/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10677734
of course they don't study them you monumental retard, if the found something bad that would be terrible for civilization. Same thing with race, you aren't allowed to study it because we don't want racial tension. Science is a literal moral institution now and every time you point it out you are drowned out by redditors

>>10677734
What steps I need to make my own insilin?

And how can I purifyit/keep out nasty bugs

>>10678253
What does that have to do with anything?

As opposed to getting sick? And potentially dying?

>>10678519
What source do you have that says measles has a high death rate?
My sources from the CDC and the government claims a 0.00005% death rate.

What sources do you have that show the MMR vaccine causes few deaths?

>>10678551
Cont
The MMR vaccine has 168 reported injuries to VAERS currently for this year alone
https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=44D612B0D4F60F9416EB4028A40B0991
However according to a study conducted by Harvard (which got shutdown by the CDC because they didn't like the results).
>fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.
https://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf
So only 1% are being recorded, but many might interpret this as "thats just fevers and stuff"
Heres where you're wrong.
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"
This means that we have 16,800 deaths from MMR alone and even the FDA states that VAERS isn't reporting deaths or serious adervse events.

Let's compare that to officially reported measles deaths in the pre-vaccine era of 1950
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/E/reported-cases.pdf
This comes from the CDC themselves and they only report an average of 500 deaths a year yet all of their reports claim 3-4million cases of measles per year meaning a death rate of 0.0125%
However; this isn't accounting for "at risk" groups like cancer kids, immuno compromised, etc.
When we look at data straight from the government which has data on measles deaths since 1860 we can see the real death rates.
https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970/hist_stats_colonial-1970p1-chB.pdf#
Page 63
1860 mealses deaths: 20/100,000
but that was 159 years ago
skip ahead to 1930, when vitamins were discovered
1930 measles deaths: 3.3/100,000
So its on a decline and has been for decades
1950 and on: less than 0.05/100,000

a whopping 0.00005% death rate from measles observed for an entire decade before the vaccine.

pic related is source

>>10678558
Do you have the same plot for infection rates rather than mortality rates (which for infections is known to be rather low at 1/2 per 1k)?

>>10678583
You made the accusation that infection = bad
You have to prove that getting infected is worse than the vaccine.

I just showed you the mmr is killing much more than the disease ever has, so why are we vaccinating and killing more babies?

>>10678586
>You made the accusation that infection = bad
I don't think so. I made a request for a time series plot that shows the measles infection rates over time with a specific indicator for when the measles vaccine was introduced, like in the post above.

>>10678589
All you want to do is go "Look, we dont have measles anymore, therefore your point is invalid!"
Meanwhile we see the rates of autism, chronic illness and immunodisorders skyrocketing.
Nobody is doubting efficacy for MMR.
What is being questioned is "Does the vaccine kill more than it saves?"

>>10678601
Vaccines don't cause autism chronic disease or immunodisorders.

>>10678551
How about the millions of people that died from measles?

>>10678601
So you don't have the plot, that's fine I guess.

>>10678604
Proof?
You don't compare vaccines to placebos
You don't do long-term health studies
You don't do cumulative studies on vaccines
You don't have an injury reporting system
So tell me how you know they don't cause said health issues when you'vfe never done basic science.

And if your only argument is "They looked at vaccines!" note that they have only looked at 1 vaccine and 1 ingredient and they even had a whistle blower who exposed that they were destroying evidence between MMR and autism.

>>10678609
see
>>10678558
Show me where millions died? I'd like to see a source that isn't from africa.

>>10678612
>Proof?
There's tons of literature showing no effect whatsoever, that's pretty solid proof. Taylor et al. 2014 and all follow-ups found the same.

>>10678612
Spanish flu? Bubonic plague? How about typhus? Or malaria? What about cholera? Why does it have to be about measles? And aren't there different strains of everything?

>>10678612
>You don't compare vaccines to placebos
We compare vaccinated groups to unvaccinated groups
>You don't do long-term health studies
Yes we do
>You don't do cumulative studies on vaccines
Yes we do
>You don't have an injury reporting system
Yes we do
>So tell me how you know they don't cause said health issues when you'vfe never done basic science.
Tell me how you can read so much of a topic and still be ignorant because you believe what dumb parents tell you instead of actual fucking scientists.

