To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate

[Boatswain2PA]

....Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal.....

You just broke the internet with your complete ignorance of anything remotely resembling science.

You do not understand science, or the scientific method, at all. None.

You should go back to high school and start at Biology I where students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.

As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.

This is simple physics and anatomy. If a young child, without sufficient neck musculature to accommodate for the oversized/weighted head, is repeatedly shaken, the top and mid brain, or the mid and lower brain (or all three) can become separated by the shear force. (Look that definition up if you need). Since the lower brain (the pons, medulla, etc), which maintains basic life functions (heart beat, respiration, bowel function) is still (usually) connected to the spinal cord, the baby effectively becomes brain dead but still "alive" with a pulse and perfusion. One key clinical indicator to shaken baby syndrome is the retinal hemorrhage that you can see on ophthalmoscopy (you can look that term up as well).

This is sheer traumatic injury, no "sickness" involved. Just like when the crashing 2 year old comes into the trauma bay with a size 13 boot print on her chest. Care to blame THAT on vaccines as well? (I know RDean and Luddy will blame it on Republicans!).

I've seen it, and it sucks.

If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

If the consumer is worried enough about this then they have three choices. #1: Trust the conspiratory theorist whacko's who believe that every single scientist in the world is out to hurt their children while making a million bucks doing so. #2: Trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to helping humanity. Or #3: Go to school for themselves, learn what science actually is, how to apply it, how to study it. Then, if they find that #2 is accurate, then they can do their own studies and debunk the whole thing.

 

[Samson]

How Pharmaceutical Companies Hide the Dangers of Vaccines from Parents

U.S. Government Says Vaccines are Dangerous

I visited the second website and read the Op-Ed piece by Dr. Mercola, wherein he attempts to explain a 600+ page medical report.

Dr. Mercola offers a number of wholistic health alternatives that visitors to this site can purchase.

Including Tanning beds

Tanning Beds - Top Sellers - Household - Mercola.com

You seriously want to take medical advise from a physician that sells tanning beds? (Free shipping for orders over $49)

 

[Samson]

The descriptive term for people who don't vaccinate their children is "grieving parents ".

Could you imagine, 100 years ago having children that could very possibly contract Polio, and some snake oil salesmen came to you and tried to convince you that the vaccine was dangerous, but HIS MAGIC WONDER ELIXER was the REAL PREVENTATIVE.

You might bite.

But Today?

 

[FA_Q2]

It's amazing that so many people without any training in infections diseases or immunology have become such experts that they are willing to risk the health and lives of their kids and others.

I for one, will follow the advice of my family doctor and my kids doctors even though it might agree with the recommendations from the CDC.

A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores that have been so well document from day one? In resent years you have autism, SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome, and Co-sleeping, haven't you read the testimonials? I suppose if your mechanic told you your car needed a Kuhneutson valve you'd believe him? Do you take the used car salesmen's word when he tells you the car just needs a tuneup? It's just like asking a barber if you need a haircut. What is it you think these doctors are experts in?

Kuhneutson Valve - 20.00 KaleCoAuto.com Your home for the rare unusual and hard to find auto parts.

Doctors don't sell vaccines - they sell a service and if that vaccine were not healthy they can sell another or deal with the illness itself (which is FAR FAR FAR more 'profitable' for the hospital and doctor than the vaccine is).

Also, you don't listen to just your doctor - you go to other doctors and get second or third opinions. You look at the research that the doctor is REQUIRED BY LAW to hand you and you make an informed decision. Well, that is what you do if you really want to get good results. You seem to think that reading random, anonymous people on the internet that say seriously, it was the vaccine that killed my kind not the fact I violently shook them for several minuets is somehow better.

 

[Flopper]

The alternative is a lot more death.

I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.

What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?

Testimonials are not scientific evidence. There are testimonials out there that claim deaths were caused by watching television, using cell phones, and exposure to forts.

Some myths just won't go away such as the belief that vaccines cause SIDS and Autism. This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS or were diagnosed with Autism had recently been vaccinated. On the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.

