They've known all along that vaccines can cause autoimmune disorders:

Vaccines don't suppress your immune system. It's the chemtrails in the air that do. Unvaccinated hippie kids have been taught how to hold their breath longer than the rest of us.

This is the sort of info that makes me keep refreshing this sub! Appreciated!

Top post and research

Just glancing over the studies that you posted there. Some are so old that they are a bit suspect. Biomedical research moves quickly, and papers published even 10 years ago may be deprecated (not to mind 50 years ago). If there a valid research avenue why do we need to go looking to papers in the 70’s. Also, being published does not mean the research or outcome have any merit. Just stating these facts to help people gain some context.

On the hippy children being healthy theory; I would put forward the idea that these infants are more often breast fed from birth and for longer into childhood. This would confer a fantastic advantage over other infants in terms of immunity to ear infections etc..

I’m not saying anything is invalid, I’m just saying people should read these with skepticism. Some laypeople seem to think that being published means that what you have done and what you have to say has merit. Often this is not the case. I certainly wouldn’t base any health decision on some random paper published in the 70’s.

I’m just saying people should read these with skepticism

There vaccines themselves haven't been through double-blind trials using inert placebos, they are also mostly tested by the industry who profits from them (keep in mind CDC is an industry-captured too). The mainstream media received pharma advertising dollars, they push vaccines hard, so be skeptical of vaccines themselves, they are not evidence based, more of a cult or at best a pseudoscience.

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Product_Information/human/000703/WC500021142.pdf

Pages 8 through 17 give the efficacy data which underpins the current registration in the EU.

This is totally unrelated to the discussion you were having but as I was reading this document I noticed gardasil being discussed and was reminded of a recent post I saw in r/science where an elderly woman in her 90s had some type of skin cancer and was ruled unfit for chemo/radiation therapy. The doctors injected her tumors with gardasil and they all disappeared. Just found that really interesting and your document made me think of it, that's all.

The problem is that breatfeeding stops some vaccines from working, and rather than CDC just ditch those vaccines, they instead recommend delaying breastfeeding, this of course means the milk will dry up and the child won’t get breastfed. As you can see this is the tail wagging the dog, clearly because CDC is a Big Pharma proxy rather than an agency which is there to give honest evidence based health information.

CDC advises not to breastfeed as it interferes with vaccines

I see the argument but the paper published that you linked is not a CDC recommendation to halt breastfeeding. The writer actually says “To be fair, the paper does not recommend that mothers stop breastfeeding, merely that they delay nursing at the time that the vaccine is administered.”. Also, a CDC funded study making conclusions is not the same as a CDC directive.

I don’t like how the US views breastfeeding in any case. I prefer how we deal with it here in the EU and I would trust the EMA over the CDC/FDA (although that may just be location-based bias).

The problem is that if you stop breastfeeding even for a short time the breast milk quickly dries up and will not return.

The US government treatment of breastfeeding is the big giveaway that the government doesn't really care about your children, that they are only pushing vaccines in response to Big Pharma lobbying, as breastfeeding is far more important than vaccination could ever be, yet they make no big push.

How can you even justify ignoring data because of old studies, we still use almost 100 year old data for vaccines that is such a double standard.

Unsure which 100 year studies you are referring to.

Thimerosol last tested on a person in 1929 which was the basis for saying it was safe.
https://youtu.be/fDsdmJ8I3ks And don't talk about how its not used anymore, its still used in the flu shot but if you are not an informed person and do not ask for one without then you will get it. Also it was still used up to 2003 not 2001 because they never took then off the shelves they just stopped making them with it and let them use the last of their stock

The scientific consensus is that “the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism”1. But you probably reject that rejection.

1. Immunization Safety Review Committee, Board on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine (2004). Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-09237-X.

I scanned about half of the articles in one section. Half were interesting but not conclusive. Half were completely not supporting the cause you wanted. You may want to review for yourself. Fewé may be better...

Most of those studies are well over 20 yrs old. We’ve grown leaps and bounds since then...

How so? Please be as specific as possible.

There are no studies listed prior to 1998...math specific enough for ya?

How have we grown leaps and bounds in the science of vaccines since 1998?

In science in general. We’ve mapped the human genome, we are discovering new organs in the human body(the interstitial space? We are learning more about how the body interacts every day. So citing 20yo studies is kind of dumb.

So is generalization, especially when the OP took the time to lay out specific sources. You say bad information but offer none of your own.

I don’t have to have a source. None of this matters. This Is a conspiracy forum on an app on my phone. There’s no points I can trade in for stickers or bracelets. OP used old ass info. You felt it necessary to swim in his waters. Neato

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. Just trying to get all the info out there. Your confident delivery fooled me into thinking you may have some.

So you don’t understand how research papers work.

Bored with this....so sure

I’m sure you’re bored with it because you had a kid. You’re such a spineless person you would rather harm your child than realize the truth. Sad.

And you’d rather use your time, time you can’t get back, buy, or replace, to argue with a stranger about something you feel very passionate about even though I’ve stated I feel the opposite.

So, I had all of my immunizations, following your logic....what happened. I’m a successful well adjusted adult..

Here's a recent one that's more than just a little bit interesting, a study that challenges the primary justification for vaccines as not being accurate or true at all...

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/study-calls-question-primary-justification-vaccines/

the claim that studies are too old because you don't like them is invalid. The vaccine defenders often use this lazy tactic to discredit a study they don't like. At the same time they cite and rely on studies that have the same age to show that vaccines are safe. You can't make this up.

