/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10631575
So can vaccines.
imagine permanently disabling 109,000 kids every year just to avoid things like chicken pox and measles.
>>10631910
>russian bots made like 200 tweets over the course of about 5 years
holy shit, so insane.

Vaccines kill more than 50,000+ people every year in the united states alone.
That is more than every disease combined that we vaccinate for at their peak in the 1900s when we documented them.

>>10581623
nobody is questioning vaccine efficacy, many anti-vaxxers even believe they do their intended job depending on which vaccine you are asking about, mumps and pertussis are pretty fucked on their efficacy but we dont see much chicken pox or measles (not nearly the same amount).

You are confusing efficacy and safety. Many vaccines do their intended job of suppressing the symptoms of a disease but you still get sick from them and require future doses to continue to be "protected'.

The problem lies in, are the vaccines more dangerous than the disease themselves? And we have absolutely no data on this.
No injury reporting system
No vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies
No long term studies
No vaccine on the schedule has gone through a placebo study
No study of cumulative health of the vaccine schedule
No studies on giving pregnant women vaccines

So your question doesn't really matter to anyone questioning vaccines, it is actually the only argument of pro-vaxxers who refuse to answer the follow up question of "Do vaccines injure/kill more than the disease they aim to prevent"? And so far the science is telling us no or it hasn't been done.

>>10516064
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvBszdGBOxM
76 fetal cells used in one single vaccine study.
> I'd say no, which is why I wouldn't invite Jenny McCarthy to speak at a conference I'm running.
there are MULTIPLE licensed medical professionals who are speaking out.
there was one in Canada recently who won a lawsuit gaining access to the HPV placebo studies that were hidden behind a gag order. He plans to publish these later
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/judge-orders-health-canada-to-hand-over-pharmaceutical-data-1.4745302

>why give people a patform when their rights are being violated
Because this is a right to medical choice being taken away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Chopra
While he has passed away, he is one character who spoke against vaccines and how the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt and how they were pressured to approve multiple questionable drugs.

Just look at the one conversation debate I posted earlier, it had multiple medical experts who were speaking.
https://oneconversationatatime.com/
Dr. Christopher A. Shaw, Ph.D
Dr. Bob Sears, MD
Dr. Toni Bark, MD, MHEM, LEED, AP
Dr. David Lewis PhD
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO, AOBNMM, ABIHM
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, PhD
Dr. Gayle DeLong, PhD
Now compare that to the people who all cancelled a week before the event (though they were happy to participate until their bosses told them no and censored them)
Dr. Chen, MD, MS, FACP, FIDSA -- CANCELLED
Dr. Mosley, PhD -- CANCELLED
Dr. Brown, MD, FACOG -- CANCELLED
Dr. Stringer, Jr., MD -- CANCELLED
Dr. Kinch, PhD -- CANCELLED
Dr. Roe, PhD --CANCELLED
Dr. Hawkes, PhD -- CANCELLED

Do you see jenny McCarthy here? I only see well qualified medical professionals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNKcaWp3Sf4
Here is suzanne humphries speaking on vaccines, she is a very well qualified medical profession who earned $300,000/yr until she quit after seeing vaccine dangers, she still has her license.

Vaccines kill an estimated 43,200 every year. If you even deny this number, you admit that we have no idea how many vaccines kill in a year meaning you are practicing blind medicine.
Compare this with the lowly reported rates of 500 or less for major diseases like measles.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/E/reported-cases.pdf
Find me any year here where you can combine every single disease and find a higher number of deaths cause than 43,200.

>approved vaccines are safe
https://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/conflicts-of-interest.aspx
>It is alarming that it was known during clinical trials and the licensing process that there were increased incidences of intussusception in vaccinated infants.
>however, the committee apparently determined that the reported rate of 1 in 2010 was not to be statistically significant.
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/930708-overview
>If left untreated, however, this condition is uniformly fatal in 2-5 days.
Who approved it?
>At the time of the VRBPAC meeting for approval of Rotashield, Dr. Hall's employer, the University of Rochester, had a $9,586,000 contract with the NIAID for a rotavirus vaccine.
>Dr. Hall was allowed to fully participate in the meeting.
>3 out of 5 FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December 1997 had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
Boy do I love the approval for vaccines, nothing wrong there.
Reminder, none of the studies have ever been conducted on vaccines:
Vaccinated vs unvaccinated study (we can do an ethical version in the VSD)
Cumulative vaccine study
Study of the vaccine schedule
Long-term study
Double blind rct placebo(saline) study, which is the gold standard in science.

