/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10113058
t. Morbillivirus

>>10113058
>You had less than a 1 in 100,000 chance of being alive in the 1950's
FTFY Grandpa

>>10113058
It's 100% for the families that had their children die. Also didn't die=/=didn't suffer. Pneumonia, meningitis and encephalitis are common complications and cost way more to threat than the vaccine. Also look up subacute sclerosing panencephalitis.1 in 10k cases develops the condition. Death rate is 100%.

>>10113981
So what about the people who have had their children lost to vaccine injuries? Death rate is 100% for them.
https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/data/index.html
>$199,698,051.42 paid out in 2018

>>10113058
what about the third world? vaccines really helped them a lot
I think anti-vax propaganda is think veiled "kill all third worlders" propaganda

>>10114416
We give them a vaccine that is so dangerous we don't use it in the first world.
http://vaccinepapers.org/wp-content/uploads/Introduction-of-DTP-and-OPV-Among-Infants-in-an-Urban-African-Community-A-Natural-Experiment.pdf
>10x mortality rates of DTP
Boy, they aren't getting tetanus or diptheria, but they're dying of EVERYTHING ELSE.

>>10114412
>For every 1 million doses, 1 person was compensated
So even if we assume that everyone in the US was vaccinated, and even if we assume that every single compensation was a death caused by a vaccine, measles are much more "deadly" than vaccines according to your logic.

>>10114427
>Vaccine injuries are severely under reported, stated as being less than 1%
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
> fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
>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. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month.
https://www.nap.edu/read/2138/chapter/12
>The lack of adequate data regarding many of the adverse events under study was of major concern to the committee.
>in 1994 they knew
https://www.nap.edu/read/13164/chapter/2#23
>The vast majority of causality conclusions in the report are that the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship.
>2011 report on vaccines

We have 1 in a million winning per DOSE of vaccine, not just per schedule. Where are the cumulative studies of the schedule? where are the vaccinated vs unvaccinated studies?

The IOM reports vaccine as being unstudied, a Harvard program found that VAERS could be automated and found 2.6% adverse reactions, not 1/1,000,000, it got ghosted, I wonder why.

We have people winning cases when they have to fight pic related, and you wonder why theres so few, yet with that MOUNTAIN to climb, they are still winning, just shows how many reactions there are.

http://vaers-2016-reports.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/
>432 deaths reported
>1%
>43,200 estimated deaths in 2016?

Gee I wonder who could be behind this post

>>10114423
The sample is too small to conclude anything. It uses a handful of deaths per group and doesn't even control for unrelated deaths. Not to mention that it found getting both vaccines lowers mortality (if we assume the sample is statistically significant).

This is an American thread I guess, but I'd just like to add that I was never told the Measles are deadly.

Are there any studies comparing countries with lots of vaccine use to countries with minimal vaccine use? Because I didn't even know regular vaccinations were a thing till it became news that Americans dont do it, I never got a vaccine sinse I can remember, I don't remember anyone ever mentioning vaccinations irl unless they were an at risk group. And yet Ive never heard of anyone getting polio, or aids and shit. I think I remember one kid getting measles in school, bit that might have been something else.

>>10114445
>Vaccine injuries are severely under reported, stated as being less than 1%
The adverse events reported are not "vaccine injuries," they are just adverse events that occur at some time after vaccination. You're a liar.

>>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. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month.
According to the "methodology" in the OP we need to divide deaths from vaccines by the total population to find their mortality rate. But you haven't given deaths from vaccines, you've given "possible reactions" which would include non-deaths and deaths that were not caused by vaccines. Your double standard is horrendous. You ignore all the known negative effects of measles yet you count all negative effects unknown to be caused by vaccines.

>>10113058
If this is a subtle anti-vax thread, can you answer one question for me? Answer honestly.

If you were bit by a rabid dog, would you get the vaccine, or refuse treatment?

>>10114445
>432 deaths reported
>1% caused by vaccines
>4 deaths caused by vaccines reported
>100% of deaths caused by vaccines reported
>4 deaths caused by vaccines
See I can make up numbers too.

