it seems the former

It's easily conceivable that unscrupulous businessmen might deceive in order to maintain the status quo rather than increase the production cost in order to be more responsible to other human beings.

"preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. "

My sister lost two children this way, took them each 6 years to die. Fucking heartbreaking.

that's fucked.

Make it a bubble child until. it can be vaccinated normally

Can't put the time in now but I'm saving to read for later. Thank you for this

even the idea of vaccines is stupid. it's like smashing a baby's head between two dictionaries and thinking that will increase its vocab

Here, sweet little baby, have some hepatitis. And take this vial of chemicals made in a lab that literally fucks with everything your immune system is trying to do to protect you. In a few years, I will take you to the doctor and get you a scrip for adderall to deal with it. No worries.

You have no idea how vaccines work.

Actually, he's being pretty accurate.

Have you not ever read a vaccine insert? They even have aborted fetal tissue in them. If full grown adults have trouble accepting donor tissue, is it any surprise that kids have horrible reactions when their newborn systems are injected with aborted newborn cells?

guess what viruses are a scam, get your peers on that

viruses don't exist? oh tell us more.

I understand skepticism, especially of pharmaceutical companies...but at a certain point you're just being willfully ignorant and are honestly a detriment to society. Maybe you should do something about that.

i will roll around in knives and bathe in your blood if you think you're hiv positive

The Vaccine Court has awarded 3.6 billion dollars in awards to families of kids injured by vaccines.

???

The US govt made it illegal to sue pharmaceutical companies directly over damages from vaccines. As an alternative process they created a federal vaccine court in 1988 to hear only cases having to do with vaccines.

http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/vaccine-programoffice-special-masters

They've awarded over 3.6 billion in damages. Maxed at $250,000 for one death.

The fact that vaccines work isn't really disputed by anyone. The only controversy (which I still disagree with) is if they're otherwise dangerous and unnecessary. Saying vaccines don't do what they claim is otherwise about as dumb as saying viruses aren't real.

thinking they work is what's dumb, go ahead and pretend it's an opinion, but the very IDEA of a vaccine is idiotic if you have one half a brain lobe

We know how vaccines work, we can establish cause and effect, they have been extensively studied and have multiple real-world examples of their effects in eradicating disease. My brain lobes understand how they work because I can understand how medicine works. The only possible controversy, though it's still probably wrong, is whether or not they have any adverse effects that go along with it.

And I don't have hepatitis but pls don't drink my blood

if only they made laxatives for propaganda

Yes, I suppose if I gave myself brain damage I could begin to believe that vaccines are fake news

viruses are fake news and fake science

Do enlighten us with the truth. I can't wait.

The idea of homeopathic medicine is not a new one, or fraudulent - it originated with Hippocrates himself. Modern doctors don't like to admit it, but this principle of "like-cures-like" is precisely how anti-venom works.

The main problem of vaccines is that they are filled with preservatives and other crap (pretty much poison if you examine the inserts).

Based on the responses in this thread, at least a few people do dispute whether vaccines work. Sad but true.

They may work. In a lot of instances they don't. Flu shots being the easiest example.

But yes, the main point is that they are, in fact, very dangerous, and unnecessary. All the major 'deadly' illnesses are actually not fatal over 98% of the time (with modern health standards) and furthermore, were more or less eradicated before vaccines came along. It is modern sanitation that took them out, not vaccines.

Last question...has anyone looked at the modern schedule compared to your parents or our grandparents' schedule? I guarantee you most of your family members don't have nearly as many shots that we will inject into kids whose systems are still just starting their development.

This is simple information that everyone should know. It boggles my mind that so many petiole are oblivious to it or willfully ignorant

That's not true. For one thing, they are not totally eradicated. Prevalence of diseases like polio exponentially just happened to decline while vaccination became common. Modern sanitation standards are also not up to par in many parts of the world, where these diseases become much better controlled and much more quickly controlled with vaccination. Without herd immunity, there are still many ways outbreaks can happen again in places like North America.

Also, yes, these diseases are often not fatal. However, without vaccination they're often uncurable and only have symptomatic treatment. That is NOT a good solution, both in terms of general well being and healthcare costs.

If you look at all the recent outbreaks (measles, mumps, etc), you'll find that everyone that got ill had the vaccine. Not to say the unvaccinated don't get sick from shedding; they do, but as I stated in another comment these illnesses we are afraid of are pretty much equivalent to chicken pox nowadays, much less than <2% fatality rate.

(On the chicken pox vaccine - those who got chicken pox naturally seem more resilient to shingles later on, whereas those who got the vaccine typically are getting shingles much worse, so the preliminary surveys/studies are showing)

You're obsessing over the fatality rate like it's the only important part of this. You would be comfortable getting diseases that can have potentially serious complications, just because you have a low chance of dying? You're right in that modern medicine has significantly decreased the mortality rate in these diseases, but it was vaccines that significantly decreased the prevalence of them. You're looking at the wrong data.