This is first time I've heard Shaken Baby Syndrome blamed on a vaccine. It must have come from a defense attorney attempting to get his client off a murder charge. Babies have weak neck muscles and often struggle to support their heavy heads. If a baby is forcefully shaken, his or her fragile brain moves back and forth inside the skull. This causes bruising, swelling and bleeding. Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying. Nothing justifies shaking a child.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. However, we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so in spite of articles by reporters seeking headlines, a quick buck, or just controversy. Unfortunately there are parents that listen to this trash and the kids pay the price.

Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.


Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”


As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.


If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

Anyone, such as a parent, a health care provider, or friend of the patient, who suspects an association between a vaccination and an adverse event may report that event to the CDC. The CDC will then investigates the event and try to find out whether the adverse event was in fact caused by the vaccination. Many CDC studies are based on these reports. Any testimonial should contain the report to the CDC and their reply.

The safety of vaccines are not determined by just studies but by extensive testing before release and on going monitor after release.

After laboratory tests which usually includes animal testing which usually takes 1 to 2 years and pre-clincal studies which take 2 to 4 years, and approval by the FDA, a vaccine enters a 3 phase test procedure.

1. In Phase I the vaccine is tested on 20 to 80 candidates to determine the safety and determine if there are any adverse reactions. If the vaccine will given to children, it must be tested on adults, then children of various age groups. If the vaccine does not past, it is goes back to research.

2. In Phase II, a larger group of several hundred individuals participate. The purpose is to determine the safety, effectiveness, dosage, delivery, and schedule of immunization. Candidates that pass move on to next phase.

3. In Phase III, the vaccine moves into large scale trials involving thousands to tens of thousands of people. These trials are randomized and are double blind using a placebo. If a reaction occurs in as few 1 in 10,000, then the the vaccine must retested on 60,000 people. It is in this phase that a monitoring system is setup to detect adverse events that may not occur in subjects for years.

The testing process will normally take 3 to 5 years. A vaccine can not be licensed without completing the 3 phase test successful. After licensing, the manufacture will do a controlled release with monitoring by the FDA.

Vaccines are probably the most thoroughly tested and monitored of all drugs on the market. After the final release of a vaccine, the CDC will investigate all reports of adverse reactions to a vaccine. It is the CDC's responsibility to recommend to the FDA, that an unsafe vaccine be pulled immediately or recommend appropriate scientific studies and or testing be done.

Vaccine Development Testing and Regulation mdash History of Vaccines

 

[Flopper]

The descriptive term for people who don't vaccinate their children is "grieving parents ".

Could you imagine, 100 years ago having children that could very possibly contract Polio, and some snake oil salesmen came to you and tried to convince you that the vaccine was dangerous, but HIS MAGIC WONDER ELIXER was the REAL PREVENTATIVE.

You might bite.

But Today?

That's exactly what's happening in Africa today.

 

[FA_Q2]

Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.


Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”

That is because the journal is a commercial product. Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies. They are not drawing a profit from the publication. To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process. Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.

As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.

*sigh*
More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.

If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox? This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.

 

[rawmilkmike]

....Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal.....

You just broke the internet with your complete ignorance of anything remotely resembling science.

You do not understand science, or the scientific method, at all. None.

You should go back to high school and start at Biology I where students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.

As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.

This is simple physics and anatomy. If a young child, without sufficient neck musculature to accommodate for the oversized/weighted head, is repeatedly shaken, the top and mid brain, or the mid and lower brain (or all three) can become separated by the shear force. (Look that definition up if you need). Since the lower brain (the pons, medulla, etc), which maintains basic life functions (heart beat, respiration, bowel function) is still (usually) connected to the spinal cord, the baby effectively becomes brain dead but still "alive" with a pulse and perfusion. One key clinical indicator to shaken baby syndrome is the retinal hemorrhage that you can see on ophthalmoscopy (you can look that term up as well).