A study is valid regardless of age. If it was valid 20 years ago why should it be invalid today.

The only reason that it could be invalid is that there are better studies out there that contradict the findings but that has nothing to do with age.

Some recent studies showing that vaccines weaken the immune system thereby increasing the risk of infection.

Study: Prior-year vaccination cut flu vaccine effects in 2014-15

Increased Risk of Noninfluenza Respiratory Virus Infections Associated With Receipt of Inactivated Influenza Vaccine

Annual Vaccination against Influenza Virus Hampers Development of Virus-Specific CD8+ T Cell Immunity in Children

Impact of Influenza Vaccination on Seasonal Mortality in the US Elderly Population

Variable efficacy of repeated annual influenza vaccination

Seasonal influenza vaccine and increased risk of pandemic A/H1N1‐related illness: first detection of the association in British Columbia, Canada

Article Getting a flu shot every year? More may not be better

Article https://medium.com/@andreangelantoni/there-are-several-significant-errors-the-doctor-includes-in-her-article-6dfc196afd9b

I can't be so sure with your username lol

Purely anecdotal, but I have three kids. Oldest was vaccinated until 18 months old. Middle and youngest are both unvaccinated.

When we'd get a cold in the family, oldest was always sick the longest. Chronic ear infections as a baby and toddler. She was always sickest for the longest with the most complications. She has the most health issues of my kids.

Middle kiddo rarely gets sick. When he gets sick, his illnessed rarely last more than two days. Two days! Zero health issues otherwise.

Same with youngest. She's a toddler, but rarely sick. Even when she hangs out with her sick cousins, she doesn't seem to come down sick.

My brother and I have been vaccinated our entire lives, and I can't count on one hand the number of times that each of us has caught a cold, not to mention a lack of any autoimmune diseases or otherwise other general health deficiencies. My personal anecdotal evidence then is in direct contrast with that of r/DoublePlusGoodly. How am I to interpret this information then?

I believe the reason that we cannot "trust our own observations" is indeed what our educational system is arguing. A certain effect may be found in an individual or a smaller sample, but for a truly representative effect to be determined, data must be gathered from a larger sample, hence why anecdotal evidence is generally not accepted within our educational system.

The problem here is a logical fallacy not a contradiction. You are assume that there is a law that requires everyone to respond the same way to an intervention.

One observation does not contradict the other since our bodies respond to certain influences in a different way.

If we were built like an assembly-line car model than it might contradict the other observation.

That's a great take on it. It is important to keep in mind the differences that exist between people, and because of that, the value of taking things on a case by case basis, which is something that I overlooked.

boe2448,

You're the only person I've ever heard say that, so seems you just got lucky with the vaccines, as most vaccinated people are sick regularly, whereas unvaccinated people are the healthiest ones you'd ever meet.

Also keep in mind that people in this sub will be skeptical of your claims as the place is sub is full of pharma shills, so don't expect the regulars here to accept your claims at facevalue.

Right! That's exactly the claim in trying to make here. The issue I was addressing is not the harm or good of vaccines, but rather the claim that we can trust our own individual observations. r/sigismund1880 pointed out that evidence should be interpreted on a case by case basis, and that's more along the lines of what I was addressing. Thanks for your input though. I'm new to Reddit and this sub, so it's much appreciated!

To counter your anecdotal evidence I'll offer mine. Fully vaccinated as a kid, and I got sick a lot as a kid similar to your eldest with chronic ear infections and pink eye but as soon as I hit puberty I just stopped getting sick ever aside from a mild annual cold (I never take the flu vaccine because I never get the flu and the one time I was forced to get it I got pretty sick for 2 weeks after). When my family would get sick I was always the first to get better and had the mildest symptoms. The last time I got sick with anything other than a mild cold was 2014 (before that was 2008) when I had very mild shingles (weird, I know.) brought on by (I assume) stress due to my dad being terminally ill at the time and about to die. My mom chalks my apparently stronger immune system to the fact that she breast fed me longer than my siblings. I don't know if that's true, but it seems plausible. Anyway, my point is that I have a very strong immune system and I'm fully vaccinated.

that is supported by studies with african children.

African children that got the DTP vaccine were 10 times more likely to die from infections than children that did not.

It seems that vaccine protects against certain diseases but at the same time they can make your immune system less able to respond to other infections.

All currently available evidence suggests that DTP vaccine may kill more children from other causes than it saves from diphtheria, tetanus or pertussis. Though a vaccine protects children against the target disease it may simultaneously increase susceptibility to unrelated infections.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360569/

Good work. The more we have exposure with facts provided, the better.

I have no evidence for this theory of mine but I've always thought the increase in autoimmune disorders and weakend immune systems is related to increased sanitation and germophobia. Those hippy kids are healthy because their parents actually allow them to play in the dirt and don't constantly use hand sanitizer and what not on them.

There was actually a recent study published that showed a significant statistical correlation between the two iirc but I don't have a link readily available, I just remember reading it somewhere

So is generalization, especially when the OP took the time to lay out specific sources. You say bad information but offer none of your own.

I’m not saying anything is invalid, I’m just saying people should read these with skepticism. Some laypeople seem to think that being published means that what you have done and what you have to say has merit. Often this is not the case. I certainly wouldn’t base any health decision on some random paper published in the 70’s.