The Real Next Level BS of the Vaccine Controversy.

If your choice is secret then why do you post misinformation about vaccines?
Strange.

If I have posted misinformation here or anywhere else ... it is not intentional

I am constantly learning ... and what I have realised is it is better say nothing sometimes rather than rely on the work of others being true ... better to ask searching questions ... this applies to both sides of this debate.

As I stated my reasons for choosing to not have vaccines was formed long before the present debate ...

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

Are you aware that "eradication" is a myth?

[That's the point of the book.]

I'm aware that it will continue to be a myth because of the anti-vaxxer misinformation crusade.

You're the one pushing misinformation here. Fact is, viruses are like the mythological Lernaean hydra - chop off one head, 2 more grow in its place - just one of the reasons "eradication" is a myth. ...and the primary rationale for continued vaccine development.

Obviously, if diseases really were 'eradicated' there would be no need to continue vaccinating for them. [It's a quintessential "Duh!" moment. Savour it.]

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

....Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

At the risk of being a pedant, unlike the hydra, viruses don't have heads...
If a virus is eradicated it can't magically reappear as something else.
So no, it's NOT a fact that they are like the hydra at all.
Like the mythological hydra you compare it with, your "fact" is similarly mythological.
(And re-posting the same passage does nothing for your "argument" especially when you've ignored what else has been posted. You still don't get what that passage actually means do you?)

I also get the feeling you're confusing eradication with elimination.

Measles was eliminated from the US a few years ago.
Does that mean it was eradicated?
No.
Do people get vaccinated for it?
Yes (at least they should if they can then maybe it might be eradicated...)

The smallpox virus has been eradicated (save for a few specimens kept in secure labs).
Do people still get vaccinated for it?
No.
Has that somehow mutated into something different?
No.

What was it you said?
Something about quintessential "Duh!" moment...

a reply to: Pardon?

The point is, viruses thought to be eradicated have not been. It's a myth, created and perpetuated by naming for political purpose. That's why research focuses on "post-eradication challenges."

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

....Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

Obviously, if diseases really were 'eradicated' there would be no need to continue vaccinating for them. And yeah, the hydra analogy is totally valid 'cuz "Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies."

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

The point is, viruses thought to be eradicated have not been. It's a myth, created and perpetuated by naming for political purpose. That's why research focuses on "post-eradication challenges."

Biological Challenges to Post-Eradication

Major biological challenges after eradication include:

….continuing and improving surveillance for the detection of vaccine-associated cases, recrudescence (outbreaks) of infection, new zoonotic transmissions, and the emergence of recombinant viral strains.

....Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies about which we have very little understanding. Continual surveillance and improved sampling methods are essential for tracking new genetic variants, particularly as more vaccines are introduced worldwide and rarer genotypes are selected for. The chance that new viruses could evolve underscores the need for continued development of improved vaccines and vaccine delivery systems.

Obviously, if diseases really were 'eradicated' there would be no need to continue vaccinating for them. And yeah, the hydra analogy is totally valid 'cuz "Viruses have extraordinary evolutionary strategies."

So tell me, which diseases have "been thought to have been eradicated"?
Please enlighten the readers using both your vast intellect and in-depth knowledge of ths subject.
Other than smallpox of course, which has been eradicated and is therefore not vaccinated against any more.
Come on, what others have been?
(No matter how many times you post that snippet, it shows exactly the same, nothing. One can only guess that by continually possting it that you are trolling.)

Have a read of this (if you care to lower yourself).
www.historyofvaccines.org...

And I would suggest that there's really only you who thinks that the hydra analogy is valid but but it does give everyone a peek into your mindset.

a reply to: Pardon?

You are quite right - many people mistakenly think vaccines eradicated numerous childhood diseases because they confuse disease elimination with eradication. Didn't happen. In fact, smallpox is the only disease that has been eradicated - the only smallpox outbreaks post-eradication resulted from laboratory accidents.

Re: The hydra analogy for virus evolution. Influenza jumps to mind. Check out the Phylogenetic Analysis of the viral polymerase that mediates adaptation of an avian influenza virus to a mammalian host (scroll down the page). The pic helps explain the hydra analogy.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

You are quite right - many people mistakenly think vaccines eradicated numerous childhood diseases because they confuse disease elimination with eradication. Didn't happen. In fact, smallpox is the only disease that has been eradicated - the only smallpox outbreaks post-eradication resulted from laboratory accidents.

Re: The hydra analogy for virus evolution. Influenza jumps to mind. Check out the Phylogenetic Analysis of the viral polymerase that mediates adaptation of an avian influenza virus to a mammalian host (scroll down the page). The pic helps explain the hydra analogy.

