Important -- how to in 10 sec shut up a ProVaccine person

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Why would you expect doctors to be held liable in that court?

a reply to: Grimpachi

I don't it is just the language of the bill that was passed to enact the program. I do find it interesting that you keep touting it as a way for people to make claims against vaccine makers. Which is false.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Philippines

What do you think is safer all around, going unvaccinated or being vaccinated? It looks to me like you are being selective with your science here. Picking and choosing which science is valid and which isn't.

Though one more thing, with every mistake, science gets that much better at giving a better antidote to whatever problem it is working on. So just because a bad medicine was made in the past, doesn't mean that you can write off the medicines of the present.

On your first part, and I'll say it again.. I think being vaccinated is better. But I do not agree with injection based vaccines. There are oral and aerial based vaccines which I think are much better.

Glad you recognize science as a culmination of observations and mistakes (that should be repeatable) and assumed successes. I think science has some basic facts and groundwork covered, like knowing what Vitamin C will do. When it comes to injection based vaccines, there are so many variables involved that it's hard to blame the injection vaccine solely, and your doctor probably won't point the finger at their paycheck. In 40 years from now, I believe people will write off medicines of today, it happens frequently. Remember thalidomide?

Does this make you concerned or question vaccines at all? 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 - Standards of responsibility

(c) Direct warnings
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings to the injured party (or the injured party’s legal representative) of the potential dangers resulting from the administration of the vaccine manufactured by the manufacturer.

Lawsuits against big Pharma companies (from scientists who work there) also don't give me much confidence in them.

September 4, 2014
In Civil Action No. 10-4374, Relators Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski (“Plaintiffs”) bring this qui tam action in accordance with the False Claims Act (“FCA”), pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33. Relators allege that their former employer, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA. The United States declined to intervene in this action, filing a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention before this Court on April 27, 2012. (Dkt. No. 14). Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 8(a)and 9(b). (Dkt.No. 45).

At any rate.. in a way it is a gamble with unknown odds. I do agree that vaccines are effective, but don't know HOW effective because everyone is different, and doctors don't give you the odds of full immunity per shot. I also do not agree with the schedule of giving newborns vaccines, nor do I agree with the "cocktails" of vaccines like MMR, when I believe they should be separately given.

At any rate, I don't expect much to change, there is too much money involved for all participants.

a reply to: Philippines

New medicine is already on the way. If you look into the future of pharmaceuticals, they are running out of viable chemical compounds for medicine. Profits are starting to plateau as all the effective drugs are losing their patents and becoming generics. With something like 99% of all chemical compounds being denied by the FDA, we are just running out of different chemical compounds to use. Therefore, the future of pharmaceuticals is moving into biotechnology.

Think stuff that adapts to the individual body and takes care of their personal needs. Stuff that is tailored to the individual instead of the population. THAT is where the industry is going. Drugs are SO 20th century.

Some of it is already here with things like 3-D printed stunts and heart values. Image a vaccine that adapts in real time as the virus mutates to continue to keep the immunity present.

originally posted by: Philippines

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Philippines

What do you think is safer all around, going unvaccinated or being vaccinated? It looks to me like you are being selective with your science here. Picking and choosing which science is valid and which isn't.

Though one more thing, with every mistake, science gets that much better at giving a better antidote to whatever problem it is working on. So just because a bad medicine was made in the past, doesn't mean that you can write off the medicines of the present.

On your first part, and I'll say it again.. I think being vaccinated is better. But I do not agree with injection based vaccines. There are oral and aerial based vaccines which I think are much better.

Glad you recognize science as a culmination of observations and mistakes (that should be repeatable) and assumed successes. I think science has some basic facts and groundwork covered, like knowing what Vitamin C will do. When it comes to injection based vaccines, there are so many variables involved that it's hard to blame the injection vaccine solely, and your doctor probably won't point the finger at their paycheck. In 40 years from now, I believe people will write off medicines of today, it happens frequently. Remember thalidomide?

