Flouride and vaccinations - Related to IQ?

[guartz]

People die all the time, and some die because of direct result of vaccinations. A child born today in usa will receive some 18-20 vaccinations before they graduate highschool.

And vaccinations are a multi-billion dollar business, well because it's a good way to prevent unnecessary diseases. Also because it's a big business, negative information and swept under the rug. The same place baseless conspiracy theories go, so it makes it difficult to distinguish between real risk or not.

Granted, statistically speaking, deaths are marginal based on how many people actually benefit from these shots. But deaths happen never the less. Many by the vaccines that have been approved and demonstrated safe.


Most popular current case is with HPV vaccines.

HPV Vaccine Causes 21 Deaths and Counting - CDC Study Launched

Gardasil - 18 Dead, Thousands Suffer Complications


The problem here is that this shit is being sold as SO effective that vaccinations must be mandatory. It's not. People die from it, because it's not perfect. So doesn't it make sense that maybe some people should look for alternatives to vaccinations?

It's not just HPV, what about Dryvax for smallpox? Are you gonna tell me there haven't been thousands of cases with some serious side-effects? IT'S APPROVED AND DEMONSTRATED TO BE SAFE lol.

You stop with your B.S

[thatwasnifty]

Granted, statistically speaking, deaths are marginal based on how many people actually benefit from these shots. But deaths happen never the less. Many by the vaccines that have been approved and demonstrated safe.

And that is what is important. The benefits far outweigh the costs, and further research continually lowers the costs and increases the benefits. The HPV vaccines are both very new and I can guarantee, based on previous lessons learned from other vaccines, that they will improve. Also, how many more people would have died or at least gotten ill from preventable diseases had the vaccines not been invented? Do you really think that they would be less than the deaths and injuries from the vaccine?

[Correction]

It's not just HPV, what about Dryvax for smallpox? Are you gonna tell me there haven't been thousands of cases with some serious side-effects? IT'S APPROVED AND DEMONSTRATED TO BE SAFE lol.

You stop with your B.S

So the world before the smallpox virus was a better place? Let's ask the Aztecs. OH WAIT THEY'RE ALL FUCKING DEAD.

[guartz]

And that is what is important. The benefits far outweigh the costs, and further research continually lowers the costs and increases the benefits. The HPV vaccines are both very new and I can guarantee, based on previous lessons learned from other vaccines, that they will improve. Also, how many more people would have died or at least gotten ill from preventable diseases had the vaccines not been invented? Do you really think that they would be less than the deaths and injuries from the vaccine?

I agree with you on that. However, lying to people and saying vaccinations are safe is not gonna help with that research for better treatments. Funds for better treatment? Why, we have a vaccine thats perfectly safe and effective!

So let's just agree that vaccines are necessary, but are potentially lethal and we require better ways to treat people.

[guartz]

lol correction. I'm sure spinards who threw infected corpses over the aztec city walls gave the virus a little helping hand. But your missing my point all together anyway.

[Correction]

Do you honestly believe that there is no modern effort to improve treatment? That the answer to 'potential danger' from existing treatments is to skip existing treatment altogether?

[guartz]

Do you honestly believe that there is no modern effort to improve treatment? That the answer to 'potential danger' from existing treatments is to skip existing treatment altogether?

loaded question, I never even hinted at that. I might as well ask you, do you honestly believe vaccines are 100% safe and effective?

[Correction]

Here's the thing, HB is waiting for more 'conclusive evidence' until he makes up his mind about this whole immunization thing.

That's frustratingly bad logic, since there is an overwhelming tidal wave of evidence that supports widespread mandatory immunization for infants. 'But they aren't 100% safe for every human being!' doesn't fly. It's selling fear and doubt as a substitute for science and that's why HB gets what he deserves in this thread. The counter-argument is not about 100% certainty, but that I'm perfectly happy to live with a very large margin over 99% and I'm not paralyzed by some phantom paranoia that not enough is being done to 'change our approach' to modern infectious disease treatments.

[Tristam]

loaded question, I never even hinted at that. I might as well ask you, do you honestly believe vaccines are 100% safe and effective?

Do you honestly believe any medical intervention is 100% safe and effective?

edit: and I think you missed my first post, we're not just rubbing cow pus on people these days, vaccines are very streamlined and the total antigenic load even given the number of different diseases we vaccinate against these days has been reduced substantially.

[guartz]

Let me put it to you in these terms:

Scenario A:

If as a parent you go to a doctor, to give your children some "wellness shots" as they are called today. The doctor says there might be a potential side effect and or death, but the risk of that is only .01%. How many people would still get those shots for their kids? A lot less. Would it force the companies to work on safer drugs? Yes. Freemarket demands it.