No.
You're wrong again.
Very few people believe that diseases have been eradicated by vaccines.

In fact, in this thread, ONLY YOU have confused eradication with elimination.

And as for the hydra analogy, you're still wrong.
The flu will mutate regardless of any outside influence. If the hydra was left alone it would remain the same.
Look up antigenic drift & shift.

It takes humbleness to admit when one is wrong.
Do you have any?

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: Pardon?

You are quite right - many people mistakenly think vaccines eradicated numerous childhood diseases because they confuse disease elimination with eradication. Didn't happen. In fact, smallpox is the only disease that has been eradicated - the only smallpox outbreaks post-eradication resulted from laboratory accidents.

Re: The hydra analogy for virus evolution. Influenza jumps to mind. Check out the Phylogenetic Analysis of the viral polymerase that mediates adaptation of an avian influenza virus to a mammalian host (scroll down the page). The pic helps explain the hydra analogy.

No.
You're wrong again.
Very few people believe that diseases have been eradicated by vaccines.

In fact, in this thread, ONLY YOU have confused eradication with elimination.

Erm, it's all over the news. For example:

We Thought We Already Eradicated Measles — But Thanks To Ongoing Anti-Vaccine Beliefs, It’s Back

Federal health officials are warning that measles — a highly-contagious respiratory infection that the U.S. virtually eradicated back in 2000 — is making a serious comeback. This year is on track to have the highest number of measles cases in the past 17 years, and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) researchers say that’s likely because of pervasive anti-vaccine beliefs that have allowed the disease to spread.

It takes humbleness to admit when one is wrong.
Do you have any?

???

originally posted by: Pardon?


From 1988 to 2008 there was somewhere in the region of 76,000,000 (million) children born.
If you average out around 20 shots per child that would mean there were around 1.5 BILLION vaccines given.
925 were found to have a possible vaccine induced injury which they were compensated for.

First of all you are making a fallacious argument. Denial of vaccine injury when a case is presented does not equal to no injury being caused by vaccines in those cases... There are many reason why there have been many cases of vaccine injuries that were denied. One of those is the assertion, at least in the past, that vaccines have caused autism. The court for a long time, and in most cases even today, does not accept the assertion that vaccines can cause autism. Even when there is evidence that certain vaccines can do so. There are other reasons why not every child, or person who has been injured by vaccines is taken to court. First and foremost is the claim by the CDC that vaccines cannot cause autism, hence many parents believe these claims and do not file for compensation.

As for the lawyers that do not charge to file cases in the vaccine court? You are assuming that all parents know this, or that there are enough knowledgeable lawyers in that system that will always win in vaccine injury cases. That is a fallacious assumption on your part.

To make my point if you were accused of murder, would you rather have a highly paid famous lawyer who has won in most of his/her cases, or a public defendant for your defense?

originally posted by: Pardon?
...
Personally I think you should all be ignored now as you've had nothing new for years and what you have had has shown to be at best just wrong but frighteningly in most cases it's been purposely dishonest.

The ones showing dishonesty time and again has been you among others. From proclaiming that no vaccine uses ethyl-mercury, to claiming there is no evidence that proves vaccines can cause injuries.

originally posted by: Pardon?
Talking of being dishonest...it doesn't cost anything to file a claim through a lawyer for a "vaccine injury" so your claim that most people can't afford lawyers, like so many of your other claims, is false.

As i have asked above, i will ask again...

If you were accused of murder, would you rather have a highly paid famous lawyer who has won in most of his/her cases, or a public defendant for your defense?

originally posted by: Pardon?
You like posting "scientific studies" don't you?
Here's some for you.
Now, what I would like you to do is, rather than ignore them and re-post your links I've shown to be worthless, go through each and every one one and tell me why they are not viable.
Using science obviously!
...
I'll wait.

I find it ironic that you claim this when your whole argument has been to deny any and all evidence that refutes your claims about vaccine safety...

Evidence has been posted here, and in other threads showing that despite you, and some others claiming otherwise, certain vaccines are not as safe as you want people to believe.

BTW, posting peer-reviewed research papers is "using science" to debate your claims...

Posting evidence that the CDC has colluded with various scientists to bury evidence about vaccine safety is "using facts to debate"...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?


From 1988 to 2008 there was somewhere in the region of 76,000,000 (million) children born.
If you average out around 20 shots per child that would mean there were around 1.5 BILLION vaccines given.
925 were found to have a possible vaccine induced injury which they were compensated for.