Does this make you concerned or question vaccines at all? 42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 - Standards of responsibility

(c) Direct warnings
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings to the injured party (or the injured party’s legal representative) of the potential dangers resulting from the administration of the vaccine manufactured by the manufacturer.

Lawsuits against big Pharma companies (from scientists who work there) also don't give me much confidence in them.

September 4, 2014
In Civil Action No. 10-4374, Relators Stephen A. Krahling and Joan A. Wlochowski (“Plaintiffs”) bring this qui tam action in accordance with the False Claims Act (“FCA”), pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33. Relators allege that their former employer, Defendant Merck & Co., Inc. (“Merck”) fraudulently misled the government and omitted, concealed, and adulterated material information regarding the efficacy of its mumps vaccine in violation of the FCA. The United States declined to intervene in this action, filing a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention before this Court on April 27, 2012. (Dkt. No. 14). Defendant moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 8(a)and 9(b). (Dkt.No. 45).

At any rate.. in a way it is a gamble with unknown odds. I do agree that vaccines are effective, but don't know HOW effective because everyone is different, and doctors don't give you the odds of full immunity per shot. I also do not agree with the schedule of giving newborns vaccines, nor do I agree with the "cocktails" of vaccines like MMR, when I believe they should be separately given.

At any rate, I don't expect much to change, there is too much money involved for all participants.

Other than the injection part, what's the difference between oral and injected ones?
(Please don't say it bypasses the body's "natural" immune system when injected, it doesn't. At all).

It's really easy to spot a vaccine injury and it can traced directly back to the vaccine.
What are these variables you speak about?
The false vaccine injuries which people claim?

I think we all remember thalidomide.
We also tend to forget the thousands of other medicines which are safe and effective.

"At any rate.. in a way it is a gamble with unknown odds."
No it isn't.
You have less than a 1 in a million chance of a severe vaccine reaction.
I'm not a gambling man but those seems like pretty high odds.

"I do agree that vaccines are effective, but don't know HOW effective because everyone is different"
The efficacy rate is dependant on the vaccine.
MMR for instance has an efficacy rate of between 95-99%.

Doctors DO give you the "odds of full immunity", especially if you ask them...

"I also do not agree with the schedule of giving newborns vaccines, nor do I agree with the "cocktails" of vaccines like MMR, when I believe they should be separately given.
Thankfully it doesn't matter at all whether you agree with this or not.
The science still remains the same.
Unless of course you publish some research which proves otherwise.

And as for the money part, I'll just leave this here...

a reply to: Pardon?

What a BS pic.

First of, Big Pharma is not just vaccines, so comparing just the vaccine aspect of them to alternative medicine as a whole is very misleading.

I don't even see what organic food has to do with vaccines or placebos.

The graph doesn even mention what the billions of dollars represent. Is it profit?

So, yeah very misleading BS graph made with the sole purpose of pushing a point that is equally as ridiculous.

Other than the injection part, what's the difference between oral and injected ones?
(Please don't say it bypasses the body's "natural" immune system when injected, it doesn't. At all).

The body's immune system does work for scratches/cuts/wounds etc. Usually though, the immune system fights most of its battles in the respiratory, integumentary and digestive systems. All of those systems have had thousands if not millions of years to evolve to natural environmental threats.

Can you name any natural threat in the wild that injects ~1ml of man made vaccine excipients directly into the blood stream or muscle?

It's really easy to spot a vaccine injury and it can traced directly back to the vaccine.
What are these variables you speak about?
The false vaccine injuries which people claim?

If they were false claims and nothing to worry about, why does the government protect the vaccine manufacturers? Why is there a Vaccine Court, and a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Just for fun?

I think we all remember thalidomide.
We also tend to forget the thousands of other medicines which are safe and effective.

Yes, there are. It doesn't mean people should throw caution out the window because sometimes science seems to get it right.

"At any rate.. in a way it is a gamble with unknown odds."
No it isn't.
You have less than a 1 in a million chance of a severe vaccine reaction.
I'm not a gambling man but those seems like pretty high odds.