This is sheer traumatic injury, no "sickness" involved. Just like when the crashing 2 year old comes into the trauma bay with a size 13 boot print on her chest. Care to blame THAT on vaccines as well? (I know RDean and Luddy will blame it on Republicans!).

I've seen it, and it sucks.

If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

If the consumer is worried enough about this then they have three choices. #1: Trust the conspiratory theorist whacko's who believe that every single scientist in the world is out to hurt their children while making a million bucks doing so. #2: Trust the scientists who have devoted their lives to helping humanity. Or #3: Go to school for themselves, learn what science actually is, how to apply it, how to study it. Then, if they find that #2 is accurate, then they can do their own studies and debunk the whole thing.

I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.

If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?
The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.

Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, anekdotos, unpublished.

Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”

How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?

 

[rawmilkmike]

Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.


Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”

That is because the journal is a commercial product. Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies. They are not drawing a profit from the publication. To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process. Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.

As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.

*sigh*
More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.

If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox? This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.

The grant money for the “actual studies” comes from the pharmaceutical industry.

What is inaccurate about these statements “Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.”?

Why do you answer a question with a question? “As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby?”

BUT they are NOT pathetically obvious to a scientist.

 

[FA_Q2]

Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.


Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”

That is because the journal is a commercial product. Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies. They are not drawing a profit from the publication. To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process. Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.

As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.

*sigh*
More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.

If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox? This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.

The grant money for the “actual studies” comes from the pharmaceutical industry.

What is inaccurate about these statements “Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.”?

Why do you answer a question with a question? “As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby?”

BUT they are NOT pathetically obvious to a scientist.

Some are some are not. Still waiting for that SINGLE SOLITARY STUDY. You cant find one because it dies not exist - those that are funded by pharmaceuticals as well as those THAT ARE NOT both have found the EXACT same thing.

They are safe. None of them have found jack to support your claims. That is, of course, because your claims are outright lies.


outright lies.

 

[rawmilkmike]

It's amazing that so many people without any training in infections diseases or immunology have become such experts that they are willing to risk the health and lives of their kids and others.

I for one, will follow the advice of my family doctor and my kids doctors even though it might agree with the recommendations from the CDC.

A doctor sells a product just like anyone else. Why would you just take his word and ignore all the horror stores that have been so well document from day one? In resent years you have autism, SIDS, Shaken Baby Syndrome, and Co-sleeping, haven't you read the testimonials? I suppose if your mechanic told you your car needed a Kuhneutson valve you'd believe him? Do you take the used car salesmen's word when he tells you the car just needs a tuneup? It's just like asking a barber if you need a haircut. What is it you think these doctors are experts in?

Kuhneutson Valve - 20.00 KaleCoAuto.com Your home for the rare unusual and hard to find auto parts.

Doctors don't sell vaccines - they sell a service and if that vaccine were not healthy they can sell another or deal with the illness itself (which is FAR FAR FAR more 'profitable' for the hospital and doctor than the vaccine is).

Also, you don't listen to just your doctor - you go to other doctors and get second or third opinions. You look at the research that the doctor is REQUIRED BY LAW to hand you and you make an informed decision. Well, that is what you do if you really want to get good results. You seem to think that reading random, anonymous people on the internet that say seriously, it was the vaccine that killed my kind not the fact I violently shook them for several minuets is somehow better.

So, are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?

 

[rawmilkmike]

Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.


Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”

That is because the journal is a commercial product. Guess what IS NOT a commercial product though - the actual studies. They are not drawing a profit from the publication. To state that they are influenced by the adverts take a basic misunderstanding of the entire process. Something I am not surprised by though considering the fact that you keep posting basic inaccuracies.

As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.

*sigh*
More completely inaccurate statements with nothing to back them up whatsoever.

If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

What do you think virtually eradicated smallpox? This things are not only proven though extensive and exhaustive study BUT they are also pathetically obvious to anyone that bothers to look at the issue.

The grant money for the “actual studies” comes from the pharmaceutical industry.

What is inaccurate about these statements “Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.”?

