I can't respond to the original comment anymore, but I'll just throw it under yours because it tipped me enough over the edge that I thought I would respond.
To help provide some counterpoints:
> The National Childhood Vaccine Act limits the liability of vaccine manufactures from claims. There is a separate fund which pays off families whose children were injured by a vaccine.
Read the background section of this wikipedia article, to better understand the reasons why the act exists in the first place. Additionally, look through some of the other provisions of the act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Inj...
The way I see it, and with the supreme court decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, yes, vaccine makers are protected from some liability. However, there is nothing stopping someone from suing in federal court, and any attorney's fees during "Vaccine Court" are paid for by the government due to the Vaccine Injury Fund.
> Several CDC & industry whistle-blowers reported rigged scientific studies re: MMR & other vaccine effects. Why would these people ruin their nice jobs & face public scrutiny to blow the whistle if there were not a moral reason to do so?
Maybe Snopes is too mainstream for some readers, and therefore can't be taken seriously. My guess however is that they're more right than they are wrong. Additionally, they link to the CDC statement that has instructions to view the data that was "rigged" according to the whistleblowers (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/cdc2004ped...), in case you don't believe Snopes. Make sure you "approach this like an investigator," by looking at primary sources instead of naturalnews.com
> Studies indicating that Unvaccinated Children are Healthier than Vaccinated Children
Now, I'm not the best researcher, but I feel like I would have picked a more representative group than just homeschooled children (maybe they were the only groups of mothers that would complete a survey? Unlikely, I would imagine that I could get more than 600 responders from a far larger group). Additionally, I found it interesting that the results stated the odds-ratio for preterm birth + vaccination -> NDD (autism), but not the odds-ratio for vaccination - preterm birth -> NDD. I get that the authors are trying to tell a compelling story in the abstract to get more people to read it, but I'd argue that it is frowned upon to "lead" the reader that way without them having seen any of the data.
If anyone has the actual paper, I would appreciate a link!
> President Trump commissioned a panel headed by Robert Kennedy & supported by Robert De Niro (a vocal critic of Trump whose child has been injured by vaccines)
Not sure what you're trying to prove with this one. If you can explain further, I'd appreciate it.
> Propaganda/Public Relations campaigns directed at any skeptic of vaccines. You know the dreaded "anti-vaxxers". If there were no culpability, why would there be such heavy Progadanga demonizing people from exercising their free speech? Bill Nye wants anti-vaxxers to be killed. Penn & Teller seemed zealously angry in their video against the evil "anti-vaxxers". Why such a harsh response? Is this not similar to the Catholic Inquisitions where the religious hegemony was challenged by esoteric & scientific belief?
Could an easier explanation exist for why there is such a harsh response? That maybe people don't want children to die unnecessarily? That's my reasoning, at least. Unpopular opinion: I'd much rather my child have autism than die of a disease that could be vaccinated against.
> Anecdotal evidence/videos of many people who have suffered injuries from vaccines. This is not limited to autism. I personally know a few people who have been injured (mainly from the East Coast). Before you write them off, these people seem quite convinced over the causes of their injuries. There is little motivation to be reporting such causes. It's important to elevate direct reports, as there is a heavy vested interest in spinning stories (similar to blaming the rape victim).
It's unfortunate that people are suffering these injuries. However, let's break this down a little. In the healthimpactnews.com link you showed, the report of injuries caused by vaccines notes a lot of guillan barre syndrome cases. Influenza and things like a GI infection (campylobacter) are known to cause GBS. So is the influenza vaccine, but the benefits far outweigh this risk. This is because even with the risk of GBS cases from the vaccine itself, it lowers the overall risk for GBS due to people not getting influenza. This link goes into more detail and has sources with data: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/765744?pa=43IhRB6hh0hnsz...
(apologies if this link doesn't load in advance, medscape sometimes requires a login)
I can't speak much for the other settlements in that healthimpactnews article, as I'm just not that knowledgeable about those vaccines or diseases. I could claim something like "varicella vaccine is a live attenuated virus, so there is obviously a risk of shingles" or "lupus is common enough that it could just be coincidence that someone with the HPV vaccine would get lupus" but the truth is that we really don't know from the data presented in that article.
> Measles outbreaks where those infected had the measles vaccine. I thought the value proposition of vaccines was inoculation for life?
That's definitely not what I've ever been told about vaccines...We get booster shots for a reason. Hell, I had the varicella vaccine again two years ago for school. Also, note that this report is from 1984, and the measles vaccine has gotten a bit better since then. However, measles is pretty virulent, so the vaccine isn't 100% effective, more like 97%.
> Mercury & other compounds found in the vaccines. Independent labs have analyzed harmful bioaccumulative compounds in vaccines.
The link you have is about glyphosate. Even if you think glyphosate is dangerous for your health, the small amounts of it in vaccines that you take rarely compared to the massive amounts in daily food and drink makes it hard for me to worry. As for the mercury and other compounds, I honestly don't know. I do however know that the MMR vaccine never had thimerosal to begin with, so take that for what you will.
Ok, I'll bite the bullet with another round of downvoting to respond, cause we want to incentivize healthy debates here ;-)
> However, there is nothing stopping someone from suing in federal court, and any attorney's fees during "Vaccine Court" are paid for by the government due to the Vaccine Injury Fund.
"Vaccine court" is the popular term which refers to the Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the Court of Claims, sitting without a jury."
No fault, no jury, no state or federal courts.
> Maybe Snopes is too mainstream for some readers
Snopes is not mainstream. Snopes is misleading shillery founded by a two fraudulant sexual deviants & their cat. One irritating thing about snopes is their claim of "False" with confusing commentary to "support" their judgement, but hey, it's Snopes so it must be true right? But I digress. After all we agreed to be good investigators...