Got a link to the odds per MMR, HepB or DTaP vaccines? I read the inserts all the time and have never seen the odds or efficacy rate listed. That sounds like legal liability.

"I do agree that vaccines are effective, but don't know HOW effective because everyone is different"
The efficacy rate is dependant on the vaccine.
MMR for instance has an efficacy rate of between 95-99%.

Doctors DO give you the "odds of full immunity", especially if you ask them...

Right, MMR is effective after how many shots? The CDC schedule lists at least 3 shots needed, starting at 12 months age. HepB shots start at birth and require 8 shots over time until 18 months old. That's a lot of repetition.

Furthermore, I don't think these students agree that the MMR shot is very effective:
NEJM - Measles Outbreak in a Fully Immunized Secondary-School Population

"I also do not agree with the schedule of giving newborns vaccines, nor do I agree with the "cocktails" of vaccines like MMR, when I believe they should be separately given.
Thankfully it doesn't matter at all whether you agree with this or not.
The science still remains the same.
Unless of course you publish some research which proves otherwise.

I guess Japan should go back to the cocktail MMR jab after banning it years ago. I mean what would they know about science over there...
Dailymail - Why Japan Banned the MMR Vaccine

originally posted by: Pardon?
And as for the money part, I'll just leave this here...

I'll just leave these 2 images here.. Things like quoting the business as being a 27+ billion dollars in 2009 alone. Maybe your image is outdated? Also note the presentation about how to "Avoid FDA scrutiny" -- it sounds fascinating.

originally posted by: MarkMyWords
a reply to: Pardon?

What a BS pic.

First of, Big Pharma is not just vaccines, so comparing just the vaccine aspect of them to alternative medicine as a whole is very misleading.

I don't even see what organic food has to do with vaccines or placebos.

The graph doesn even mention what the billions of dollars represent. Is it profit?

So, yeah very misleading BS graph made with the sole purpose of pushing a point that is equally as ridiculous.

It's a vaccine thread.
So I'm contrasting the amount spent on vaccines, which are beneficial, to what others consider are the alternatives, which in direct comparison are not.
The graph is to shows you the revenue brought in by each (I appreciate the source links are small on this pic).
www.prweb.com...
www.nbcnews.com...

The one for organics doesn't work but no matter.
The meaning is still the same.

Out of the three, vaccines bring in the least revenue per year so will therefore produce the least revenue profit.
"Natural" health or alternative health is pretty much ineffective when it comes to tackling spreadable diseases.

originally posted by: Philippines

Other than the injection part, what's the difference between oral and injected ones?
(Please don't say it bypasses the body's "natural" immune system when injected, it doesn't. At all).

The body's immune system does work for scratches/cuts/wounds etc. Usually though, the immune system fights most of its battles in the respiratory, integumentary and digestive systems. All of those systems have had thousands if not millions of years to evolve to natural environmental threats.

Can you name any natural threat in the wild that injects ~1ml of man made vaccine excipients directly into the blood stream or muscle?

It's really easy to spot a vaccine injury and it can traced directly back to the vaccine.
What are these variables you speak about?
The false vaccine injuries which people claim?

If they were false claims and nothing to worry about, why does the government protect the vaccine manufacturers? Why is there a Vaccine Court, and a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Just for fun?

I think we all remember thalidomide.
We also tend to forget the thousands of other medicines which are safe and effective.

Yes, there are. It doesn't mean people should throw caution out the window because sometimes science seems to get it right.

"At any rate.. in a way it is a gamble with unknown odds."
No it isn't.
You have less than a 1 in a million chance of a severe vaccine reaction.
I'm not a gambling man but those seems like pretty high odds.

Got a link to the odds per MMR, HepB or DTaP vaccines? I read the inserts all the time and have never seen the odds or efficacy rate listed. That sounds like legal liability.

"I do agree that vaccines are effective, but don't know HOW effective because everyone is different"
The efficacy rate is dependant on the vaccine.
MMR for instance has an efficacy rate of between 95-99%.

