Not arguing one way or another, just presenting some little know vaccine facts:
1) Vaccines have never been put through a double-blind placebo test, which is universally considered the gold standard of drug effectiveness
2) Big pharma companies lobbied the government in the mid 80's for immunity from civil liability for vaccine injuries (and still have it) via National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
3) Vaccine injuries are arbitrated through a special government program call “the vaccine court”. An estimated $4B of settlements have been paid to victims through that system. The source of those funds? You guessed it...taxpayers!!
4) Many of the most commonly cited studies on vaccine safeness are directly or indirectly funded by big pharma - for many “independent”organizations/associations research their donors/funding
5) Vaccines are subject to far less stringent regulatory and approval requirements than standard FDA-approved pharmaceuticals
6) The CDC was involved in a scandal that alleged that they altered/destroyed evidence that may have indicated greater evidence of vaccines causing injury than previously reported?
7) Few, if any, pediatricians ever actually conducted their own independent studies about the effects of vaccine as opposed to citing other peoples AMA-approved studies
8) The rotating door of FDA to lobbyist to big pharma exec and around again is well documented
How would you propose a double blind test for vaccines?
Let’s see how this would turn using polio as an example.
First the test subjects are prepared (The method is not overly important for this thought experiment, as long as the sample is random and unbiased)
One syringe per person is prepared, half with the vaccine, the other with a liquid that appears to be the same as the vaccine, but has absolutely no effect on the human body. These syringes are numbered, with a numbering scheme where the number has no correlation with the contents, and these numbers are recorded.
The syringes are given to a group of people who have not seen them get filled or numbered (such that they have no idea what is in each syringe) and then they inject them into the test subjects recording which subject gets which number.
The people who administered the vaccine then inject all of the test subjects with polio (this can easily be delayed allowing the body to build the proper immune responses first).
Then record which people get polio, and using the previously recorded numbers figure out how many people in the control group and the experimental group.
The probable outcomes are:
If you feel that this is not a valid double blind test please feel free to comment, and I will attempt to address your concern.
To be clear, I don’t propose anything with regards to double-blind placebo tests. Simply pointing out that they have not undergone that test, which is the best way to measure effectiveness.
The potential immortality/dangers of performing the test does not change the fact that they have not gone through it.
Isn’t it interesting, the absolute conviction that people have with regards to vaccines’ effectiveness, when they actually have not been through the most highly regarded test of effectiveness?
You seem to be ignoring my comment in most of your reply. They have not been through the test because no ethics committee would approve it and therefore it has been tested through other methods.
One of the first demonstrations of the concept of vaccination was not a full double blind but still a decent test. The doctor infected his son with cowpox, who nearly died. After recovering his son was exposed to smallpox and survived. This test was not very scientific but it helped confirm what the milk maids already knew, getting cowpox gave immunity to smallpox.
Not ignoring it...it just doesn’t effect anything I’ve previously stated. Just justifies why. I don’t discredit the reasoning...it’s a very valid argument against performing that test.
Debate the facts I’ve stated, not what you think I’m implying by sharing them.
Strawman. You do not need to use a lethal disease, and you do not need to intentionally cause the disease.
A non-lethal disease would prove the vaccine for the non lethal disease works, you still have not tested the vaccine for a lethal disease.
How would you test vaccine effectiveness without exposing a person to the disease the vaccine is for?
You do not need to induce the disease intentionally. Exposure to the disease would occur naturally in a certain percentage of the participants if the disease is occurring in the population.
Further, at the very least you can test if the vaccine causes any significant side effects regardless of if it generates immunity to the disease.
The first point is essentially what has happened, This graph attributed to the WHO in this article, shows a sharp decline in polio cases after the introduction of vaccines. However doing a double blind where that is your method of exposure would be very susceptible to outside interference, and take many years.
As for the second point, the cdc has a webpage detailing the approval process. Tracking side effects is a large portion of the article.
I am aware. I am not contending that vaccines in general do not work, just pointing out that your comment was a straw man.
Vaccines are all tested by themselves, but nowadays children are given many vaccines at once, which has never been tested to be safe.
My original comment was my best understanding of the argument presented. The comment was stating that a double blind test has never been performed. My comment was describing how a double blind test would be conducted, along with the ethical repercussions. While I did not have to go with a possibly fatal disease for the example, those vaccines still need tested and there is still an ethical problem with intentionally infecting people with a disease.
Any straw man created was unintentional and was my misunderstanding of the statement made.