>>10678627
Those aren't safety studies. The taylor L study only looks at autism specifically and was allowed to cherry pick their studies.

Good job ignoring the entire point though, we're not focusing ONLY on autism, what about
Encephalitis, Encephalopathy, Infantile Spasms, Afebrile Seizures, Seizures, Cerebellar Antaxia, Anataxia, Autism, Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis, Transverse Myelitis, Optic Neuritis, Neuromyelitis Optica, Multiple Sclerosis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy, Brachial Neuritis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Small Fiber Neuropathy, Chronic Urticaria, Erythema Nodosum, Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, Polyarteritis Nodosa, Psoriatic Arthritis, Reactive Arthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis, Arthralgia, Autoimmune Hepatitis, Stroke, Chronic Headache, Fibromyalgia, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Hearing Loss, Thrombocytopenia, Immune Thrombocytopenic Purpura?

>>10678635
>Things we dont vaccinate for
What about mumps, rubella, pertussis, tetanus, diphtheria, measles, hep a, hep b, chicken pox, pneumococcol, rotavirus, hpv?

>>10678637
Show me a single source for any of those studies, because my source for those come from the Institute of medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206942/
>The committee found no evidence that a trial has ever been conducted to evaluate the entire immunization schedule
>Experts who addressed the committee pointed not to a body of evidence that had been overlooked but rather to the fact that existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule.
>studies designed to examine the long-term effects of the cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.

I'll wait.

>>10678637
>We compare vaccinated groups to unvaccinated groups
Also I forgot one from the IOM 2013 report
>No studies have compared the differences in health outcomes that some stakeholders questioned between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized

So where are they? The institute of medicine couldn't find them, so how can you?

>>10678647
So you're telling me not to worry about tetanus?

>>10678612
/thread

which should be in /x/ anyway
fucking anti-vaxxers

>>10678656
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/surv-manual/chpt16-tetanus.html
Pretty much, even the CDC's own sources say it's a non issue. Even in the 1900's it had a death rate of 2/100,000 anyways.
So how is that an issue for mass scale vaccinations?
This is officially reported cases for decades before a tetanus vaccine was invented.

>>10678647
I return to you your own source.
>As discussed in Chapter 5, the committee noted that limited published data do not provide evidence that the recommended immunization schedule is associated with safety or health risks. Indeed, the available epidemiological data repeatedly indicate the health benefits associated with the recommended schedule (e.g., reduced infections and hospitalizations).

>>10678650
>entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized
Goalposts.

>>10678662
Are you insane? When your muscles start locking up and you can't open your mouth are you gonna be like "oh this is temporary, whatever".

>>10677734
>How do we say vaccines are safe with no studies?
Probably has something to do with how Polio functionally doesn't exist anymore, you retard.

>>10678662
A week off work to care for your sick child is more than the cost of a vaccine.

>>10678663
>they didn't do the studies but its okay because vaccines are good plzdontaskforthestudies

>Goalposts.
Not a goalpost change, this was never disputed. In your own fucking words.
>We compare vaccinated groups to unvaccinated groups
Unvaccinated generally means "has not received vaccines"
And we dont even go so far as to do that, vaccine studies only compare vaccines to vaccines.
The "unvaccinated" groups always receive a vaccine.

>>10678672
I meant goalposts as in fully immunized because that's a dumb fucking criteria in any world.

>>10678666
So you have no argument to the graph in question? The incidence and death rate was almost non existent.

>>10678668
See pic related.
It's purely a "coincidence" that they changed the name of more than 99% of polio cases at the same time the vaccine was introduced.
>99% of polio is renamed
>WHERE DID POLIO GO?!?!?!

>>10678679
So why have we never compared a completely unvaccinated person to a fully vaccinated person? Hell, you haven't even tested if giving multiple vaccines at once is dangerous.

>>10678680
They also don't test if eating chocolate and cheese together is dangerous.