Why do you answer a question with a question? “As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby?”

BUT they are NOT pathetically obvious to a scientist.

Some are some are not. Still waiting for that SINGLE SOLITARY STUDY. You cant find one because it dies not exist - those that are funded by pharmaceuticals as well as those THAT ARE NOT both have found the EXACT same thing.

They are safe. None of them have found jack to support your claims. That is, of course, because your claims are outright lies.


outright lies.

Are you saying no one has ever had a serious reaction to a vaccination? I am not the one making the claims. What study am I suppose to be looking for?

 

[rawmilkmike]

The alternative is a lot more death.

I'm not interested in my kids dying from influenza. I don't want them to die of measles. I don't want them to die of a raging staph infection 18 hours after I decide that it's *more healthy* for my kid to fight off the infection on his or her own.

What about Autism, SIDS, and Shaken Baby Syndrome? Haven't you read the testimonials?

Testimonials are not scientific evidence. There are testimonials out there that claim deaths were caused by watching television, using cell phones, and exposure to forts.

Some myths just won't go away such as the belief that vaccines cause SIDS and Autism. This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS or were diagnosed with Autism had recently been vaccinated. On the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.

This is first time I've heard Shaken Baby Syndrome blamed on a vaccine. It must have come from a defense attorney attempting to get his client off a murder charge. Babies have weak neck muscles and often struggle to support their heavy heads. If a baby is forcefully shaken, his or her fragile brain moves back and forth inside the skull. This causes bruising, swelling and bleeding. Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying. Nothing justifies shaking a child.

Vaccines are actually very safe, despite implications to the contrary in many anti-vaccine publications. Most vaccine adverse events are minor and temporary, such as a sore arm or mild fever. These can often be controlled by taking paracetamol after vaccination. More serious adverse events occur rarely (on the order of one per thousands to one per millions of doses), and some are so rare that risk cannot be accurately assessed. As for vaccines causing death, again so few deaths can plausibly be attributed to vaccines that it is hard to assess the risk statistically. However, we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so in spite of articles by reporters seeking headlines, a quick buck, or just controversy. Unfortunately there are parents that listen to this trash and the kids pay the price.

Dear Dr. Flopper, Because this is the internet even if we were both young working class guys with no conflict of interest we'd have no way of knowing. That means our opinions don't carry much weight here.


Anyone can write and publish science fiction. Do you really think a scientist needs to tell you he's a scientist? A testimonial can be just as scientific as any other study. Technically the only difference is that it is not be published in a medical journal. “Peer-reviewed medical journals are generally considered to be a source of unbiased and reliable information about drugs. But at the same time, most medical journals contain advertisements, almost all of which are for drugs, and which are, by their very nature, biased toward promoting sales of that drug.”


As consumers how do we know that vaccines are as safe and effective as their manufacturers say they are? Who says “Shaken baby syndrome usually occurs when a parent or caregiver severely shakes a baby or toddler due to frustration or anger — often because the child won't stop crying.”? Doctors have lawyers to. This is a simple he said she said but the pharmaceutical industry has unlimited funds and we don't.


If a vaccine can cause a sore arm or mild fever it is certainly capable of much more. How do we the consumer know that “more serious adverse events only occur rarely”? Who writes the death certificate? Who says what is plausible? How do “we know beyond a doubt that vaccines have saved untold millions of lives and will continue to do so”? How do we know the horror stories told by our neighbors are untrue?

Anyone, such as a parent, a health care provider, or friend of the patient, who suspects an association between a vaccination and an adverse event may report that event to the CDC. The CDC will then investigates the event and try to find out whether the adverse event was in fact caused by the vaccination. Many CDC studies are based on these reports. Any testimonial should contain the report to the CDC and their reply.

The safety of vaccines are not determined by just studies but by extensive testing before release and on going monitor after release.

After laboratory tests which usually includes animal testing which usually takes 1 to 2 years and pre-clincal studies which take 2 to 4 years, and approval by the FDA, a vaccine enters a 3 phase test procedure.