There is so little science done on vaccines, they compare a vaccine to a vaccine, look at adverse health outcomes for 5 days and say the product is perfectly safe.

>>10221673
>magic conspiracy.
>quoting random numbers
>literally the cdc themselves
Anybody would want polio eradicated, but only if it wasn't killing more than it was saving.
Also the irony of you saying I am making bullshit up while spouting numbers.
Source on 10%? Source on 90%?
Pro-vaxxers are so anti-science it hurts, you can't even provide proper sources for your claims.
Look at the polio vaccine, they don't know how many vaccines kill, it is literally blind medicine. pic related.
For further proof, here is a dtp study that found 10x as many people were killed for each saved by the vaccine.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352396417300464
>The negative effect was particularly strong for children who had received DTP-only and no OPV (HR = 10.0 (2.61–38.6)).
>10x mortality

Heres the polio vaccine insert
https://www.fda.gov/downloads/biologicsbloodvaccines/vaccines/approvedproducts/ucm133479.pdf
>In trials and field studies conducted outside the US, IPOL vaccine, or a combination vaccine containing IPOL vaccine and DTP, was administered to more than 3,000 infants between 2 to 18 months of age using IPV only schedules and immunogenicity data are available from 1,485 infants.
No wonder the polio vaccine looks so fucking amazing. You just used a vaccine as a comparison that is so dangerous that it caused the 1986 act alone because so many manufacturers were being successfully sued for it they stopped making that vaccine.

And then you have to remember at the exact same time they began widespread use of polio vaccine, they changed the diagnosis criteria for polio as well as the definition of polio. I'm sure that had 0 effect on the disappearance of polio.

>>10193816
Your methods and line of thinking are correct, but your premise is critically flawed. By suggesting there is no such "conspiracy" in academic science, you ignore the various examples of those who have published papers regarding the role of mercury in conditions such as autism, and as a consequence were expressly unpublished and forced into resignation. Even if scientists like Andrew Wakefield were actually unscientific fraudsters, where is the precedent for such harsh penalization for being incorrect, or even falsifying data? Academic science is rife with unreproducible studies, since when does such major, sudden penalty come with being wrong?
Even pretending that there were absolutely no institutional interests opposed to the publishing of papers citing mercury and vaccines as a leading cause of illness, who would fund these studies? Certainly not the same medical industry which promotes their distribution to this day.

>>10192032
>vaers
http://vaers-2016-reports.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
>432 deaths
Stanly Plotkins who is the god father of vaccines
https://youtu.be/rUaOkKUXYek?t=281
>I don't really put much faith into the VAERS system.
IOM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190024/
>This one study (Geier and Geier, 2004) was not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because it provided data from a passive surveillance system
CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
>Limitations: It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event.
>It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.
FDA
https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt977/CRPT-106hrpt977.pdf
>Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events
HHS
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
>fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
>1% injuries reported
>43,200 deaths in 2016 alone?

4 major institutions and stanly plotkin's himself does not believe in VAERS as accurate.

So if we take your 104 MMR deaths, could that actually be 10,400 deaths?

If we compare that with measles over 10 years that is 500 x 10 = 5,000 measles deaths
That would still be 2x as many deaths if we take the average of 500 deaths per year from measles for 10 years.

VAERS is unreliable and should not be used.

>>10186740
When do we get a working vaccine injury reporting system in the U.S to prove that benefits>risk?

>>10179801
Because vaccinating them isn't helping them, it's killing them.

There is no "working" system to catch adverse events with vaccines.

VAERS is the only system used and it has been stated by the CDC, FDA, IOM, HHS and even Stanly Plotkins the godfather of vaccines himself as unreliable. How can you say vaccines don't cause injuries if you aren't even looking or keeping track of them?