First of all you are making a fallacious argument. Denial of vaccine injury when a case is presented does not equal to no injury being caused by vaccines in those cases... There are many reason why there have been many cases of vaccine injuries that were denied. One of those is the assertion, at least in the past, that vaccines have caused autism. The court for a long time, and in most cases even today, does not accept the assertion that vaccines can cause autism. Even when there is evidence that certain vaccines can do so. There are other reasons why not every child, or person who has been injured by vaccines is taken to court. First and foremost is the claim by the CDC that vaccines cannot cause autism, hence many parents believe these claims and do not file for compensation.

As for the lawyers that do not charge to file cases in the vaccine court? You are assuming that all parents know this, or that there are enough knowledgeable lawyers in that system that will always win in vaccine injury cases. That is a fallacious assumption on your part.

To make my point if you were accused of murder, would you rather have a highly paid famous lawyer who has won in most of his/her cases, or a public defendant for your defense?

originally posted by: Pardon?
...
Personally I think you should all be ignored now as you've had nothing new for years and what you have had has shown to be at best just wrong but frighteningly in most cases it's been purposely dishonest.

The ones showing dishonesty time and again has been you among others. From proclaiming that no vaccine uses ethyl-mercury, to claiming there is no evidence that proves vaccines can cause injuries.

originally posted by: Pardon?
Talking of being dishonest...it doesn't cost anything to file a claim through a lawyer for a "vaccine injury" so your claim that most people can't afford lawyers, like so many of your other claims, is false.

As i have asked above, i will ask again...

If you were accused of murder, would you rather have a highly paid famous lawyer who has won in most of his/her cases, or a public defendant for your defense?

originally posted by: Pardon?
You like posting "scientific studies" don't you?
Here's some for you.
Now, what I would like you to do is, rather than ignore them and re-post your links I've shown to be worthless, go through each and every one one and tell me why they are not viable.
Using science obviously!
...
I'll wait.

I find it ironic that you claim this when your whole argument has been to deny any and all evidence that refutes your claims about vaccine safety...

Evidence has been posted here, and in other threads showing that despite you, and some others claiming otherwise, certain vaccines are not as safe as you want people to believe.

BTW, posting peer-reviewed research papers is "using science" to debate your claims...

Posting evidence that the CDC has colluded with various scientists to bury evidence about vaccine safety is "using facts to debate"...

The thing is, and it's quite a big thing, is that if an alleged vaccine injury isn't and cannot be proven to have be caused by a vaccine, then it ceases to be a vaccine injury.
So it's not a case of denial.
It's a case of causation.

In the very few cases where vaccines have been responsible, the vaccine injury hasn't been denied has it?
And why is that I wonder?
Oh yes, it's been proven that the vaccine was the cause.
So why haven't all of the other "vaccine injuries" been proven in the same manner?
Oh yes, it's because they weren't caused by the vaccines.

Instead of using irony, as asked previously, without using conspiracy theories please go through the links I've posted and tell me why they are not robust.

In fact, you could start with this one.
jama.jamanetwork.com...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse


The ones showing dishonesty time and again has been you among others. From proclaiming that no vaccine uses ethyl-mercury, to claiming there is no evidence that proves vaccines can cause injuries.

Can you show where I've posted these statements please?
Or are you just being your usual dishonest self?

originally posted by: Pardon?

Can you show where I've posted these statements please?
Or are you just being your usual dishonest self?

Again?...

originally posted by: Pardon?
I've just been having a look through the links you've provided (which seems to be more than you have with the ones I linked to...)
...
You keep on posting links about mercury being a factor in neurological disorders even though there's effectively no mercury in childhood vaccines and hasn't been since 1999 (even though that mercury was bound as a salt and was ethylmercury etc etc etc).
...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When the CDC itself states that the multi-dose flu shot, among OTHERS, still contain thimerosal...

...
Do the 2014-2015 seasonal flu vaccines contain thimerosal?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several formulations of the seasonal flu vaccine, including multi-dose vials and single-dose units. (See Table of Approved Influenza Vaccines for the U.S. 2014–2015 Season.) Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual vaccination campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi-dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened.

The single-dose units are made without thimerosal as a preservative because they are intended to be opened and used only once. Additionally, the live-attenuated version of the vaccine (the nasal spray vaccine), is produced in single-dose units and does not contain thimerosal.

Is thimerosal being used in other vaccines?

Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for some formulations of influenza vaccine. The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the argument that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful. CDC and FDA continually evaluate new scientific information about the safety of vaccines.
...

www.cdc.gov...

In page 12 of this thread you claimed.

originally posted by: Pardon?

