observed risk of autoimmune disease is like saying, in a war, that high velocity lead does not cause injury because no one can see it in trajectory. Autoimmune disease takes years in many cases to become evident. It takes many forms that pass for normal aging or the simple advent of some disease that is generally thought to be not caused by an autoimmune process.
I have a brother who has been diagnosed with diabetes believed to be the result of autoimmunej process. . . . multiple sclerosis has long been studied as having an increased risk subsequent to measles vaccination. . . . the list is practically infinite. And practically unstudied. . . .
You are just blinded by your ardent reliance on "establishment" rose-colored glasses, not even open to the suggestion that we don't know enough to make such statements.
Some people think aging is all "autoimmune" process incident to the way we live, and that with some study we could greatly extend our life span by caring to avoid as far as possible our exposure to the stuff that ages us. . . . or to repair the proteins that become damaged in stress, or altered in age by several known natural pathways, say producing some conformational change which exposes some "strange" portion of the protein which the aged and impaired immune system mistakes for "foreign".
I don't think health insurance companies have near the presence in our grant administration agencies that our pharmaceutical companies have, and for the most part they are just going to run the risk statistics and adjust their rates.
I don't dispute either of these very largely true statements.
I do believe our vaccine producers could "clean up" the vaccines. Like I said, I used to purify monoclonal antibodies and study their binding characteristics. I can understand the reluctance of commercial enterprises to do all that work, and the cost it would involve. . . . on a cost/benefit basis it doesn't look necessary. . . . but I believe we just don't really have the right measurement of the cost we are paying with our "sloppy" products.
OK, so I want to start a business, and provide the superior product with less health risk to the patient. Can I make money doing it?
Hmmm, call me maybe.