1. In Phase I the vaccine is tested on 20 to 80 candidates to determine the safety and determine if there are any adverse reactions. If the vaccine will given to children, it must be tested on adults, then children of various age groups. If the vaccine does not past, it is goes back to research.

2. In Phase II, a larger group of several hundred individuals participate. The purpose is to determine the safety, effectiveness, dosage, delivery, and schedule of immunization. Candidates that pass move on to next phase.

3. In Phase III, the vaccine moves into large scale trials involving thousands to tens of thousands of people. These trials are randomized and are double blind using a placebo. If a reaction occurs in as few 1 in 10,000, then the the vaccine must retested on 60,000 people. It is in this phase that a monitoring system is setup to detect adverse events that may not occur in subjects for years.

The testing process will normally take 3 to 5 years. A vaccine can not be licensed without completing the 3 phase test successful. After licensing, the manufacture will do a controlled release with monitoring by the FDA.

Vaccines are probably the most thoroughly tested and monitored of all drugs on the market. After the final release of a vaccine, the CDC will investigate all reports of adverse reactions to a vaccine. It is the CDC's responsibility to recommend to the FDA, that an unsafe vaccine be pulled immediately or recommend appropriate scientific studies and or testing be done.

Vaccine Development Testing and Regulation mdash History of Vaccines

Thanks for the effort.
8 paragraphs, a link, and still no answer. This is just a comparison to other drugs. Well, these other drugs have their laundry list of horrific side effects plastered across my TV set every night. That doesn't say much for the vaccine industry.

I reported an auto repair shop to the BBB once. They agreed with the guy who ripped me off.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.

They do if someone doesn't understand what that means. However, it doesn't help to keep saying "I'm a real scientist" to someone who has no clue what that means.

If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?

This paragraphs proves you know nothing, at all, about science. The scientific method is all about reproducibility of studies. However the creation of studies are often predicated on testimonies of people (or anecdotes). For example: You're sitting under a tree and an apple falls on your head. You may think...what made the apple fall? Then you may come up with a theory. In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the apple to fall on your head. Then, if you were a real scientist, you would design a study of those who got a vaccine and those who didn't, and compare who got hit in the head with an apple. If your study showed that those who got a vaccine were, indeed, at much higher risk of getting hit on the head with an apple (like Wakefield's study published in the BMJ linking vaccines to autism), then other people would be able reproduce your study and get the same results. This was the flaw with Wakefield's study...he purposefully falsified the data (by choosing his study entrants) so therefore his results were not reproducible.

There is your high school lesson today on how science goes from a personal testimony to reproducible study.

Science then goes one step further to try to explain the WHY behind the population data. When we can put together the population data (who gets hit in the head by the apple) with the biological/chemical/physical science behind the apple and gravity, then we have a clearer scientific picture.

The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.

It doesn't mean that the reader understands it. That's why I suggested you take a high-school biology class, so someone could attempt to TEACH it to you.

Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, anekdotos, unpublished.

See my above paragraph. Testimonials/anecdotes are important to START scientific research. I'll give you a true life example. Pharma came up with a new way to anti-coagulate patients by blocking a receptor on our platelets and called the medicine Plavix. Studies showed that while there was a greater risk of bleeding, Plavix greatly reduced follow-on heart attacks/stent placement. The medicine was a great success for most, and saved many lives from heart attacks, although it did cause some increase in morbidity and mortality via bleeding.

But then we began getting anecdotal reports of people who are on plavix who reclotted their stents quickly. More studies were done, but these studies still showed that Plavix helped most people....so we began studying the differences between the people who responded to Plavix, and those who didn't. We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort of people with a different molecule on their platelets.

Moral of story here: Anecdote of Plavix not working on a few people led to more scientific studies which led to a greater understanding of not only plavix, but of human genetics.

Anecdote of vaccines causing autism led to ENORMOUS amount of studies, all of which (except for Wakefield study which was debunked) show that vaccines work to prevent millions of deaths, have relatively common mild side effects, and very rare serious side effects.

