"Vaccines don't save lives"

[Nooh]

There have actually been cases of narcolepsy that have emerged after being vaccinated against the swine flu in both Sweden and Finland the last 3 years. The first batch of vaccines against swine flu sent to Sweden were particularly volatile, giving a lot children what seems to be a chronic disorder.

I didn't take the vaccine, didn't think I needed it and as such the potential risks outweighed the potential advantages. I never got the swine flu, or it was very harmless, and had none of the problems that several of my classmates felt at the time. More than one of them actually had to stay at home for two weeks just because the vaccine made them feel so ill.

 

[NiPah]

Say, do you ever notice that you make a lot of claims while at the same time giving no actual sources for them?

Do you ever notice how many people blindly attack any time I say anything? I'm 31 years old, I have better things to do than to provide sources for someone who would argue with me if I said the grass is green.

I do, but just maybe could that be because you already start off with faulty arguments like in this thread? Or because more often than not your opinion is a minority in this forum so you're naturally a target for quotes?

If you have better things to do than back up claims you're making then why bother making them at all? You know damn well that you're not gonna incite a reasonable discussion when you start off saying cancer and vaccination rates are correlated or provide a greatly exaggerated summary that hugely favores your side of a paper without ever showing the actual source to anyone. I don't dispute that some people like to just attack your posts for the unsourced theories they sometimes are but when you start off (and continue) like that no wonder your inbox gets heavy.

Surely you'd have a much better discussion if you provided more to your posts that could actually convince others of your points... either that or you could be proven wrong more easily and wouldn't that be the best outcome anyway? Because if you want to tell me you don't want to be proven wrong that vaccines lead to cancer you should seriously rethink your position. Basically, if you source your statements you can not lose!

This is getting way off topic though.

I just want to remind you that you're arguing with xDarc here, while it makes for entertainment and maybe even content for a fun drinking game it should never be done to actually educate or prove a point. Never get pulled into his world, he exemplifies why sources need to be checked, he hardly provides links because most of them were made by a schizophrenic who learned HTML for the first time (or at least someone with a major mental disability).

 

[McMullen]

Suppose they do represent an increased risk, as most things do. Are they worth it? YES.

Well at least you admit it. Thanks for that.

When a person says "Suppose that...", they're implying that what follows is either not true or not known to be true. And I'm hardly in a position to "admit" anything.

Cancer causing vaccines would be as big a concern as NSA spying, they're only doing it to keep you safe, to save lives, so who cares.

If we were all so willing to interpret the ability of an invention to save lives as supporting evidence for a conspiracy, then there wouldn't be much point in trying to better the human condition at all. So many lives saved, all those recurring epidemics brought to an end, and yet one fraudulent paper is all the evidence people seem to need to consider it an evil. That's got to be rather depressing for the researchers and humanitarian workers dedicating their lives to helping people. Reminds me of those NGO personnel who got chased out of a few central African towns because of the UN's lack of military intervention in all the fighting there. The same people you're trying to help avoid cholera will stone you to death if they think you're enough like someone who's pissed them off. Thankfully not everyone is like that.

But yeah, I took a look at a lot of numbers, mostly in America, and cancer rates are up for everyone. Breast cancer in women under 50 was at a record recently. For middle aged men, it's testicular or GI cancers, bowel/colon/stomach, etc. It has nothing to do with longevity as a risk factor and more people living longer when the people getting more cancer are middle aged, young adults and children as well.

I'd be interested to see those numbers. Statistics can bite you if you're not careful with them. For example, I've lately been trying to make a map of tornado frequency in the US, but the thing keeps looking more like a strangely weighted population density map than anything else. This is because tornadoes are more likely to get reported in places where there's lots of people around to see them, even if you only use the last decade's worth of data. Cancer and age are related in a different but no less annoying way.

Even the title of this thread is misleading. I don't think there's anyone who really believes vaccines don't work, but there have been recalls, there have been deaths, they are not 100% safe; nothing is. But how safe are they? To even to call that into question, it's just a dog pile of people attacking. I'm not going to deal with that.

And you shouldn't. But others should, and they have. Despite the career boost it would be to show a significant risk, they have not been able to establish that there is one.

You seem to have this idea that there are unassailable ideas in science. That's not how it works. Science is about falsifiability; it's not a valid theory unless it's possible to prove it wrong, and the biggest prizes and credit in science go to those who highlight the biggest errors. This is not to say that it's easy to dislodge an entrenched theory, just that it's the sort of thing that the ambitious crave. In fact, some are willing to commit fraud in order to achieve that sort of recognition. The researcher who published the link between autism and vaccines is a good example.