Your argument about the recent outbreaks is also straight-up wrong. Look at the recent measles outbreak in Minnesota, where the disease spread primarily among the Somali community, a community that has seen vaccination rates plummet to <50% in recent years. Outbreaks happen primarily among those who are not vaccinated. Sometimes, vaccinations aren't effective in certain people (immunity is never 100%, only close to it), or some aren't able to be vaccinated for various other reasons. They are protected by herd immunity, and then have the possibility of contracting the disease through these outbreaks that happen BECAUSE of unvaccinated people.

Lots to pick apart here, I'll try to be succinct.

These diseases overwhelmingly do not have serious complications. Again, I've witnessed around 15 kids over the last few years get these 'potentially serious' diseases, and came out with no issues at all. Meanwhile, daily I see kids having extremely adverse reactions to vaccines, often with irreparable damage.

Chart showing vaccine use versus mortality rates

Some of the outbreaks did have unvaccinated people, yes (I was referring to the 2 or 3 most recent ones, where in fact it was all vaccinated people). Generally this is because of vaccine shedding, where the person vaccinated will be contagious for a bit of time, and makes it easier for others to pick up. In the same way the flu shot often doesn't work (because of different strains and other factors) we observe the same effect with other vaccines.

Finally, herd immunity does not exist, and was actually hypothesized for naturally-occurring immunization before the prevalence of vaccines. Even if you believe it to be true, the fact is, we're nowhere close to achieving it, as your parents and grandparents have roughly 5%, at best, of the shots you do if you're up to date. Just look at the vaccine schedules if you don't believe me.

You're straight up ignoring the data now. I specifically talked about mortality rates. Yes, with most diseases (even AIDS now) we've been able to decrease mortality rates a lot with symptomatic treatment. That's ignoring the contraction rates, which sharply declined WITH the vaccines. Symptomatic treatment is far from the best solution.

Where are you daily seeing these kids with adverse reactions? Where are you witnessing this stuff? You're saying you've seen 15 kids get these diseases, but you must not be paying attention. Here's just the most recent measles outbreak (quote from an article): "Since the outbreak began in late March, Minnesota public health officials have confirmed 79 local measles cases. Most involved unvaccinated preschool children in the Somali American community."

Where are you daily seeing these kids with adverse reactions? Where are you witnessing this stuff? You're saying you've seen 15 kids get these diseases, but you must not be paying attention.

As for adverse reactions, either in person, or on vaccine forums discussed in vivid detail (with pictures or videos) of kids having everything from localized rash with fever, to ending up dead a few days after their shots. I've not witnessed any contractions in person, but everyone that reports their child has something has eventually reported back that their child was fine. Again, we can much more effectively treat stuff nowadays, so contracting isn't a big deal. I haven't seen any evidence from you showing otherwise, other than the normal speaking points that Merc and the CDC puts out (as of course they would, seeing as they own the patents to the vaccines).

vaccine forums

You're sitting in a bubble giving you only the information you want to see and that supports what you believe

Some deaths have been claimed to be attributed to a vaccine. However, few if any have actually been substantiated. These are mostly self-reported theories of people and parents.

In most cases, children who contract these diseases will end up ok. But there will always be a percentage that will have serious complications, or die. For measles, I believe the number is less than 1% with modernized treatment. Putting that in perspective of a country with hundreds of millions of people, however, the sheer number of complications and deaths from that disease alone would soar without vaccination.

And that's just taking America into account. Worldwide, we still have hundreds of thousands of deaths attributed to measles every year. Lack of vaccination in our country would only help spread more cases to countries with lower healthcare standards, once again creating a bigger issue. That's why eradicating the disease is so important. The measles vaccine alone has saved millions of lives worldwide.

Proof that vaccines have saved millions of lives worldwide? How do you know other factors weren't at play (I know the answers, as I've done my homework, I'm asking you if you do)? How do you know you are not in a bubble yourself? Are you listening to both sides? I am, but I'm not convinced you are.

The eradication of polio, measels, and other harmful diseases is more then plenty to prove vaccines are necessary and safe. There's no debate there.

Honestly, I don't trust vax and think it's a scam, but I believe Tylenol has a lot to do with the harmful impact of vax and needs to be looked at.

Aspirin overdose led to the insane number of deaths since during the Spanish Flu epidemic.

We've been over-medicating ourselves for about 200 years and the repercussions are dramatic and will be with us for generations.

I'm not sure if it's hubris or our desire to play god, but it flies in the face of reason to solve our over-medication problem with more medication.

It's so nefarious that I'm practically convinced it's being done on purpose (as in for reasons more than just simple greed).