>>10113058

This is why vaccinations should be mandatory and anyone who doesn't get them executed. It gets rid of the dumb, preserving the Darwinism that is missing when dumb people take advantage of what smart people do.

1. It isn't just about death. People don't want to be sick. If we can prevent that by vaccination all the better.
2. .000005 % of the us got the measles in 2016 compared to almost everyone getting the measles in their lifetime before 1963. That's 200 cases total.

Vaccination is a common story, just like education and indoctrination: it is about what works for all of us. No one cares about you; we care about us.

And not getting a vaccination only works if everyone else gets a vaccination and that makes not getting vaccinated corruption.

Hey. If you don't want to be a part of society, leave. But if you are here, then you do what is best for everyone

....or we'll kill you.

>>10114487
Until your benevolent government decides there are too many people in the world and “accidentally” fucks up a batch of vaccines. Vaccines should always be optional. The stupid will die in plagues, until the smart ones die at the hands of the government.

>>10114412
The burden of proof for law is much lower than we would expect for a scientific paper or study.

>The evidence is legally sufficient to show that the vaccine more likely than not caused (or significantly aggravated) the inj
ury; or
>The injury is listed on, and meets all of the requirements of, the Vaccine Injury Table, and HHS has not proven that a factor unrelated to the
>vaccine more likely than not caused or significantly aggravated the injury. An injury listed on the Table and meeting all Table requirements is
>given the legal presumption of causation. It should be noted that conditions are placed on the Table for both scientific and policy reasons.

More likely than not is the lowest test you can have.

>>10113058
>That is a 0.00001% chance of dying from it.
>You have a better chance of winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning on the very same day.
100% bait

IOM, FDA, and HHS all saying we have no working vaccine injury reporting system.
>IF VACCINES CAUSED INJURIES WE WOULD KNOW
Gee, I wonder why we dont see the numbers. Know whats worse than knowing vaccines cause injuries? Not knowing the number of those injuries.
Vaccines are literal blind medicine because you cant estimate the actual number of injuries.

>>10114581
Pick 3 is still a lottery.

>>10114702
You're ignoring decades of research that consistently show vaccines are safe.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/2/325

Postmarketing surveillance is nice to have but unnecessary, and will always suffer the same flaws. Why do vaccines need to be held to a much higher standard than other medicines?

>>10114464
>Are there any studies comparing countries with lots of vaccine use to countries with minimal vaccine use?
Japan is a good example, since they sort of dropped MMR in the 90's. However, it's a good example of why this issue continues to divide people so much since the claims on it vary.

>>10114484
These arguments are always retarded and you should aim to do better. It's the same as "huh, so you're a vegan? well, what about if you were on a desert island and the only food was a shipping container full of slim-jims?" or "huh, so you don't want aids, well, what about if you would die without a blood transfusion but the only one available was from a guy who had HIV?". Saying that someone would drop some ideal or take some risk in a hypothetical extreme case makes no point outside of "people value self-preservation more than some other things".

>>10114810
>Why do vaccines need to be held to a much higher standard than other medicines?
Is it because you inject them mostly into young developing children?

>>10114810
>Why do vaccines need to be held to a much higher standard than other medicines?
Is there another medicine that's forced on everyone in the same quantities (especially as infants)?

>>10114818
And they are extensively studied for safety in children: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/2/325

Why do vaccines need to be held to a much higher standard than other medicines for children?

>>10114819
>Is there another medicine that's forced on everyone in the same quantities (especially as infants)?
No, since no other medicine is so effective at not only preventing harm to the patient from disease but also preventing its spread to others.

>>10114829
>Why do vaccines need to be held to a much higher standard than other medicines for children?
Again, because you don't typically get a choice in the matter.

>>10114840
You do, you can either be a responsible member of society and prevent your child from spreading disease or you can home-school them.

>>10114848
Your goal is to have everyone who can be vaccinated be required to get one. It's pretty disingenuous to say "you have a choice of being exiled instead" as a response to "these should be held to a higher standard because you're required to get one". Your argument is "everyone should be required to get one because they shouldn't be held to a higher standard because you aren't required to get one".

