How would you know about the long term effects of vaccines in humans without a control group mating over generations without taking vaccines? If there is a control group I'd like to know about it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
How would you know about the long term effects of vaccines in humans without a control group mating over generations without taking vaccines? If there is a control group I'd like to know about it.
Why would anyone want that? In what way would multiple generations be relevant? Like there is some sort of genetic factor (there is not). What sort of control group do you want, people who are not vaccinated are the control group. You know, the ones dying from preventable infectious disease. We can add people with immune systems too weak to tolerate vaccination as an additional control. Why is it, do you think, that they need to be isolated from society? Perhaps its because they will die upon exposure to the diseases that those who are against vaccination are allowing to creep back into society.
Is not about wants but needs.
What? How can you speak about science and ask that question? Don't you know that we breed rats over many generations to measure the effects of developing drugs, why do you think that is?
The unvaccinated currently are not a control group because they are not being studied, instead they are being pressured to vaccinate and accused of being anti-science and irresponsible.
It's an irrelevant request. Vaccines have been studied to death, the amount of work published on them is staggering. If your so obsessed over rat generational studies then go read about any of a variety of vaccines tested upon rats and deemed safe. Surely those generational breeding studies are fine? Probably not, because if it's not that then it's something else.
The antivax movement is irresponsible. It's not an accusation, it's verifiable fact. Really in this case those who refuse to vaccinate are being outright negligent and should be held accountable when an immuno compromised individual dies from an infection they brought around (they can't be, because you could never prove who is actually the responsible party, plus it could be a childs fault, and you can't blame a child for their parents destructive actions). Refusing to vaccinate is wilfully allowing diseases to harm others.
Anti science, anti health, unsafe, irresponsible, reckless behavior.
If rats are good enough why don't we just jump straight from testing on rats to the market?
This is not even about vaccines alone, we are not carrying out long term studies on anything really. That doesn't mean nothing works, it just means we really don't know if they do or how they really do.
I'm not supporting the refusal to get vaccinated, I am rallying for honesty. If we don't do long term studies then we can't really call it science.
Your definition of long term is just asinine. Plenty of vaccines have now been used for multiple generations to no negative effects. Like it or not, your data is there.
All the while antivaxers cause things like this:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/maine-confirms-first-case-measles-20-years/
Which is only going to get worse.
Questioning the experimentation around vaccines or any other treatment should not be equated to supporting discontinuation of use, that jump is asinine.
I'm not talking about using vaccines over several generations but the opposite, keeping a close eye on those who are not getting vaccinated over generations to have an actual comparison point and be able to call it science.
Ad hominem is not argument, neither is appeal to tradition. CBS news is not a reliable source. Measles has appeared moving through vaccinated populations as well.
@@ -335,17 +335,16 @@
be gene
-i
tic.%0A%0ASo