I will probably vaccinate my kids,

Great.

but I won't follow the recommended schedule which has them taking so many shots at once. I will spread them out so their immune system has time to recover after each.

Well, I think that's a little misguided and, depending on how long you wait, potentially harmful. But at least you're willing, for their sake and for the sake of those who attend class with them.

So there it is, now tell me my kids deserve to die or I deserve to be put in jail for not doing what a doctor says, for not believing in big pharma, or any other institutions that people today act like is the new religion.

I am also 31, and that's too old to be wishing death upon people who are wrong on the Internet, or their children. Especially if the whole reason if they're wrong in the first place is because they're exposing their children to a significant and confirmed risk out of fear of a negligible, probably nonexistent risk.

 

[Dangit2019]

I'm 31 years old, I have better things to do than to provide sources for someone who would argue with me if I said the grass is green.

...

I'm sorry, you just compared scientific statistics to obvious facts of nature; my brain tried to kill itself for a second there.

[sub][sub]Also, who gives a shit how old you are? This isn't a elementary school playground...[/sub][/sub]

 

[Syzygy23]

The vaccines kids get today are not the ones I got in 1982-86. It's obvious that vaccines prevent disease, but it's also obvious that kids today are increasingly defective- not just with autism, but you never used to hear shit about peanut allergies or gluten intolerance either. Then you have have cancer being up 20% from 1990-2000 and expected to be up another 50% by 2020.

So maybe... something is very wrong.

More processed foods are being consumed, just look at the average number of obese people compared to 1982-86. Shitty food leads to shitty nutrition, which leads to shitty health which leads to shitty health problems like cancer. The spike in reported allergies and gluten intolerance can possibly be cultural, as more and more people lately have started becoming health conscious what with all the facotry farm foods and carcinogenic/unhealthy artificial preservatives and materials used in too damn much of our food nowadays. You pay more attention to your childs health and what they eat, you're bound to notice a reaction when they eat something. In the extreme zone they become hypochondriac parents and simply BELIEVE their kid(s) are allergic or intolerant to something.

 

[Naeras]

"vaccines don't save lives"

Yes they do, to the point that not vaccinating your children is incredibly irresponsible. [http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2013/06/06/3776327.htm]

And no, there's no microchips in the vaccines, and the amount of potentially toxic substances in them is lower than it is in a lot of different food types(the mercury dose of the swine flu vaccine was lower than the dose you'd get from eating fresh fish, gg). It doesn't cause autism or down's either. Some people may get allergic reactions to vaccines, but both the chance of this and the severity of those symptoms don't compare to the risk of most childhood diseases.

 

[VanQ]

The claim isn't that vaccines don't save lives -- okay, some people do say that, obviously -- it's the claim that vaccines are bad or inherently unnatural. I think it's a fear that remains after the Autism Trials.

The autism omnibus trails, though it was thrown out of court for having no evidence that a mercury-based preservative in a vaccine caused autism (or that any case of mercury caused any type of autism), are entirely to blame, because people believe what they want to believe, especially if they don't understand what they believe.

It's a big fear of the magic word 'mercury', and that has spread to vaccines in general. Don't waste your time thinking about it. However, feel free to read up on the Autism Trials on Wikipedia, get educated and all the like.

It's really like some people don't realize that whenever they eat fish they're usually ingesting trace amounts of mercury. It's really like they don't realize that trace amounts of mercury aren't going to give you Mad Hatter's Syndrome because our bodies aren't made of glass that shatters on the drop of a top-hat.

 

[Angie7F]

I think it is ok to get vaccinations for the standard stuff.
Maybe the pharmaceutical companies are crooks, but so far I have benefited from vaccinations so I have no complaints.

I always give my dog vaccinations and so far we have been a very happy healthy family

 

[chuckdm]

We're also getting more efficient at detecting illness though so it's natural to see a spike.

Yes, we've come a long way since living in caves in 1990...

People don't necessarily understand the science behind vaccines. They see the eradication of diseases and understand that they work. Yet, when they see a rise in all kinds of other illnesses, they stick their fingers in their ears and go "La La La."

*snip*

I do.

I understand it just fine. I'm a 26 year old computer geek who is 9 years into a 2 year AS degree and even I understand it. Or rather, I understand the Flu Vaccine - I won't claim to understand every vaccine because some of them work differently.

Basically, a virus is an organism with fake DNA. It injects that DNA into your otherwise normal cells, and then when your cells divide, the fake DNA divides with it, creating globs of cells with foreign DNA. This is why treating a virus is so much harder than a bacterial infection - you're not trying to kill a foreign organism, you're killing your own damn cells.