> Did collected data actually prove that the MMR vaccine produces a 340% increased risk of autism in African-American boys? The answer is no, it did not.
Again, the whole "proof" thing about these studies. There's only evidence & there is no "proof" vaccines are effective. There may be evidence, but not "proof".
> So is Hooker’s result valid? Was there really a 3.36-fold increased risk for autism in African-American males who received MMR vaccination before the age of 36 months in this dataset? Hooker [performed] multiple subset analyses, which, of course, are prone to false positives.
Aha! This is the crux of Snope's "False" claim hidden at the bottom of the article; a CDC (the same institution being investigated) employee analysis. Nail in the coffin for this "False" assessment \s; and the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible \s. Typical Snopes to play elaborate games of wordsmithing so people on Facebook can say "False!" because nobody reads the mumbo jumbo underneath. I don't know why I wasted my time.
Since you are so keen on source material; Here's the original piece of Dr. Bill Thompson's interview. He seems quite persistent about his claims. Maybe Dr. Thompson should read the Snopes artice to get some sense:
> Now, I'm not the best researcher, but I feel like I would have picked a more representative group than just homeschooled children (maybe they were the only groups of mothers that would complete a survey?
> Unlikely, I would imagine that I could get more than 600 responders from a far larger group).
That's great, however vaccines are compulsory for a child to enter the public education system. No education, CPR comes to take your child away...Home & Religious schoolers are the only options.
> I found it interesting that the results stated the odds-ratio for preterm birth + vaccination -> NDD (autism), but not the odds-ratio for vaccination - preterm birth -> NDD
> If anyone has the actual paper, I would appreciate a link!
Conclusions: In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.
> President Trump commissioned a panel headed by Robert Kennedy & supported by Robert De Niro
> Not sure what you're trying to prove with this one. If you can explain further, I'd appreciate it.
There is a serious enough concern to warrent the creation of a Federal panel as a result of the advocacy of Robert F. Kennedy Jr & Robert De Niro. Again, we are looking for evidence as we aren't going to find "proof".
> Could an easier explanation exist for why there is such a harsh response? That maybe people don't want children to die unnecessarily?
I've been noticing that when there is a concerted effort to bully people for their criticism, there are probably monied interests behind it. Remember the whole "climate change deniers" being bullied? Turns out there are legitimate doubts re: climate change science & the implied carbon taxes. Btw, did you know that the CIA created the label "conspiracy theorist" to discredit skeptics of the Warren Commission analysis of the JFK assasination?
Anytime we are told to demonize a "such-and-such denier", it calls into question, why is there a public relations campaign to bully these "deniers"? People tend to follow their interests & be honest when there are no conflicts of interest. Certainly, people do not want to be subjected to ostricization & bullying for having an opinion & healthy skepticism. It would also be naive to think that monied interests are not above physically harming critics that can hurt their interests.
If vaccines were so effective, the only children "dying unnecessarily" would be the unvaccinated. If vaccines are causing health issues, then children are "dying unnecessarily" from the vaccines themselves. When there is reasonable doubt, it's best to let people make decisions over their own bodies or the bodies of their children.
> Unpopular opinion: I'd much rather my child have autism than die of a disease that could be vaccinated against.
I'd rather not have my child have the health consequences associated with vaccines. I'm not afraid of the fear mongering propagandized by parties with obvious conflicts of interest. Do you believe the pharmaceutical companies? I don't...
> Influenza and things like a GI infection (campylobacter) are known to cause GBS.
If this was a simple case of Influenza, why would the vaccine court award money to these parents? This was only one search result that popped up showing one month. There are 12 months in the year. It looks like awarding parents money for vaccine injuries is a regular occurance. This does not match the narrative that "vaccines are perfectly safe". Why do we have such a dissonance in narrative? Looks like there's something to hide. Where there's smoke...
> We get booster shots for a reason.
No thanks.
> However, measles is pretty virulent, so the vaccine isn't 100% effective, more like 97%.
Yet the unvaccinated were blamed for these measles outbreak. Sounds like #FakeNews applies in those cases.
> Even if you think glyphosate is dangerous for your health, the small amounts of it in vaccines that you take rarely compared to the massive amounts in daily food and drink makes it hard for me to worry.
Glyphosate is considered a carcinogen by California. Also, it is far more dangerous injected directly into the bloodstream of a baby than it is injested by an adult.
Vaccines have had a history of containing unwanted compounds.
"Over 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine between 1955 and 1963 when a proportion of vaccine was contaminated with SV40; it has been estimated that 10–30 million Americans may have received a dose of vaccine contaminated with SV40"
Of course, with Dr. Thompson being told to lie, seems to indicate that there is reasonable evidence that there there are more issues than what has been published. In fact, with Dr. Thompson, we should vet everything that the CDC has published. Perhaps we should more independent studies & we should allow parents to make their own decisions re: vaccines.
> Thiomersal (INN), or thimerosal (USP), is an organomercury compound. This compound is a well established antiseptic and antifungal agent.
> It has been used as a preservative in vaccines, immunoglobulin preparations, skin test antigens, antivenins, ophthalmic and nasal products, and tattoo inks.
> The current scientific consensus is that no convincing scientific evidence supports these fears
The point is there will never be "convincing scietific evidence" that injecting Mercury into your baby's bloodstream is harmful due to conflict of interest by the "current scientific consensus" (even though there isn't consensus, it's just that those scientists who disagree are not part of the "current scientific consensus").
To round out this comment, here's a live video of the known neurotoxin mercury's degenative effects on neurons. Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to inject babies with Mercury, directly into their bloodstream? Maybe the same institutions that thought it was a good idea to inject the SV40 virus.