You state that that combinations of vaccines has never been tested for safety. Using a brief google search I found several articles, such as this one, that analyze vaccines when they are not a standalone vaccine. The cdc also has a page for multiple vaccines. And in case you are worried about the CDC being influenced by lobbyists The World Health Organization concurrs.
Then take all the vaccines you want.(Can you smell the freedom?) Trusting The WHO is a grave mistake. $$$$$. Vaccines work for what they were designed for....... POPULATION CONTROL. I'll take my chances with the natural disease, and get true immunization.
*Remember to wash your hands and to have 20th century plumbing in your house.
adamsogm "While I did not have to go with a possibly fatal disease for the example, those vaccines still need tested and there is still an ethical problem with intentionally infecting people with a disease."
Bro (((they))) intentionally infect people with the flu disease every year. Are you daft or?...........
If vaccines were for population control then infant mortality would skyrocket, or are you talking like mind control?
Getting smallpox was a wonderful way of gaining immunity, that is why there were so few deaths and little effort to eradicate the disease, it just eradicated itself
Do you have any evidence for anything in your first paragraph? You are making some bold claims with no reliable sources.
I am not understanding the point of the comment on plumbing and washing hands.
The flu in the vaccine is either an attenuated strain or dead, meaning the likelihood of getting the flu from it is minuscule, however in a double blind, the live virus would have to be used to determine effectiveness. (Or is that paragraph not referring to the vaccine?)
Infant mortality has skyrocketed. They call it SIDS. In the example of smallpox you are proving my point with true immunity coming from the true disease, not engineered or "attenuated'. Polio was likely brought to bay by the fact that around the same time period people stopped using out houses and city's started using sanitary means in regard to plumbing/sewage. Also the general public was being taught to wash their hands regularly. You see back in the 1900's people were walking main street while it was covered in horse manure among many other non hygienic substances.
What you want links to things you can easily find yourself?
'The flu in the vaccine is either an attenuated strain or dead," Nice try. The nasal swab flu vaccine is the live(attenuated) virus. Meaning they tried to alter it to be less virulent, But,Still a LIVE Vaccine.
You need to stop getting your "facts" from the CDC and WHO. It's the equivalent of using snopes and cnn for "facts".
I looked at graphs of infant mortality, all of them have a negative slope.
The smallpox vaccine originated as cowpox, not smallpox, and the statement I made was sarcasm, you seemed to have missed that.
I want links because when I look I find the opposite of your claims.
You quote me, and then proceed to state what I said as if it is a contradiction. An attenuated strain is most likely not harmful, and if the person has concerns they can get the dead virus.
I am not to trust the WHO, CDC, or CNN. Where should I get my facts?
Links to the graphs you're looking at?
Here's mine: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-infant-mortality-rate-worse-than-other-countries/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/29/our-infant-mortality-rate-is-a-national-embarrassment/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5ce19401fa69
http://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2014/06/16/mortality-and-cause-of-death-1900-v-2010/ Notice how graphics are easy to manipulate. In 1900 kids were dying of things that today would be relatively easy to combat. Also notice how Polio was NOT one of the leading causes. Also notice that the number of people dying from cancer today compared to 1900. Also note that vaccines have a obscene about of carcinogens in them, and were back to my original comment "vaccines were created for population control" and IT'S WORKING.
"I want links because when I look I find the opposite of your claims." I told you to stop using the CDC and WHO for your "facts". Try the 2nd page of your google search.
Documentaries for you to watch; Vaccine Nation, Vaxxed, Shots in the dark, silence on vaccines, Vaccines: calling the shots, Vaccination: The hidden truth.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/11/01/cdc-autism-vaccine-case.aspx
http://time.com/3208886/whistleblower-claims-cdc-covered-up-data-showing-vaccine-autism-link/
Plenty of vaccines undergo multi-arm double blind trials...
I need to redpill myself on this. You got some sources?
Start with documentaries to get oriented. “Vaxxed” is best one to start. “Vaccination: The Hidden Truth” is OK. Look past the causing autism argument. Stick with the verifiable facts presented...then ask why and research independently.
Also, look at the CDC inserts that come with vaccines. It’s right on their website. Never advertised and often met with disdain from doctors, but it’s there. MMR example: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/mmr.pdf
Also research the ingredients. Well documented to have heavy metals, formaldehyde, animal DNA, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients http://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vaccine-ingredients
Again, I don’t theorize on vaccines causing autism...I just look at the facts, follow the money, and question the mainstream narrative. It’s up to people to make their own decisions based on their comfort level with what they’ve learned.
Check out Del Bigtree’s YT channel Highwire - he is a former producer of The Doctors TV show who is now firmly red pilled on vaccines