That is what I'm pointing at. Treating fever and trying to bypass our immune systems.

My oldest kid is in his late twenties, was a first subject of mandatory and terribly untested Chickenpox vax. Now he's sero-neg for mono. He will literally have mononucleosis for the rest of his life. The deal back then was dose your kid up with a vial of Tylenol before the jab, they would give them another vial at the doctor's office- to fight the fever.

Look in my submissions for posts I've made previously about Tylenol and autism.

Mono is no joke. I got that crap my freshman year of college and it just totally wiped me out. I was an athlete in great shape and I lost about 40 pounds. Took me well over half a year to really recover.

Paul talks about this a LOT in his book The Vaccine Friendly Plan.

Stay as far away as possible from acetaminophen if you're pregnant and NEVER give to a kid before/after a vaccine if you do choose to shoot them up

I'm in my thirties and have never taken any Tylenol, Advil or any medication at all.

I just don't get sick, haven't had more than a short term sore throat or a rare headache in 15 years.

My city also doesn't flouridate the water and I've had no cavities or teeth problems.

You're not sciencing right...smh

No... I'm good, I think you forgot the "social" aspect of social media

I'll admit I'm not big on the whole anti-vax thing. It's worth noting that this study has already been retracted, and was originally published in a no-name open-access journal (pay to publish).
I'll be able to read more later but glancing through it I'm concerned about selection bias. For example I do not find it surprising that vaccinated children use more prescription drugs, as parents who vaccinate their children are probably more likely to allow their children to take prescription drugs. As a scientist, seeing phrases like "almost reached statistical significance" are a major "smell" to me. I'll get a chance to look at it in more detail after work.

Calling this dude a shill probably gives loads of credibility to the articles arguments instead of addressing his issues.

No, because I haven't presented an argument. I'm saying as an uninterested third party observer, calling someone a shill biases me in the direction of the person being called a shill without regard for the arguments or ideas presented. When I present an idea and someone calls me a shill instead of dealing with those ideas I tend to assume that means they don't know how to "logically discuss." Of course, that's just my opinion.

You caught me, you've caught the tator

How's tater tot?

check out the truth about vaccines docu-series...

This study isn't perfect, and the authors explicitly say so and that it should only be considered a first step. There is currently a bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) to have a federal study comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. If the CDC and other agencies are so concerned that children get vaccines, why wouldn't they jump on an opportunity to prove that vaccinated children have better outcomes than not vaccinated? Why hasn't this study been done?

Here is a CapWiz link that you can use to contact your representatives. Someone mentioned they didn't like that there's a link for donations to autism orgs in there, but 1. the proposed study will be a federal study and will not be taking any money from autism orgs; and 2. you can contact your representatives without donating.

And finally here is an interview in STAT News with RFK Jr., who in my opinion is an absolute hero.

If the CDC and other agencies are so concerned that children get vaccines, why wouldn't they jump on an opportunity to prove that vaccinated children have better outcomes than not vaccinated?

This is what gives the game away, the fact they always have an excuse to avoid the most basic studies on vaccine safety

Or... No one wants to waste time and resources on a wild goose chase. It's like asking NASA to fund a study proving the earth is round; why would you bother.

The whole vaccination paranoia was started by a bogus study and maintained by self-serving charlatans. Additionally, given the overwhelming benefits of herd immunity, a tiny rise in morbidity wouldn't significantly change the cost-benefit situation.

PS. After glancing through the study, it's incredibly poorly designed and analysed.

NOTE: I do not want to start an argument with you, just an honest question

If vaccines are so great, and they will "protect you 100%" from getting that virus, why care if people don't get vaccines? They will then die and then you can say, "should have gotten the vaccine."

Powerful forces of industry push for these studies to be retracted, all kinds of threats/bribes to whitewash the pharmaceutical crime of vaccines

Or they could be retracted because they are horseshit? One of us is right.

6-12 years old... so they were born between 2005 and 2011. Was thimerosal still heavily used during all of those years?

for the tl;dr version:

Conclusions Assessment of the long-term effects of the vaccination schedule on morbidity and mortality has been limited [71]. In this pilot study of vaccinated and unvaccinated homeschool children, reduced odds of chickenpox and whooping cough were found among the vaccinated, as expected, but unexpectedly increased odds were found for many other physician-diagnosed conditions. Although the cross-sectional design of the study limits causal interpretation, the strength and consistency of the findings, the apparent “dose-response” relationship between vaccination status and several forms of chronic illness, and the significant association between vaccination and NDDs all support the possibility that some aspect of the current vaccination program could be contributing to risks of childhood morbidity. Vaccination also remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors, whereas preterm birth, long considered a major risk factor for NDD, was not associated with NDD after controlling for the interaction between preterm birth and vaccination. In addition, preterm birth coupled with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD above that of vaccination alone. Nevertheless, the study findings should be interpreted with caution. First, additional research is needed to replicate the findings in studies with larger samples and stronger research designs. Second, subject to replication, potentially detrimental factors associated with the vaccination schedule should be identified and addressed and underlying mechanisms better understood. Such studies are essential in order to optimize the impact of vaccination of children’s health.

