To be completely honest, I don't believe that all vaccines are 100% safe for all individuals in all cases. There are tremendous biological variations among us, so chances are someone could react differently than most to them.
For some individuals with certain predispositions it could be indeed harmful. However, scientific studies seem to point out that this is not the case for the vast majority of cases. Therefore, the cost/benefit balance tilts significantly towards the benefit side (preventing the affliction and wide spread of life-threatening diseases).
It's like spreading a massive campaign against the consumption of eggs just because in some rare cases people have strong allergic reactions to them, and then claim that eggs are evil and no one under any circumstances should eat them.
Still, I would agree that for those that might have been legitimately affected, the fact that this only happens in "1 out of 10,000 cases" (not real statistics, just an example) would be little comfort; in these situations it would be valuable to analyse these individual cases to elucidate what caused the problem.
Your treatment of the article was excellent, it's a shame your treatment of the whole issue of vaccination is not to the same standard. However, it was just a comment :). Why don't you do a thorough analysis of vaccines and publish a series on steemit?With your scientific knowledge, excellent language skills and demonstrated open mind, it could be very interesting.
Please consider that vaccine damage may be hard to see. For instance, everyone who has a vaccine could be damaged.
Also, do you think appropriate studies on the effects of the ever-changing vaccine schedule have been done? If no, do you agree with experimentation on people?
If there is an acceptance that some people are more susceptible to vaccine damage, don't you think it's wrong for vaccines to be pushed on everyone without any attempt to understand individual susceptibility alongside a thorough cost/benefit analysis for each and every vaccine per individual?
On this topic which is way beyond the limits of "science" which by any account in the world of vaccinations- is completely missing, i.e. MMR- vaccine mixing and combinations..
Because all people and metabolisms are unique (DNA). I can only speak from experience- my 1st child naturally homebirthed and otherwise sound and completely healthy 2 year old almost entered into a wasting type syndrome after a round of 'MMR.'
If they are so safe why is the vaccine industry one of a "select" few with immunity.. no not to disease.. but litigation?
They are absolutely not safe as we all know.....package inserts, scientific papers, ill and dead people, immunity from accountability, socialised compensation programs....but the money interests wants us to believe they are safer than they are, or force us to take them because of some vague an irrational notion of the "greater good." All of these arguments are based on flawed science, flawed reasoning, bias and tyranny.
The only reason we are having this discussion is the horrific, observable consequence....the huge amount of devastating visible damage. What is astonishing is that people have tolerated the completely unnecessary destruction of their children for so long.
Yes we have this problem due to 'science,' and it's institutions- the gatekeepers, money, it's handlers and high priests- being exalted in making 'science' the religion in our society.
I believe it's Japan who separates out the MMR and their rates of autism aren't any different. We've had the combined MMR for decades; if combination was the problem we'd have seen a spike in reactions in the 60s or 70s, whenever it was that it first came out (sorry, I'm bring lazy and not checking exact dates, lol).
I'm not trying to get into the overarching debate, I am an in the middle person in that I think the big important ones that have been around for decades have been proven safe with time but I don't think everyone needs all the vaccines, and some people flat can't have any because of autoimmune disorders and such, which is why herd immunity is important. But the combo-as-problem idea doesn't really have any merit.
Also, you can't prove a negative (you can't definitively prove the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God does not exist; you can't definitely prove vaccines have nothing to do with autism. You can only say "there is this mountain of evidence which suggests this is the answer," which is why scientific data is always couched in that kind of language ("the data suggests x").
Exactly, cue up the identical twins study, where one is vaccinated and the other is not.
Well said!
Yes, true... good luck with your work.
Great comment! I just published a post on here today about how they "eradicated" polio by changing the diagnostic parameters. Vaccination is based on junk science, on many levels.
While I appreciate this author's attempt to clarify the science, I think her efforts would be better spent scrutinizing the large corporations that are committing scientific fraud and harming our children with vaccines that haven't be adequately tested, and pushing a vaccine schedule that has never been tested.
1 in 6 kids today have a developmental disability. And that can't be because of studies like this she's picking apart.
Good one.