>>10678680
But your source says tetanus went away because of vaccinations? It debunks your own argument and something doesn't have to kill for you to want to avoid it. Like you might want to avoid maybe-dying every time you get a minor cut.

>>10678668
I already know you're gonna claim "Lol they didn't change the name!"
So i got ya some sources.
https://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e2398/rr/578260
Earlier redefinition of poliomyelitis had been introduced in the US: a disease with residual paralysis which resolves within 60 days changed into a disease with residual paralysis which persists for more than 60 days. Cases of paralysis which resolve within 60 days (99% of cases) are diagnosed as viral or aseptic meningitis.
>According to MMWR (1997; 32[29]: 384-385), there are 30 000 to 50 000 cases of viral/aseptic meningitis per year in the US. Considering that in the pre-vaccine era the vast majority (99%) of the reported cases were non-paralytic (corresponding to aseptic or viral meningitis), vaccination has actually increased the incidence of poliomyelitis. Before mass vaccination there were a few hundred or few thousand cases of polio in some outbreaks, while now it is up to 50 000 cases every year

>>10678682
Ah I understand now. There is no such thing as too many drugs. We should just give sick people as many drugs a possible because there is no such thing as over dosing, right?
I would like you to give me a number on how many vaccines is too many, go on, is it 1, 10, 100, 1,000? Can I give my child 500+ vaccines in a single visit to the doctor and not expect any health complications?

>>10678684
>But your source says tetanus went away because of vaccinations?
Notice how it was a non issue LONG before vaccine was an issue?
Are you telling me a death and incidence rate of <1/100,000 before the vaccine was something we needed EVERYONE to have on top of the other 50+ doses of vaccines?

>>10678689
>Notice how it was a non issue LONG before vaccine was an issue?
Are you telling me a death and incidence rate of <1/100,000 before the vaccine was something we needed EVERYONE to have on top of the other 50+ doses of vaccines?
What? Are you on crack?

>>10678680
If it isn't caused by the polio virus it isn't polio. It's like calling every time you get a fever and runny nose the flu even if it isn't influenza. Only dumb non scientists actually do this.

>>10678680
There's no "grey" ground when it comes to polio, it's a very particular virus. Those are different diseases, you are stupid. It doesn't even make sense if they were the same, because the rate is still minuscule compared to prior rates of polio affliction before the vaccine.

>>10678693
I'm legitimately asking you, dtap is recommended for everyone. Children in the U.S receive 50 doses of vaccines by the age of 6, what is the problem?

>>10678697
>If it isn't caused by the polio virus it isn't polio.
Funny how we were calling aseptic meningitis polio though. We found out more than 99% of cases were not actually polio because they were being misdiagnosed and a new term was made for them.
Do you understand the fact that before the definition change any paralysis lasting less than 60 days could be called polio, but after the change you had to have "polio" for more than 60 days to be officially recorded as polio.
This means everyone who had polio for less than 60 days (which was 99% of previous polio cases) stopped showing up on the reports.

>>10678698
>Those are different diseases, you are stupid.
They were only considered different after the definition change you retard.
If I take 99% of cancer rates and go "This isn't cancer anymore" Look, I suddenly cured cancer, who cares if the rates of "Not cancer" sky rocketed, I cured cancer. You are pro-cancer if you disagree with my statistic.

>>10678689
>I give my child 500+ vaccines in a single visit to the doctor and not expect any health complications?
Probably not, that's like 250ml of saline.

>>10678703
>We found out more than 99% of cases were not actually polio
citation needed.

>>10678704
https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/aluminum
So if we assume that the 500+ vaccines have the baseline of aluminum.
>0.125 milligram per dose (mg/dose)
This is the smallest amount listed for any vaccine.
62.5 milligram per dose is a non issue?

>>10678708
see
>>10678689

You know there was a definition change of polio right?

>>10678713
>You know there was a definition change of polio right?
'no'
isn't it obviously bullshit when we can look at the virus? lmao

>>10678720
Then why did they add the 60 days rule?
Explain.