Scenario 2:

You go to your doctor for a wellness shot and he says "It's been approved by FDA as safe and effective, nothing to worry about that". As is the case now, does it give drug companies much inventive to work for safer drug, or does it give more incentive to bribe FDA?



just saying.

[Correction]

Scenario A versus Scenario 2 huh?

I'll go for the scenario which is supported by medical research and thoroughly tested science. Which happens to be the reality that my kids and all the kids in my family are getting their immunizations, on schedule. Not everything is a blind acceptance of bully authority I gift to my family physician. There's no money in it for the doctor if his patients die.

[Seraph]

Let me put it to you in these terms:

Scenario A:
If as a parent you go to a doctor, to give your children some "wellness shots" as they are called today. The doctor says there might be a potential side effect and or death, but the risk of that is only .01%. How many people would still get those shots for their kids? A lot less. Would it force the companies to work on safer drugs? Yes. Freemarket demands it.

Scenario 2:
You go to your doctor for a wellness shot and he says "It's been approved by FDA as safe and effective, nothing to worry about that". As is the case now, does it give drug companies much inventive to work for safer drug, or does it give more incentive to bribe FDA?

just saying.

This is why you could, as an informed parent, ask to read the warnings that come with the shot. If part of the problem is doctors blowing over the potential side effects in their pitch to parents, the far larger problem is uneducated stupid parents.

People have the right to refuse treatment. I'm not sure that is the point you are trying to make. I would agree that 'this is good enough' isn't the approach to take with medicine though.

I think the point comming from all this is that these shots are a beneficial practice, but that doesn't mean that they can't be improved to be better, or even be replaced by something better.

The easiest solution is to not have a baby who needs shots in the first place.

[guartz]

but why lie about it? Why not say, marginally acceptable risk? Why say safe and nothing to worry about? It gives an illusion, which stagnates the incentives to work for better drugs. I'm sure if you were to ask the scientists behind these shots they'd tell you what I'm saying, not the corporate marketing version of it.

[Tristam]

Let me put it to you in these terms:

Scenario A:

If as a parent you go to a doctor, to give your children some "wellness shots" as they are called today. The doctor says there might be a potential side effect and or death, but the risk of that is only .01%. How many people would still get those shots for their kids? A lot less. Would it force the companies to work on safer drugs? Yes. Freemarket demands it.


Scenario 2:

You go to your doctor for a wellness shot and he says "It's been approved by FDA as safe and effective, nothing to worry about that". As is the case now, does it give drug companies much inventive to work for safer drug, or does it give more incentive to bribe FDA?



just saying.

Scenario A results in a potential public health catastrophe, with the benefit being that we will search for your medical unicorn? Why would that option even be on the table?

[Correction]

I've never had a doctor say 'no, nothing' when I ask him about the risks and side-effects of a drug I'm given. You're making shit up now.

[Seraph]

but why lie about it? Why not say, marginally acceptable risk? Why say safe and nothing to worry about? It gives an illusion, which stagnates the inventive to work for better drugs. I'm sure if you were to ask the scientists behind these shots they'd tell you what I'm saying, not the corporate marketing version of it.

I completely agree with you, but if you don't walk into any medical situation knowing that nothing is a 100% sure thing, you are an idiot.

If the doctor says something is 'very safe' you can ask exactly how safe. If they don't give you a good enough answer, go to someone who will.

[Tristam]

but why lie about it? Why not say, marginally acceptable risk? Why say safe and nothing to worry about? It gives an illusion, which stagnates the incentives to work for better drugs. I'm sure if you were to ask the scientists behind these shots they'd tell you what I'm saying, not the corporate marketing version of it.

University of Google online pretty much shows that noone is lying. Except perhaps the vaccines/autism nutjobs.

Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Side Effects

[guartz]

well I could be imagining things, correction.

What I see is that we are leaning towards how vaccinations (or drugs in general) are effective and safe, and then kinda blowing through side-effects similar to that voice in commercials.

Which in my mind casts a dishonest illusion. I could be just seeing things though, I do have a bias against drug companies, to be honest.

[Eticket]

When I read the subject I was hoping it'd be about this lady

YouTube - Crazy Sprinkler Lady

[Penthesilea]

well I could be imagining things, correction.

What I see is that we are leaning towards how vaccinations (or drugs in general) are effective and safe, and then kinda blowing through side-effects similar to that voice in commercials.

Which in my mind casts a dishonest illusion. I could be just seeing things though, I do have a bias against drug companies, to be honest.

Pretty sure the company I work is always working on developing better, safer, more efficient vaccines. I'm not in the VVTE section though.