>>10113058
If you were younger than 12 that 1 in 100,000 significantly jumped up.
Also >>10113981

>vaccines
>extensively studied
Pick one
No vaccine studies doss any of the following
Use saline placebo
Full study of the vaccine schedule/cumulative
Long term health studies
Vaccinated vs unvaccinated
The ONLY safety we have apparently is post marketing data. A.k.a this is human experimenting.
Why do we not know how many are injured by vaccines?
Why do vaccines, which are SOOOOO safe need to be protected by the government from all liability? Why do they also need a secret court?
Why has none of this been addressed, this is so stupid, np wonder anti-vaxxers are growing, becauae people aren't retarded enough to believe injecting 50+ vaccines into a baby has absolutely no detrimental effects or that its low enough to only be 1 in a million.

Vaccines are anti-science, because you refuse to do any.

Remember, you can do a vax vs unvaxxed througj the VSD and it is ethically possible accprding to the IOM. But you have to be a brainlet to actually think its unethical for a baby to not be injected with untested toxic chemicals. Go ahead and prove me wrong, tell me what the injury rate is for vaccines, we dont have any system that works to find them.

>>10114883
>its unethical for a baby to not be injected with untested toxic chemicals.
No, it's just child abuse and you should have your children taken away and killed.

>>10114445
>unvaccinated studies?
It's pretty clear what happens to unvaccinated populations
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040024

>>10114872
>It's pretty disingenuous to say "you have a choice of being exiled instead" as a response to "these should be held to a higher standard because you're required to get one".
"Exiled" would imply that you have some fundamental right to endanger everyone else's children. And vaccines are already held to a higher standard. You're the one being disingenuous.

>Your argument is "everyone should be required to get one because they shouldn't be held to a higher standard because you aren't required to get one".
Utter nonsense. As I already said, you should be required to get one because it prevents you from spreading disease to others. They don't need to be held to a much higher standard because they've already been shown to be safe. Why do you need to lie about my argument if you have a valid one?

>>10114905
>held to a higher standard
>has their own special court to protect manufacturers

>>10114883
>No vaccine studies doss any of the following
>Use saline placebo
Liar.

https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2017/02/20/gardasil-vaccine-compared-placebo/

>Full study of the vaccine schedule/cumulative
>Vaccinated vs unvaccinated
Liar.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/2/325

>Long term health studies
Liar.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/135/2/e321.full.pdf

>The ONLY safety we have apparently is post marketing data.
Liar.

https://vaxopedia.org/2017/09/06/vaccine-testing-and-development-timeline-and-myths/

Why do you constantly lie?

>>10114915
>The scientific evidence shows that vaccines are safe so I'll just have to abuse the court system
Why are you obsessed with vaccines you freak?

>>10114946
>held to a higher standard
>has their own special court to protect manufacturers

ITT: people who know nothing about epidemiology and evidence-based medicine

>>10114953
>Has their own court to hand out money to people who can't even prove they were harmed by vaccines
Why are vaccines held to such a high standard? Why are you obsessed with vaccines, freak?

>>10114941
>blog
The absolute state of science
But I've actually looked at the insert for gardasil.
AAHS adverse events combined with saline.
No deaths in saline group
Show saline results alone faggot. Might as well say "we compared people who smoked 25 cigarettes to people who smoked 20 cigarettes&non smokers, 25 cigarettes compared the same as rhe non smokers"

>>10115076
>Anonymous crank who constantly lies and misrepresents sources is crying about a blog
The absolute state of /sci/.

>Show saline results alone faggot.
The data is right there in the post, you lying piece of shit.

And don't forget the Salk Trial.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170620092555/http://wps.aw.com/wps/media/objects/14/15269/projects/ch12_salk/

>>10115096
You seem very angry.

>>10115119
You seem mentally ill.

>>10115123
I'm not the one trying to insult random people over an anonymous image board.