>>10678689
>From 2009 through 2015, a total of 197 cases and 16 deaths from tetanus were reported in the United States.
>Since herd immunity does not play a role in protecting individuals against tetanus, virtually all persons must be vaccinated in order to achieve individual protection.
This is essentially my stance.

>>10678689
>>10678713
>https://www.bmj.com/content/........
>looks up author...
>Thomas has a masters degree in International Relations
I thought we were talking about science?

>>10678734
Ok, have any proof the vaccine saves more than it kills?
Legitimately asking if you have a reputable source that shows that after vaccinating millions of people, there have been no health concerns.
I'm not talking about a single study that only allowed in healthy participants. What reputable system captures injuries should they occur?

>>10678753
Do you deny that polio definition changed within 60 days?
Are you saying we have counted polio cases the exact same way since the beginning?
It's very obvious that they changed diagnosis criteria for polio virus in 1955. After the vaccine was introduced, if you had "polio" for less than 60 days you had viral or aseptic meningitis.
Are you saying you disagree with this?

>>10678558
>The MMR vaccine has 168 reported injuries to VAERS currently for this year alone
>So only 1% are being recorded, but many might interpret this as "thats just fevers and stuff"
>This means that we have 16,800 deaths from MMR alone and even the FDA states that VAERS isn't reporting deaths or serious adervse events.
Reported injuries are not the same thing as deaths and are just events that happen in proximity to vaccines, not events caused by vaccines. You're lying scum.

>>10678767
>Do you deny that polio definition changed within 60 days?
I'm saying that author can't be trusted to know polio from a torn muscle and you shouldn't be taking his word for anything.

>>10678776
>We have no data to show the vaccine is saving more than it kills from something with a 0.00005% deathrate.

>>10678789
But do you deny it? It's a very known thing in regards to polio that the definition did change in 1955 for any cases lasting less than 60 days.
If we redefined what was more than 99% of cases, is that not going to affect the stats?

>>10678767
Yes
>people die from diseases
>vaccines prevent those diseases
Do vaccines do anything else?
That's a question I thought was taken of by the people administering the vaccines. Maybe they do do something else, but clearly they're not killing people, look around, breathe in the air.

>>10678796
>It's a very known thing
According to all your antivaxxer friends maybe.

>>10678798
>not a single source for vaccines killing less than said diseases
>no long-term health studies
>no cumulative health studies
>no studies comparing vaccines to anything except vaccines
>no injury reporting system
Seems very scientific and proven to me since you have to point guns at people's heads to get them to do it.
It's almost like vaccine manfuacturers nearly went bankrupt because of so many successful lawsuits against them due to injuries and they had to threaten the government so that you couldn't sue them for killing your child.

>>10678846
Now you really sound like you're on crack, I bet you don't use indoor plumbing or electricity.

>>10677734
I decide.
Vaccines aren't the problem. It's when you do a Russian Sleep Experiment and then suck up the juice form the floor at the end and put it into little jars that that have a sticker on them which says vaccine, and then inject the sleep experiment juice into little children: that's what the problem is the sleep experiment juice, not the fucking vaccines.

>>10678850
Ah, but we've compared people who use those to people who dont. It's a very clear difference, vaccines have never been safety tested.

>>10678854
What are you? Mormon? Get vaccinated d00d. That whole pre-technology lifestyle is more 600-years-ago Europe than anywhere in the United States ever.

>>10678863
>get vaccinated and become sick like the rest of us
ok buddy
>U.S has the largest childhood vaccine schedule
>U.S is the only industralized nation that gives a vaccine on day 1 of life
>U.S is the only country that grants blanket immunity for all liability to vaccine manufacturers
>U.S has the highest day 1 infant mortality of any nation
What could be the connection?!?!

>>10678871
>U.S has the highest day 1 infant mortality of any industralized nation***

>>10678846
>>10678871
Welcome to the Gish gallop boys. This is where conspiritards really shine.

>>10678881
That is not a gish gallop, if I am looking for scientific studies on vaccines, these do not exist. So how can you say vaccines are safe if you haven't done the basic science that every other product must to be approved?

>>10678871
>correlation
>causation
Every first-world nation vaccinates and the third world does some next level vaccines that leave a scar. So wtf are you cushy muricans complaining about? Huh?

