Questions that have gone unanswered for too long

[Anonymous No.10085471]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt-CZN48rR8&t=3090s

I want to see some legitimate answers to what this man is talking about.

Why do we not have a working injury reporting system (VAERS)? Why have we only studied Thimerosal in the MMR and no other ingredients or vaccines for autism? Why have we never done a true placebo study? Why have we never done a long-term study? Why have we never done a cumulative study? Why are FDA panel members allowed to have a financial stake in the same vaccine they are approving? Why is there no 3rd party oversight in vaccines?

I implore many of you to look at this video and at least address what he says, he speaks nothing but science and factually backs everything he says with sources.

If you're going to tell me that Vaccines are fully tested, can you at least answer any of these questions that he presents instead of saying
>>>/x/
I want a real answer, how can the science be "settled" if you've looked at 1 ingredient in 1 vaccine that vaccines are unrelated to autism, what about the 20 other vaccines and dozens of ingredients? Give me a legitimate answer- Oh right, you can't because there isn't one, the best response any of you followers of blind medicine can spout is "polio, smallpox polio, measles, polio" yet refuse to acknowledge these questions as if they aren't an issue.

[Anonymous No.10086042]

>>10085471

>this fucking thread again

Here man, I am going to try to answer your questions but first I want to test some deductive logic on my end.

I am guessing you have at most completed four years of college education and may or may not hold a degree that is likely in something loosely affiliated with science (like psychology) or just took some courses that were required as part of some "core curriculum". You are likely under the age of 30, and in all likelihood either have one child or are preparing/in the process of conceiving.

Let me know how much of that I got right. In return I will try to answer your questions diligently.

>"Why do we not have a VAERS"?
We do, any significant or severe adverse drug effect or "sentinal event" is immediately reported to the hospital's risk management team and/or directly gets reported to the CDC.

>Why have we only studied thimerosal in the MMR and no other ingredients or vaccines for autism?

We have, repeatedly. None of them were capable of finding any pathophysiologically plausible mechanism, significance in correlation, or associative causation. Beyond the simple fact that it is remarkably difficult to publish negative results (as in no positive findings occurred), the only published study that made the association between vaccines and autism was the Wakefield paper which has been redacted and the author admitted to forgery and fraud in producing his findings (beyond the fact that even without that his study was RIDDLED with error and confounds, which I feel begs the question as to why it was published in the first place).

>why have we never done a true placebo study?

I want to clarify what you are asking for in this case. Are you asking for a moderate sized study of say n=4000 or so where the two cohorts are randomly distributed between an experimental group (given a vaccine) and control group (given a simple saline injection) (cont.)

[Anonymous No.10086078]

>>10086042
(Cont.)
And then taking a longitudinal measurement of how many of those in the experimental versus control group go on to develop that disease? How long would you need to measure it as several of the major vaccines perportedly provide a lifetime immunity against their targeted disease? Are you going to be able to effectively manage the impact of not living in a highly endemic area for said targeted disease in your management of the data? Or are you going to move everyone in the research study to a location where it is prominent (in the case of smallpox, 0 locations, but I suppose you could put them in regions endemic for polio). Also, are you going to ensure appropriate dosage schedule time so that the vaccines are able to generate an effect? Does that mean you want these people to be held on house arrest during that time? I really don't understand this absurd religious obsession with the placebo controlled RCT. Use of that alone does not make a high quality study and it is just as susceptible to jerrymandering as any other study design. The single most important factor regarding the positive predictive value of a given study is its biological plausibility. You want to claim vaccines cause autism? Fine, tell me how the fuck they do that, and be ready to get shit on by someone who understands the human immune system to a greater depth than anyone you know (or you wouldn't be asking these incredibly ignorant questions).

>Why have we never done a long term study?

Like how we have been successfully innoculating people with de-activated antigens or ones that have similar enough structure to the targeted viral illness since the time of Cotton Mather (who was the first recorded american to suggest it to physicians based on his research on less elegant means of innoculation in african tribes)? a study that has shown significant and positive effect for more than 300 years across an incredibly varied diversity of generations, demographics and environments?