>>10115157
>Show saline results alone faggot.
>I'm not the one trying to insult random people over an anonymous image board.
Crying about insults on 4chan? Mentally ill people like you tend to have no self-awareness.

>>10113058
>You have a better chance of winning the lottery and getting struck by lightning on the very same day.
I don't think you understand probabilities.

>>10115198
2 different people buddy, I'm saline guy.
Gardasil combines AAHS into Saline for serious adverse events, gee, I wonder why they don't show the two separately.
>saline studies exist!
>heres a study
>T-the data shows it, I don't have to PROVE it!

>>10115462
>2 different people buddy, I'm saline guy.
Where did I say you're the same person?

>Gardasil combines AAHS into Saline for serious adverse events, gee, I wonder why they don't show the two separately.
Are you illiterate? As I already told you, the saline only data is in the post you've ignored twice now: https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimmunity/2017/02/20/gardasil-vaccine-compared-placebo/

Now fuck off, crank.

>>10115476
>Where did I say you're the same person?
>>10115198

>>10115476
>only compared mild health effects
What about the serious ones? Y'know, like MS, heart conditions, DEATH. Oh right, they bunched the saline group up with AAHS, joke study is joke.
>read my blog!
And you fuck faces complain about anti-vaxx facebook moms, you are un-ironically worse than them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subacute_sclerosing_panencephalitis

>>10115497
What's your problem? Obviously a blog post is on the same level as a study. Comments are better peer review.

>>10115497
>Aha I'll just move the goalposts!
OK, see if any of these score:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25371534
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29443825
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29239682
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29217375
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28720281
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28522338
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28498853
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28376743
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27895921
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26411885

>read my blog!
>And you fuck faces complain about anti-vaxx facebook moms, you are un-ironically worse than them.
OK, I won't read any of your posts anymore, thanks for playing.

>>10115523
>OK, I won't read any of your posts anymore, thanks for playing.
>ad hominem didn't work
>spamming one link and refusing to communicate why it was important didn't work
>better gish gallop away!

>>10115526
Hes a faggot anywyas, I called him out on the HPV one, he couldn't actually prove it.
I'm not reading all of his shit and his blog if he cant even articulate WHY the study was important.
>Anti-vaxxers are anti-science
>links to a blog
This has to be a joke, no fucking way it isn't, he's playing himself here.

>>10115552
>This has to be a joke, no fucking way it isn't, he's playing himself here.
It's likely a bit of confirmation bias. "This agrees with me, so the source is good enough". Not thinking very highly of those who disagree probably ties into it too.

>>10115573
It's just the irony of him posting a fucking blog, while pro-vaxxers complain that only anti-vaxxers do it.

>>10114412
>putting a price tag on life
>>10114445
>>10114883
Oh look it's this guy again. Is your hobby samefagging on /sci/?

>>10116169
>putting a price tag on life
Oh boy, if you feel so strongly about it, I can only assume you're about to become an anti-vaxxers with this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pjX6jeKnzQ
A lawyer, after looking into the cases of children who were injured by DPT was uncovering shit from the manufacturer of the vaccine. They had a patent since 1939 and had the technology to make it safer since then using a higher quality ingredient.
This was happening so fast because the court ordered these documents be released to this lawyer that they never properly verified if they were going to damn themselves with it.
Turns out they did the math, they calculated even before the vaccine was introduced of how much it would cost them for each case of infant death and brain damage caused by the vaccine, they put it at 500k/1million. They priced the vaccine accordingly to it and guess what it came out to?
They valued the life of the child they KNEW was going to die at $0.005, and no, thats not a typo, that is the actual amount, they valued the children's lives they were going to kill at half of a penny.
Instead of using a safer ingredient, they proved they would rather take the hit from injuring/killing your child than spending a little more to make it safer.

The vaccine industry thinks YOUR CHILD is worth only 1/2 a cent.
You lose that argument.

>>10117527
>higher quality ingredient
That sounds bad for profits.

>>10117531
Who cares if they kill a few kids for the sake of profit, they already save lots of children, so as long as they at least calulate the break even point in children's death rates then its totally ethical, because pharma should be in charge of how many people die.