First of all this does not look like a tldr. Second, paragraphs bro. Third. Its people like you who keep this sub running cos I hate opening links

Fourth. type long form followed by (NDD) befoure referring to NDD throughout your post

Fifth. Whats ndd

Looks like op edited their post to include reference to "neurodegenerative disease"

Mawson’s vaccine study was funded by two anti-vaccine groups: Generation Rescue, founded by anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy, and the Children’s Medical Safety Research Institute, founded by vaccine skeptic Claire Dwoskin. Web sites such as Age of Autism ran ads calling for donations to Generation Rescue, containing an explicit statement that the money would go toward funding the study.

Mawson is also a vocal supporter of Andrew Wakefield signing petitions supporting his vaccine study.

From authors: The object of our pilot study was not to obtain a representative sample of homeschool children but a convenience sample of unvaccinated children of sufficient size to test for significant differences in outcomes between the groups.

The study is definitely and by admission not representative of the population and having been promoted almost exclusively, with respondents being almost totally homeschooled.

I am not unwilling to look at data. I am always willing to hear new evidence as we are always learning and science is about progress. But if people are going to present statistics and evidence as fact they need to show as little bias as possible. I don't find that to be the case with this study.

He (or she) just showed that your linked study is biased af. and the best defense you got is " dont be biased" ?

😂

It baffles me that people can think any study is unbiased. I work in the nuclear engineering field, and just because you can (or have to) get a peer-review doesn't mean that peer review isn't crap.

Do you think all the research done by the CDC and other medical institutions - who all either own some of these patents or are bankrolled by those who make lots of money on vaccines - aren't biased? Blows my mind.

your bias is obvious even if you deny it

I am absolutely condemning this study. Author is a known anti vaxxer who stands behind the Wakefield report. Report was funded by anti vaxxers. Report retracted by both journals it was published in. These, I think, are enough reasons to dismiss. Plus there were issues with some of the joint authors credentials, flawed methodology, report admitted the sample wasn't representative, and other problems. I am all for research. Although I personally believe that vaccines are safe and effective I am not a parent. I would be willing to look at credible research in a heartbeat. A closed mind doesn't answer anything. But this is obviously not that study.

Well. The author must be a rich NAZI white male privileged racist.

How else can you explain actual science that doesn't follow the narrative?

Looks like we pissed them off. It looks like we have bots doing some voting here...

then why not archive is u/Plz_Pm_Me_Cute_Fish?

archive.fo version

where the shills at??

666 children sampled. Intradesting.

OP, who was probably vaccinated, posts link to already retracted thing claiming it proves a thing.... LOL! Are all anti-vaccination truthers this incompetent?

Thank you for adding so much to the conversation

Here, sweet little baby, have some hepatitis. And take this vial of chemicals made in a lab that literally fucks with everything your immune system is trying to do to protect you. In a few years, I will take you to the doctor and get you a scrip for adderall to deal with it. No worries.

I understand skepticism, especially of pharmaceutical companies...but at a certain point you're just being willfully ignorant and are honestly a detriment to society. Maybe you should do something about that.

The fact that vaccines work isn't really disputed by anyone. The only controversy (which I still disagree with) is if they're otherwise dangerous and unnecessary. Saying vaccines don't do what they claim is otherwise about as dumb as saying viruses aren't real.

check out the truth about vaccines docu-series...

Thank you for adding so much to the conversation

This study isn't perfect, and the authors explicitly say so and that it should only be considered a first step. There is currently a bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) to have a federal study comparing vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. If the CDC and other agencies are so concerned that children get vaccines, why wouldn't they jump on an opportunity to prove that vaccinated children have better outcomes than not vaccinated? Why hasn't this study been done?

Here is a CapWiz link that you can use to contact your representatives. Someone mentioned they didn't like that there's a link for donations to autism orgs in there, but 1. the proposed study will be a federal study and will not be taking any money from autism orgs; and 2. you can contact your representatives without donating.

And finally here is an interview in STAT News with RFK Jr., who in my opinion is an absolute hero.

Powerful forces of industry push for these studies to be retracted, all kinds of threats/bribes to whitewash the pharmaceutical crime of vaccines

NOTE: I do not want to start an argument with you, just an honest question

If vaccines are so great, and they will "protect you 100%" from getting that virus, why care if people don't get vaccines? They will then die and then you can say, "should have gotten the vaccine."

that's fucked.

Make it a bubble child until. it can be vaccinated normally