What the Flu Vaccine does is inject you with (usually dead) Flu virus. That is, Flu virus that is either dead outright, or depending on the specific vaccine, modified to be unable to attach itself to your own cells. Then your body can detect it as harmful and your white blood cells basically "learn" the profile of the Flu Virus, so they can effectively kill it before it can inject itself into your healthy cells.

Since this is the escapist, here's an analogy: it's like training SEALs by taking a bunch of evil terrorists, cutting off their balls, taking away their guns, and handcuffing them to a concrete pole, then hanging a big neon sign over their head that says "terrorist/flu" so you can learn EXACTY what to shoot. Well...it's kinda like that, anyhow.

So no, Vaccines aren't complicated, and they are mostly very well understood, both by the scientists who create them, and in some cases, even total laymen like myself. All one has to do to understand this is fucking google it, so anyone who doesn't understand them just hasn't bothered to read. At all.

And since someone brought up Cancer, I might as well say this here:

Cancer is caused by a mutated Oncogene that makes cells divide before they have developed to perform their function, thus causing a runaway division of cells that require nourishment but serve no function. This is what causes 100% of ALL Cancer. This has been known since the mid-80's. This isn't a secret.

As to why we don't just prevent all cancer by hardening the Oncogene before birth - which we know exactly how to do, I should add - that'd be playing god. And god forbid we do that. Yanno, even those of us who die by the millions without ever believing in god aren't allowed to either. Because christians vote to damn much, basically.

 

[J Tyran]

The vaccines kids get today are not the ones I got in 1982-86. It's obvious that vaccines prevent disease, but it's also obvious that kids today are increasingly defective- not just with autism, but you never used to hear shit about peanut allergies or gluten intolerance either. Then you have have cancer being up 20% from 1990-2000 and expected to be up another 50% by 2020.

So maybe... something is very wrong.

There is a lot we live with now we never used to though, massive use of diesel engines, pesticides, plastic polymers in the environment, huge amounts of EM radiation. There so many potential issues its hard to say what the cause is.

One fun thing about vaccines though is even if they are responsible for some problems it out weighs the amount of kids that got killed, disabled or disfigured by child hood diseases. In the 1940s half a million kids got paralyzed or killed by Polio for example.

 

[funksobeefy]

didnt we beet small pox with vaccines?

off topic: you know whats bullshit? adds about dish network when talking about the importance of vaccines on our children. fuck you captcha

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I say when the next megavirus comes in, Darwinism will do it's job and the moronic will get what's coming to them... flaky puss boils.

 

[MrMrAwesom]

Well, the people that sell cures for disease have it in their interest for people to be sick so they can make money selling you the cure. Simple supply & demand.

I mean... even if that's not true, why even risk that being inside you?

 

[OneCatch]

Well, the people that sell cures for disease have it in their interest for people to be sick so they can make money selling you the cure. Simple supply & demand.

I mean... even if that's not true, why even risk that being inside you?

That picture is partly true, but the devil is in the detail - essentially the detail that those chemicals (if present at all) are in absurdly small quantities, or as part of organic compounds.

Whoever wrote that poster is basically doing an appeal to emotion rather than anything grounded. It's like me doing this:

--------------

I mean... even if that's not true, why even risk that being inside you?

Spoiler: Because you don't want to end up like this

Spoiler: Or this

--------------

Incidentally, the second is a picture of one of the last people to ever suffer from smallpox, because of the vaccination program that's probably saved tens of millions of lives.
Yes, pharmaceutical companies are sometimes corrupt [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma], but to decide not to get vaccines that have been extremely thoroughly tested all over the world because they have scary sounding ingredients is ridiculous.

 

[Yopaz]

So maybe... something is very wrong.

And correlation does not imply causation, as we all know. Although, I don't know how good is saying that as we don't even have correlation.

There are more tsunamis now than there were 300 years ago. There's also a decreace in number of pirates. Pirates decreace the number of tsunamis. Yeah, I agree with you.

OT: I kinda understand it. It's so easy to soak up hysteria even when faced with facts. We fear things because someone makes it sound scary. This is pretty much the same as dihydrogenmonoxide fear. There might be a risk when it comes to vaccines, but there is a certain risk when it comes to avoiding vaccines. However conspiracy theories are easier to believe than assurances from doctors who might have been paid off by the pharmaceutical companies or from the pharmaceuticak companies themselves.

Now... the doctor who did say it could lead to autism was in fact paid to say this and has as far as I know lost his licence to practice medicine.