Sources:

https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
>fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.

https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt977/CRPT-106hrpt977.pdf
>Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
>Limitations
>It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event.
>It is not possible to use VAERS data to calculate how often an adverse event occurs in a population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190028/
>This one study (Geier and Geier, 2004) was not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because it provided data from a passive surveillance system and lacked an unvaccinated comparison population.
(it used VAERS which is a passive surveillance system)

https://youtu.be/rUaOkKUXYek?t=286
>I don't really put much faith into the VAERS system for a number of reasons

So we don't have ANY working injury reporting system that all of these major institutions are calling a failure and I'm supposed to believe that vaccine injuries are non existent? How about we do that for cancer, let's stop looking for it and pretend it doesn't exist, that should solve the problem.
You can believe vaccines are safe sure, about as safe as injecting random chemicals into your blood, they haven't been studied but neither have vaccines.

>>10105775
Now, this isn't measles but it is in fact rotavirus

https://www.nvic.org/nvic-archives/conflicts-of-interest.aspx

>During the clinical trials, five children out of a total of 10,054 subjects suffered intussusception.[xxvii] If confirmed, the rate of intussusception would be 1 in 2010 children.
>According to the manufacturers package insert, the adverse event was considered statistically insignificant at 0.05%.
>1 in 2010
>insignificant
I'm sorry, what? I heard adverse reactions like this were RARE, you're telling me that 1 in 2010 are going to suffer form a SEVERE, LIFE THREATING issue?

Lets put it like this, thats about 500/million babies you are having their intestines roll over onto each other and die.

You want to disprove the adverse reaction rates as being higher than the disease itself? Give me a working injury reporting system, because pic related is the only one we got and IT DOESN'T WORK, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE IOM.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190028/
The committee reviewed one study to evaluate the risk of autism after the administration of DTaP vaccine. This one study (Geier and Geier, 2004) was not considered in the weight of epidemiologic evidence because it provided data from a passive surveillance system and lacked an unvaccinated comparison population.
>was not considered because it provided data from a passive surveillance system (I.E VAERS)
They admit VAERS is unreliable and not allowed to be used.

But fear not, people have automated VAERS!
http://truthsnitch.com/2017/10/24/cdc-silence-million-dollar-harvard-project-charged-upgrading-vaccine-safety-surveillance-system/#sthash.Cdd0nT9O.4pi7oHLg.dpbs
>Of those 715,000 patients, 376,452 were given 1.4 million doses of 45 different vaccines. A total of 35,570 possible adverse reactions were identified, so 2.6% of vaccinations were followed by a possible adverse reaction.
CDC ghosted them when they showed this result, the $1million project was shut down.

>>10096612
Why would they need tests for that? Any moron could figure out by simply reading the ingredients that all of the above symptoms are more than likely with a cocktail of toxi- uh, I mean adjuvants are going directly into the bloodstream.

> Approved vaccines are safe and effective.
Ah yes, so safe we don't even need a working injury reporting system or studies to check for long-term vaccine damage.
>A: Observing vaccinated children for many years to look for long-term health conditions would not be practical,
>Although 25% of
ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events
and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
> Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/parents-guide-part4.html
https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt977/CRPT-106hrpt977.pdf
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

ONLY ONE IN A GAJILLION GET INJURED

I am pro-choice on the topic of vaccines, if you wanna vaccinate, partially vaccinate, or not vaccinate altogether that is your choice to make. I choose not to vaccinate altogether and my biggest concern is that we have no way of knowing if vaccines cause long-term health adverse outcomes.
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.

https://www.congress.gov/106/crpt/hrpt977/CRPT-106hrpt977.pdf
Former FDA Commissioner David A. Kessler has estimated that VAERS reports currently represent only a fraction of the serious adverse events

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/tools/parents-guide/parents-guide-part4.html
A: Observing vaccinated children for many years to look for long-term health conditions would not be practical,

So we have NO long-term studies being done by the CDC and NO working injury reporting system to catch long-term health outcomes of vaccines. Could any of you adamant pro-vaxxers provide me proper evidence of vaccines being proven to not cause long-term adverse events?

>>10029739
We don't have a working injury reporting system. How is this not a major issue? How do we know people are having adverse reactions if nobody is reporting it?

>>10018120
>mad because it's not the MSM "science" you get fed.

If vaccines are dangerous we would see it being-

meanwhile in reality
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system
Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients. A total of 1.4 million vaccine 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.