But rawmilkmike wants everyone to believe that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.

Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”

Are you sure you don't want to cause retinal hemorrhage on vaccines??

CPR is traumatic. Retinal hemorrhage is almost always caused by trauma (could also be caused by hypertension, hypo coagulable states, and probably a few other very uncommon things).

How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?

Hyperbole, like anecdotes and parables, can help teach. But then, some people are unteachable.....

 

[Boatswain2PA]

.

Are you saying no one has ever had a serious reaction to a vaccination? I am not the one making the claims. What study am I suppose to be looking for?[/QUOTE]

Yet another example of your ignorance of science. Scientists, and physicians, very rarely rely on ONE study. Try to read again about "reproducibility"...studies are done, and published, in a manner where others are EXPECTED to repeat the study.

There is no ONE study you should read. There are HUNDREDS of studies which, in totality of data, show that vaccines are incredibly beneficial.

Nobody is saying there has NEVER been a serious reaction to vaccines. We all know that there can be, however we know that they are exceedingly RARE.

Wake up Mikey, let the sunrise hit your face....

 

[FA_Q2]

Are you saying no one has ever had a serious reaction to a vaccination? I am not the one making the claims. What study am I suppose to be looking for?

Never said that at all. Side effects happen - that is a fact of life. Car accedents happen. Lighting strikes happen. You might choke on a chicken bone.

That does not mean you don't drive, go outside or eat chicken. Why would you not stop those activities? Simple - the RISK is far outweighed by the benefits. Why would you vaccinate? Same reason, you are far MORE LIKELY to die from any of the illnesses that the vaccines protect against than you are of the vaccine. All the research proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You ARE the one making a TON of claims. Claims that shaken baby syndrome and SIDS (as well as other things) are side effects of vaccines, that the doctors are LYING about their safety and that the studies are skewed just to name a few of the absolutely unfounded and outrageous claims you have made so far.

Find a study that backs ANY of those assertions up. Find a study that shows any of the recommended vaccines for your child are more likely to cause serious side effects than catching and experiencing worse effects from the illness. Find ONE that is reviewed and has not been debunked.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

With so much debate swirling throughout the media, its hard to make a decision about vaccinations.
This is especially true with infants and young children. Their brains and young bodies are still growing and maturing, why should we interfere with the natural progression of things?

I'd like to see both sides with evidence-from both sides.
I'm personally anti-vax and I've decided to be this way from research I've done.
I've also come to my decision because the CDC won't tell us the way vaccines are made, what tests are done to verify their safety and efficacy, and the true ingredients in these chemical-laden formulas.

What are your thoughts?

There's no debate about the advisability of vaccinations. It's akin to how there' no actual debate about climate change unless the opinion of less than 2% means there's actual debate going on. As with vaccinations. That a handful of celebrities have convinced a handful of ignorant stupid people there's harm involved doesn't mean there's legitimate debate to the issue.

As to the phrasing of your poll, chemicals are produced by our own bodies including alcohol (albeit only when we die.) But every emotional state we experience is because of neuralchemicals our brains produce which make us feel certain ways.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Worth adding, if you join the military you'll get vaccinated again and there's no opting out of it. So this whole issue can be summed up thus: if you support your own nation's military you must support mandatory vaccinations.

 

[Spoonman]

The public safety issue trumps parental rights.

Remove children from the home to never return if the parents refuse even once.

would that apply to all of the unvaccinated illegals in our school systems today too?

 

[rawmilkmike]

I'll say it again “a real scientist doesn't need to keep reminding you that he's a scientist”.

They do if someone doesn't understand what that means. However, it doesn't help to keep saying "I'm a real scientist" to someone who has no clue what that means.

If, as you say “students are taught the fundamentals of scientific method such as hypothesis testing, reproducibility, etc.” in high school why would it be so impossible for a testimonial to be scientific?