Doctors DO give you the "odds of full immunity", especially if you ask them...

Right, MMR is effective after how many shots? The CDC schedule lists at least 3 shots needed, starting at 12 months age. HepB shots start at birth and require 8 shots over time until 18 months old. That's a lot of repetition.

Furthermore, I don't think these students agree that the MMR shot is very effective:
NEJM - Measles Outbreak in a Fully Immunized Secondary-School Population

"I also do not agree with the schedule of giving newborns vaccines, nor do I agree with the "cocktails" of vaccines like MMR, when I believe they should be separately given.
Thankfully it doesn't matter at all whether you agree with this or not.
The science still remains the same.
Unless of course you publish some research which proves otherwise.

I guess Japan should go back to the cocktail MMR jab after banning it years ago. I mean what would they know about science over there...
Dailymail - Why Japan Banned the MMR Vaccine

The body's immune system has certainly evolved to fight off measles, mumps & rubella successfully hasn't it?
Oh, wait...
It also did really well against polio and smallpox didn't it?
Oh. Wait again etc...
You see how silly that argument is?

"Sometimes science seems to get things right"?
For "sometimes" substitute the vast majority of the time and you'll be nearer the mark.

The "vaccine court" and the NVIC are the same thing.
And I think you answered your own question about the NVIC.
Think about it.

Here are the odds, based upon incidence, of having reactions to vaccines.
www.cdc.gov...

The link you've shown about the measles outbreak doesn't show what you think it does.
"After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles.
14 out of 1802 kids got measles.
That's less than 1%.
Did you think it said that they all got measles or something?

Japan used a different type of MMR vaccine than the rest of the world which contained the Urabe mumps strain.
This was what was causing the issues.
Guess what though since they've stopped the MMR?
They're having a resurgence of rubella www0.nih.go.jp...

originally posted by: Philippines

originally posted by: Pardon?
And as for the money part, I'll just leave this here...

I'll just leave these 2 images here.. Things like quoting the business as being a 27+ billion dollars in 2009 alone. Maybe your image is outdated? Also note the presentation about how to "Avoid FDA scrutiny" -- it sounds fascinating.

Call me sceptical but I can't seem to find any evidence of a Vaccine Business Congress outside of the two pictures you've posted.
That is, all I can find are sites referencing what's actually written on them, verbatim.
It also gets my senses tingling that it says "big pharma" on them.
I'm more than happy to be corrected though.

a reply to: Pardon?

Out of the three, vaccines bring in the least revenue per year so will therefore produce the least revenue profit. "Natural" health or alternative health is pretty much ineffective when it comes to tackling spreadable diseases.

And that is partly why that graph of yours is nonsense.Vaccines have nothing to do with organic food, and vaccines are just one part of Big Pharma.

Also a smaller revenue doesn't mean smaller profit per se, but never mind that.

It's all besides the point.

When people say that Big Pharma is all for profit it means that their words and actions can't necessarily be trusted.

Wether this is the case or not with organic food or alternative medicine is not even relevant. Just a contrived comparison that is also presented incorrectly.

Like a smaller revenue, that is still billions of dollars, is somehow not big enough to cause corruption.

originally posted by: MarkMyWords
a reply to: Pardon?

Out of the three, vaccines bring in the least revenue per year so will therefore produce the least revenue profit. "Natural" health or alternative health is pretty much ineffective when it comes to tackling spreadable diseases.

And that is partly why that graph of yours is nonsense.Vaccines have nothing to do with organic food, and vaccines are just one part of Big Pharma.

Also a smaller revenue doesn't mean smaller profit per se, but never mind that.

It's all besides the point.

When people say that Big Pharma is all for profit it means that their words and actions can't necessarily be trusted.

Wether this is the case or not with organic food or alternative medicine is not even relevant. Just a contrived comparison that is also presented incorrectly.

Like a smaller revenue, that is still billions of dollars, is somehow not big enough to cause corruption.

The thing is though, with the exception of charities (and not even all of those), EVERY business is in it for profit.
So I posted the graph to give some perspective.