>>10678892
>Every first-world nation vaccinates
And they vaccinate far less
>nations with the smallest vaccine schedule have the lowest infant mortality
Hmmm I wonder why the healthiest nations in the world have least amount of vaccines and dont give on day 1 of life?
I wonder why the more vaccines are given, the higher the rate of infant mortality.
But dont worry because correlation =/= causation therefore never, ever, ever, ever do the study because that would be a very bad thing.

>>10678896
>And they vaccinate far less
>Hmmm I wonder why the healthiest nations in the world have least amount of vaccines and dont give on day 1 of life?
Do they? How are they not dead?

>>10678909
Almost like the more we vaccinate the sicker we become.

>>10678920
>Almost like the more we vaccinate the sicker we become.
said the person who never got smallpox

>>10678922
>We need vaccines against chickenpox because smallpox was a thing 200 years ago when people were malnourished, had no sanitization, plumbing or any concept of general well being

>>10678926
I have scars from chickenpox, I swear I almost killed my dad by giving him chickenpox when I was 6ish
Never got vaccinated for that, they said you gotta get it once and you're good

>>10678928
>literally trying to hype up the most benign childhood disease known to man
You do realize chicken pox was so insignificant they couldn't even market it as a "life saver"? They had to market it as a money saver.

>>10678932
>benign
Tell that to the chickenpox scars on my face and chest

>>10678936
>bro just take my anecdotal as evidence instead of the data that shows chicken pox as being benign.

>>10678944
>anecdotal evidence
>scars
How could scars ever be the result of something benign?

>>10678957
>anecdotal of a single anon saying they have scars from something even most pro-vaxxers admit is benign
Again, a vaccine for a disease so benign it had to be marketed as a money saver and not a health concern product.

>>10678963
the flu kills people, and there's a vaccine for it
What's so hard to understand? The common cold doesn't kill people.

>>10678967
And how much of our vaccine actually prevents said strain that kills?

>>10678968
The vaccine is good against several strains of influenza and it changes every year, you should be grateful there are smart people willing to make these vaccines to save ignorant retards like you from a horrible death.

>>10678973
>No source
You cant even show me evidence that the flu vaccine protects against the dangerous strains.

>>10678978but that's the point of the vaccine, look it up yourself maybe the people in charge at incompetent but the idea is solid, you can't shift the goalposts now

>>10678981
The goal post never shifted. The entire point of vaccines is to save lives, yet they have never been proven to do so.
In fact the opposite, most evidence shows vaccines as being the leading cause of increases in chronic illness and immunological disorders.
People have asked for proper safety science to be conducted on vaccines, yet they've refused on an "ethical" ground. They then turn around and go "We also dont want to do the available alternatives because they aren't good enough".
Then they turn around and use aluminum as a placebo in their vaccine safety studies which has a harms profile and no benefits of a vaccine and is considered FAR more unethical and dangerous and actually violates the doctor's oath
So how do they claim both ethics and science when they refuse to adhere to either?

>>10678987
>yet they have never been proven to do so.
Yes they have, mortality rates have dropped because of vaccines

>>10678988
Since you guys love to do this.
Correlation is not causation.

>>10678990
But we know the mechanism behind vaccines, you're just shitting our conspiracy theories like a malicious tumour on society

>>10678996
You know the mechanism but not that it saves more than it kills.

>>10678998
Because that's a lie

>>10679001
There is no working vaccine injury reporting system
You dont do long-term health studies
You don't do cumulative vaccine studies or of the vaccine schedule
You don't do placebo studies but instead only vaccinated vs vaccinated studies
So how can you tell if vaccines are safe?

Imagine changing the word "vaccine" to cigarettes and tell me how this is considered a good safety study.
Because by this logic, cigarettes are perfectly safe for babies.

>>10679002
>but instead only vaccinated vs vaccinated studies
Why would anything else be necessary?

>>10677734
uuhh schizo!

>>10679005
See my previous statement
We test cigarettes only against cigarettes. They both killed the same amount of people, therefore cigarettes are safe for a baby.