[Anonymous No.10086113]

>>10086078
(cont.)
The historical data is all there, the people who vaccinated against cowpox got it at a modicum of the rate of the nonvaccinated who were living in similar environments with similar backgrounds and genetics (because America was much less "diverse" back then). I would call that, and the vast number of studies and simple epidemiological data since then that shows vaccines work (not to mention the molecular and biochemical research into their precise mechanism of action by stimulation of B and T cells to confer adaptive immunity). I am willing to call that a "long term study" if you are. But if you want something that takes place over more than the span of 300 years, be my guest but don't be surprised when everyone literally laughs in your face when you try to suggest it as a valid reason to reject the use of vaccines.

>why have we never done a cumulative study?
See above... I think you just want complicated and difficult to construct forms of research even though you have no interest in changing your mind regarding this issue to begin with.

>Why are FDA panel members allowed to have a financial stake in the same vaccine they are approving?

Thats more of a legal/economic question than a medical one, but I understand that might seem shady. I don't like the fact that the headquarters for Wal-Mart is 90% underground and that they have their own system of weather satellites. It doesn't however mean they are putting arsenic in their cheetos. So I fail to see the relevance of this point unless you can show a direct line of "this person intentionally caused harm as a result of their financial interests"

>Why is there no 3rd party oversight in vaccines?
I am guessing you think that the AMA, the CDC, the FDA, the ACAAI, the AAFP, the CAP, the ACP, the NIH, as well as the near 160 or so major medical academic institutions in the country are all the same organization working in collusion with each other to push really cheap poison off on kids?

[Anonymous No.10086157]

>>10086113
(cont.)

>how can the science be "settled" if you've looked at 1 ingredient in 1 vaccine that vaccines are unrelated to autism, what about the 20 other vaccines and dozens of ingredients?

Im gonna talk about dosage toxicity for a minute and try to follow me because this one is difficult for a lot of people to understand. Concentration and dose are different things. You could have Drug X that has a concentration (conventionally notated as [X] for concentration of X (measured as some amount in mass per volume or molar equivalents) in chemistry). Say drug X has a known pathogenic compound in it, like free elemental mercury, and it has a [Hg] of 1gm/mL. Thats a really high concentration of mercury for a thing to have. Now suppose the amount of this drug that I give you for some reason constitutes .000001mls of Drug X. And for the sake of ease lets say dosage toxicity for mercury starts at 1mg/L (much lower than it actually is but lets go with being really conservative). If a 1 month old infant weighs 5kg, they have roughly 4L of fluid in them (80% of body weight being fluid). Now that one time dose of Drug X put a grand total of .001mgs of pure old fashioned dangerous elemental mercury into the babies system, which contains 4 liters of fluid. So we now have a total concentration of pure elemental mercury in the infant (assuming they are somehow incapable of removing it via their kidneys and in their stool) of .00025mg/L. You would have to give 4,000 vaccines of containing drug X in rapid succession before toxic dosage levels of mercury would be reached.

While this seems potentially specious, keep in mind that 99.9999% of the vaccine being administered is simple water or saline in combination of simple solvents or preservatives we know are safe (glycerol, various amino acids, etc.), so the actual total dose of any of the potentially frightening additions (depending on the vaccine) is measured in MICROGRAMS (10^-6) per mL.

[Anonymous No.10086171]

>>10086157
(cont.)

So given the tremendously small volume of the vaccine, and the tremendously small total amount of anything in it that might even seem frightening, along with our well measured understanding of dosage toxicity in drugs across race, age, and genetic predispositions, we might have a slight clue as to whether these things are dangerous or not. They aren't. Even if it was fucking polonium, at those dosage levels the total harmful effect would be orders and orders of magnitude lower than spending a day outside in the sun. But unlike spending a day in the sun, it confers a fucking immunity to a potentially crippling or fatal disease not only in yourself, but prevents you from becoming a vector to spread it to another person whose immune system might not be as robust, like the elderly, or pregnant (the flu for instance can be teratogenic on developing fetuses, and I would be able to establish a biologically plausible explanation for why that infection could cause autism in the fetus much much more easily than a vaccine).