Every anti-vaxxer has a "first-hand experience" of a vaccine injury...
None of them can actually prove anything though.
No surprises there.
...

On other occasions you have made similar claims.

Talk about being dishonest...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Pardon?

Can you show where I've posted these statements please?
Or are you just being your usual dishonest self?

Again?...

originally posted by: Pardon?
I've just been having a look through the links you've provided (which seems to be more than you have with the ones I linked to...)
...
You keep on posting links about mercury being a factor in neurological disorders even though there's effectively no mercury in childhood vaccines and hasn't been since 1999 (even though that mercury was bound as a salt and was ethylmercury etc etc etc).
...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When the CDC itself states that the multi-dose flu shot, among OTHERS, still contain thimerosal...

...
Do the 2014-2015 seasonal flu vaccines contain thimerosal?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several formulations of the seasonal flu vaccine, including multi-dose vials and single-dose units. (See Table of Approved Influenza Vaccines for the U.S. 2014–2015 Season.) Since seasonal influenza vaccine is produced in large quantities for annual vaccination campaigns, some of the vaccine is produced in multi-dose vials, and contains thimerosal to safeguard against possible contamination of the vial once it is opened.

The single-dose units are made without thimerosal as a preservative because they are intended to be opened and used only once. Additionally, the live-attenuated version of the vaccine (the nasal spray vaccine), is produced in single-dose units and does not contain thimerosal.

Is thimerosal being used in other vaccines?

Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for some formulations of influenza vaccine. The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the argument that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful. CDC and FDA continually evaluate new scientific information about the safety of vaccines.
...

www.cdc.gov...

In page 12 of this thread you claimed.

originally posted by: Pardon?

Every anti-vaxxer has a "first-hand experience" of a vaccine injury...
None of them can actually prove anything though.
No surprises there.
...

On other occasions you have made similar claims.

Talk about being dishonest...

You're slipping (and lying).
Again.

My quote you've emboldened clearly states CHILDHOOD vaccines, not all vaccines.
Oh, the recommended flu vaccine for children (over 2 years that is) is the nasal spray and not from a multi-dose vial.
The nasal spray does not contain thimerosal.

So tell me, which part of "even though there's effectively no mercury in childhood vaccines and hasn't been since 1999 " is being dishonest?

You're doing yourself a disservice by not providing direct quotes to "my other claims".
In fact everyone reading is certain that you're making it all up.


The depths you and your ilk will go to is truly shameful and shocking.

a reply to: Pardon?

I am lying? really?... You have been shown this in the past, yet you keep ignoring it... Here, directly from the CDC...

...
*Today, the only childhood vaccines used routinely in the United States that contain thimerosal (mercury) are flu vaccines in multi-dose vials. These vials have very tiny amounts of thimerosal as a preservative. This is necessary because each time an individual dose is drawn from a multi-dose vial with a new needle and syringe, there is the potential to contaminate the vial with harmful microbes (toxins).
...
Page last reviewed: January 1, 2014
Page last updated: October 1, 2014

www.cdc.gov...

Stop making claims about me which aren't true. It's been obvious you have been trying to derail this thread since day one. Heck, you do the same to every other thread having to do with this topic, and don't tell me "you are doing it for the children", because again your concerns for the children ends when evidence is shown that certain vaccines can and have harmed children... Then your "concern" for children ends...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Pardon?

I am lying? really?... You have been shown this in the past, yet you keep ignoring it... Here, directly from the CDC...

...
*Today, the only childhood vaccines used routinely in the United States that contain thimerosal (mercury) are flu vaccines in multi-dose vials. These vials have very tiny amounts of thimerosal as a preservative. This is necessary because each time an individual dose is drawn from a multi-dose vial with a new needle and syringe, there is the potential to contaminate the vial with harmful microbes (toxins).
...
Page last reviewed: January 1, 2014
Page last updated: October 1, 2014

www.cdc.gov...

Stop making claims about me which aren't true. It's been obvious you have been trying to derail this thread since day one. Heck, you do the same to every other thread having to do with this topic, and don't tell me "you are doing it for the children", because again your concerns for the children ends when evidence is shown that certain vaccines can and have harmed children... Then your "concern" for children ends...

Deep breath...

I stick with what I say. The word "effectively" in my statement is quite important.
The flu shot isn't part of the routine vaccination program for children, it's recommended but is an "as required" vaccination and as such, very few infants are given it.
Take in to account that not all flu-shots are from multi-dose vials and that the recommendation for children aged 2 and over is to use the nasal spray.
In fact, the preferential shot for infants is the single-dose quad vaccine.
Guess what?
It's a single-dose therefore it contains no thimerosal .