 

[ashertaz]

The vaccines kids get today are not the ones I got in 1982-86. It's obvious that vaccines prevent disease, but it's also obvious that kids today are increasingly defective- not just with autism, but you never used to hear shit about peanut allergies or gluten intolerance either. Then you have have cancer being up 20% from 1990-2000 and expected to be up another 50% by 2020.

So maybe... something is very wrong.

One of the reason kids seem to be more "defective" today and also one of the reasons cancer numbers seem to increase is due to evolution in technology - basically, we can diagnose people better, today. I'm not saying there might not be an increase (i have no figures for that), just saying that if doctors find more cases doesn't necessarily mean that there are more cases now than before, it just means that they are finding (diagnosing) more cases than they did, say, 10 years ago. Same with autism ( as the definition for autism expanded, more people fit in that category, thus people considered as suffering from autism increased). Correlation does not mean causation 100% of the time.
Also , the fact that you never used to hear about some kind of allergy before doesn't mean that there no such cases or that they increased in number in recent years. Again, it means more cases are correctly diagnosed and reported. In olden days such allergy or deaths due to it could have been chucked to a bee venom allergy and reported as such.

 

[Yopaz]

Well, the people that sell cures for disease have it in their interest for people to be sick so they can make money selling you the cure. Simple supply & demand.

I mean... even if that's not true, why even risk that being inside you?

Honestly look at that picture. He can't even spell the name of the chemicals properly he's clearly not the best person to judge the danger of them. Now there are some vaccines which use thiomersal which contains a little mercury, but this is far from all and several pharmaceutical companies are phasing out the usage of it in vaccines.

Vaccines contain dead bacteria ornon-functional viruses because this will prevent the antigen to your immune system and make it produce antibodies. If the actual virus or bacteria enters your system later your immune system is able to counter it faster. The reasoning that vaccines are bad because they contain viruses is kinda like saying meat is dangerous because a cow might kick us to death. The virus in the vaccine has been treated in ways to make it unable to reproduce.

Now let's weigh the risks.

Smallpox had a mortality rate of 30%. Now that doesn't exist outside of labs.

Polio cause permanent muscle weakness when the weakness strikes. Vaccines prevent that completely.

Tuberculosis is listed as the disease that kill the thir most people each year. Because of vaccines it's not considered a threat here anymore.

Why risk vaccines? Because as much hysteria there is around them there is rarely any proven connection between vaccines and serious disease. There is a connection between serious diseases (that can be prevented with vaccines) and death though.

 

[Calibanbutcher]

Well, the people that sell cures for disease have it in their interest for people to be sick so they can make money selling you the cure. Simple supply & demand.

I mean... even if that's not true, why even risk that being inside you?

Well, the people that sell cures for disease have it in their interest for people to be sick so they can make money selling you the cure. Simple supply & demand.

I mean... even if that's not true, why even risk that being inside you?

Oh, Oh, I wanna play too:

"If you drugged someone and cut them open and run various screws through their bones, you'd be labeled a psychopath and a maniac. So why should it be legal for doctors to do that?"

"If you were to acquire a source of high-energy radiation and used that to shine through someone you'd be sued for causing bodily harm and being a supervillain. So why is it ok for doctors to do so?"

"If you were to give someone mind-altering substances, you'd be a drug-dealer, so why should doctors be allowed to do so?"

"If you fixated someone, drilled through their skull whilst they are still awake, opened the skull using an electric saw and rummaged around in their brain using a robot and laser, you'd be considered a "SAW-style" villain, so why should doctors be allowed to do so?"

 

[Nadia Castle]

People just have to believe that things are getting worse for some specific reason to make themselves feel better. The worlds population has grown to a ridiculous level, and the general population has now aged to the point that dying of cancer is more common place, but that is just too simple and answer for most. There has to be some evil higher power causing it, so they blame the governments, big pharma, chemicals in water, anything other than 'life is horrible'.

 

[Quaxar]

Cancer is caused by a mutated Oncogene that makes cells divide before they have developed to perform their function, thus causing a runaway division of cells that require nourishment but serve no function. This is what causes 100% of ALL Cancer. This has been known since the mid-80's. This isn't a secret.

Just a quick note. You're not wrong but you could be more right. An Oncogene is always mutated, if it's working normally it's called a Proto-Oncogene. Which is a technicality but, you know...
A Proto-Oncogene mutation alone is also mostly harmless because it's only part of a whole mutation chain, even more important are Tumor Suppressor Gene mutations, because they regulate all the division cycle checkpoints and controlled cell death (apoptosis) for when a check fails, p53 is especially critical since it alone triggers apoptosis to get rid of bad mutations.

But yeah, you don't really need to know that as a computer person I just thought I might mention it for your possible enjoyment.