>followers of blind medicine

I find, hopefully having answered your ignorant questions satisfactorily, that there is some irony in the notion that you prescribe a religious dogmatic belief in the power of vaccines, but are unwilling to accept your own perspective to their harms. I can say my understanding of what vaccines are, how they work, and how we have and can measure that, as well as how we have evaluated their safety, come from a sea of literature, experimentation, research and interdisciplinary approaches from the fields of medicine, history, biochemistry, and engineering. You asked what proof we have and I say read any textbook on immunology and you should find your answers quickly and easily.

So now I ask, where is your proof? You technically should have the burden of proof as you are making the positive claim, and yet all I get when I ask for this is some hand-waving attribution to some impossible global conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.10086224]

>>10086171
Are the package inserts for vaccines public information? Are they considered trade secrets? Is the public allowed to see the ingredients? Not arguing, just honestly asking. Are those ingredients that people claim cause autism clearly outlined?

As much as the anti-vacciners irritate me, as a true proponent of the Laissez-faire economic system, I'm all in favor of the movement. Ideally, it will encourage pharmaceutical companies to be far more transparent with their products and their contents in addition to finding better ways to administer, much like with the nasal sprays. There's absolutely no harm in that.

Much like the current trend with non-GMO and organic stuff or even Tesla's role in the automotive industry, encouraging other companies to invest in electric cars. It's encouraged those markets to diversify and reform.

[Anonymous No.10086241]

>>10086224
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

[Anonymous No.10086249]

>>10086241
Thanks much

[Anonymous No.10086258]

>>10086042
>>10086078
>>10086113
>>10086157
>>10086171
THIS
H H
I I
SHIT

[Anonymous No.10086268]

Vaccines are safe. Delete your post now.

[Anonymous No.10086295]

does injecting a mercury compound into an infant's or child's bloodstream strike anyone else as a terrible idea?

[Anonymous No.10086325]

>>10086295
Ingesting methanol is a bad idea but that doesn't stop anyone from drinking vodka that is usually 40% ethanol.

[Anonymous No.10086384]

>>10086295
you literally inhale in volatile organic compounds on a daily basis that are in equivalent doses to the thimerosal you are worried about.

[Anonymous No.10086394]

>>10085471
>Why have we only studied Thimerosal in the MMR and no other ingredients or vaccines for autism?
Why have we not tested yoghurt for causing autism, OP?

[Anonymous No.10086405]

>>10086042
>We have, repeatedly
Institute of medicine disagrees
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK190028/
>The epidemiologic evidence is insufficient or absent to assess an association between diphtheria toxoid–, tetanus toxoid–, or acellular pertussis–containing vaccine and autism.
Literally unstudied.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206940/
The institute of medicine looked at every study and they either showed no studies being done or only studies looking at Thimerosal, unless you can find me a better fucking source scuh as the IOM 2011 and 2013 report on vaccines that the science has been done.

You made a huge fucking tangent that can be summed up as
>Vaccines are proven but I don't have to acknowledge your points
You probably spent hours typing all of this up, yet you couldn't even watch 5 minutes of the video this thread was about.

WATCH THE VIDEO
He explains it betters than I, Or should I just quote him word for word to get the point across. The reason I am focused on him is because what he talks about is the power point he presented when donald trump was aiming to get a third party administration for vaccines put in place.

Alternatively, you can at least glance over the power point here http://icandecide.org/presentations/
It's like he's the boogey man and you want to pretend he doesn't exist because then he'll go away.

[Anonymous No.10086612]

>>10086405
I forgot to mention with the exclusion in the first link that actually found a possible link between autism and the vaccine.
>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.
What was wrong with it?
>No unvaccinated population
>vaers is unreliable
uhhh
>not giving a vaccine is considered unethical
>vaers is the only reporting system
Uhh, they just admitted their own reporting system doesn't work and that you can't consider a study proven if it doesn't use an unvaccinated population, so why have we been allowing them to use studies without unvaccinated comparison with saline placebos?.

[Anonymous No.10086698]

>>10086384
mercury compounds? give me the sources for your claim, cheers

>>10086325
well you see, the two are different compounds, and neither one is a mercury compound, so i do not see what point you tried to make