So when I say "effectively no mercury", I'm correct.


Now, once again, what are these other claims I've made (and I won't mention that I've asked you to debunk the science I've cited. We'll just assume you're ignoring it).

originally posted by: Pardon?

Deep breath...

I stick with what I say. The word "effectively" in my statement is quite important.
The flu shot isn't part of the routine vaccination program for children, it's recommended but is an "as required" vaccination and as such, very few infants are given it.
...

You keep changing goal posts, and keep trying to make claims which are false...

The flu shot isn't part of the routine vaccination program for children?... Really?...

Even the CDC says it is...

...
*Today, the only childhood vaccines used routinely in the United States that contain thimerosal (mercury) are flu vaccines in multi-dose vials. These vials have very tiny amounts of thimerosal as a preservative. This is necessary because each time an individual dose is drawn from a multi-dose vial with a new needle and syringe, there is the potential to contaminate the vial with harmful microbes (toxins).
...
Page last reviewed: January 1, 2014
Page last updated: October 1, 2014

www.cdc.gov...

again...

"Today, the only childhood vaccines used routinely in the United States that contain thimerosal (mercury) are flu vaccines in multi-dose vials. ..."

...
Influenza vaccines. (Minimum age: 6 months for inactivated influenza vaccine [IIV], 2 years for live, attenuated influenza vaccine [LAIV])

Routine vaccination:

Administer influenza vaccine annually to all children beginning at age 6 months. For most healthy, nonpregnant persons aged 2 through 49 years, either LAIV or IIV may be used. However, LAIV should NOT be administered to some persons, including 1) persons who have experienced severe allergic reactions to LAIV, any of its components, or to a previous dose of any other influenza vaccine; 2) children 2 through 17 years receiving aspirin or aspirin-containing products; 3) persons who are allergic to eggs; 4) pregnant women; 5) immunosuppressed persons; 6) children 2 through 4 years of age with asthma or who had wheezing in the past 12 months; or 7) persons who have taken influenza antiviral medications in the previous 48 hours. For all other contraindications and precautions to use of LAIV, see MMWR August 15, 2014;63(32);691-7 Adobe PDF file [40 pages].
...

www.cdc.gov...

Influenza/flu shot vaccines are part of the routine vaccination that children are given beginning at 6 months old, and the multi-dose flu shot vaccine is used ROUTINELY on children... Even the corrupt CDC disagrees with your claims...

Only when parents, and other people are informed that they have choices on what vaccines to get for their children, or for themselves, would allow them to make an informed decision on not using vaccines which contain thimerosal, or adjuvants like AI (aluminum). You, alongside some other people, are against people even making informed decisions.

You have gone so far as to claim that I am "anti-vaxxer" when I have stated that the information I give is for people to make informed decisions on vaccines but some vaccines are in fact necessary. You have even agreed with me on one occasion, using my argument, when you stated that "yes vaccines should be safer" but then you are against ANY measures that would try to make vaccines safer, and you are against people informing themselves about this issue... You are a walking contradiction...

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Pardon?

I am lying? really?... You have been shown this in the past, yet you keep ignoring it... Here, directly from the CDC...

...
*Today, the only childhood vaccines used routinely in the United States that contain thimerosal (mercury) are flu vaccines in multi-dose vials. These vials have very tiny amounts of thimerosal as a preservative. This is necessary because each time an individual dose is drawn from a multi-dose vial with a new needle and syringe, there is the potential to contaminate the vial with harmful microbes (toxins).
...
Page last reviewed: January 1, 2014
Page last updated: October 1, 2014

www.cdc.gov...

Stop making claims about me which aren't true. It's been obvious you have been trying to derail this thread since day one. Heck, you do the same to every other thread having to do with this topic, and don't tell me "you are doing it for the children", because again your concerns for the children ends when evidence is shown that certain vaccines can and have harmed children... Then your "concern" for children ends...

Deep breath...

I stick with what I say. The word "effectively" in my statement is quite important.
The flu shot isn't part of the routine vaccination program for children, it's recommended but is an "as required" vaccination and as such, very few infants are given it.
Take in to account that not all flu-shots are from multi-dose vials and that the recommendation for children aged 2 and over is to use the nasal spray.
In fact, the preferential shot for infants is the single-dose quad vaccine.
Guess what?
It's a single-dose therefore it contains no thimerosal .

So when I say "effectively no mercury", I'm correct.


Now, once again, what are these other claims I've made (and I won't mention that I've asked you to debunk the science I've cited. We'll just assume you're ignoring it).

What is the object of calling him a liar and telling him to take a "deep breath"?