This paragraphs proves you know nothing, at all, about science. The scientific method is all about reproducibility of studies. However the creation of studies are often predicated on testimonies of people (or anecdotes). For example: You're sitting under a tree and an apple falls on your head. You may think...what made the apple fall? Then you may come up with a theory. In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the apple to fall on your head. Then, if you were a real scientist, you would design a study of those who got a vaccine and those who didn't, and compare who got hit in the head with an apple. If your study showed that those who got a vaccine were, indeed, at much higher risk of getting hit on the head with an apple (like Wakefield's study published in the BMJ linking vaccines to autism), then other people would be able reproduce your study and get the same results. This was the flaw with Wakefield's study...he purposefully falsified the data (by choosing his study entrants) so therefore his results were not reproducible.

There is your high school lesson today on how science goes from a personal testimony to reproducible study.

Science then goes one step further to try to explain the WHY behind the population data. When we can put together the population data (who gets hit in the head by the apple) with the biological/chemical/physical science behind the apple and gravity, then we have a clearer scientific picture.

The scientific method is also easily looked up on the net.

It doesn't mean that the reader understands it. That's why I suggested you take a high-school biology class, so someone could attempt to TEACH it to you.

Testimonials are often called anecdotal [an′əkdot′əl] Etymology: Gk, anekdotos, unpublished.

See my above paragraph. Testimonials/anecdotes are important to START scientific research. I'll give you a true life example. Pharma came up with a new way to anti-coagulate patients by blocking a receptor on our platelets and called the medicine Plavix. Studies showed that while there was a greater risk of bleeding, Plavix greatly reduced follow-on heart attacks/stent placement. The medicine was a great success for most, and saved many lives from heart attacks, although it did cause some increase in morbidity and mortality via bleeding.

But then we began getting anecdotal reports of people who are on plavix who reclotted their stents quickly. More studies were done, but these studies still showed that Plavix helped most people....so we began studying the differences between the people who responded to Plavix, and those who didn't. We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort of people with a different molecule on their platelets.

Moral of story here: Anecdote of Plavix not working on a few people led to more scientific studies which led to a greater understanding of not only plavix, but of human genetics.

Anecdote of vaccines causing autism led to ENORMOUS amount of studies, all of which (except for Wakefield study which was debunked) show that vaccines work to prevent millions of deaths, have relatively common mild side effects, and very rare serious side effects.

But rawmilkmike wants everyone to believe that vaccines cause shaken baby syndrome.

Retinal hemorrhage can be caused by CPR. “Of the 22 patients, 6 (27%) had retinal hemorrhages at the time of CPR-CC. Of these 6 patients, 5 had risk factors for retinal hemorrhages. The sixth patient had no risk factors and may have represented the only true case of retinal hemorrhages due to CPR-CC.”

Are you sure you don't want to cause retinal hemorrhage on vaccines??

CPR is traumatic. Retinal hemorrhage is almost always caused by trauma (could also be caused by hypertension, hypo coagulable states, and probably a few other very uncommon things).

How do hyperbole and ad hominem fit into the scientific method?

Hyperbole, like anecdotes and parables, can help teach. But then, some people are unteachable.....

So Hyperbole is part of your “scientific method”?

In your case, your theory would be that since you got a vaccine today, the vaccine must have caused the “virtual eradication of smallpox?”

High-school physics and biology were my favorite subjects.

“We found that those who didn't respond to Plavix fall into a small genetic cohort …” So you work for a drug company?

My wife and I have an understanding that when she takes my 4 year old daughter and my 8 year old son for their vaccinations I don't want to know about it because it makes me cry.

Couldn't “shaken baby syndrome” be classified as a “rare serious side effect” ?

from cdc dot gov - DTaP vaccine side-effects

Moderate Problems

• Seizure (jerking or staring) (about 1 child out of 14,000)
• Non-stop crying, for 3 hours or more (up to about 1 child out of 1,000)
• High fever, 105 degrees Fahrenheit or higher (about 1 child out of 16,000)

Severe Problems
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:

• Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
• Permanent brain damage.