you said that the point of vaccines was just to save lives, not to reduce pain and suffering as well. under no context is that a valid point. they are ment to do both, period. im not talking about developing narcotics, im talking about preventing pain and suffering by preventing the disease, like measles, from infecting someone in the first place.

i dont think you are even arguing the same point here. i also dont think you have any clue what you are talking about, so ill let someone else come along and waste their time on you.

Nope not arguing the same point at all. You are trying to associate a disease with a symptom.
Once again you are not reading everything I said and/or trying to read something that I didnt say at all. I said lethal diseases vaccines are great in order to save tons of lives. On far opposite extreme, to alleviate pain and suffering vaccines (like Hay Fever) is stupid and not ok. I said nothing about things in between, such as medical damages and/or diseases (like Blindness).

Now if you think it is good if they could come up with a blindness vaccine, that is whole other issue, than pain and suffering. That to me personally is bit of grey area. Guess it depends on what specifically you are talking about. It really boils down to is there already an actual cure or not. If so than no there is no reason for vaccine.

You still do not grasp the logical concept that a vaccine is not a cure. I am hesitant about such a thing, but not against it. The biggest problem why I am hesitant about it though is that raises the question where is the stopping point? Is it than ok to change the DNA marker or w/e when they find what relates to someone being born blind? Idk, just philosophical concerns or w/e but not enough for me to say definitely no to such vaccines.

I am also hugely concerned once again that such a great tool will be over abused, which is already a common and prevalent concept in the medical industry. In of itself alone, I would not be as concerned, but when there are so many other things contributing. Like wide over abuse of anti-biotics which is weakening our immune systems, yes I am concerned. It reminds me of kids that are allowed to eat piece of candy from a dirty floor or straight out of the sand. They grow up more tolerable of diseases because that strengthened their immune system. Where as kids that were not allowed, it had to be washed first, those kids grow up more susceptible to getting sick.

Blindness vaccine? What? I don't understand that a vaccine is not a cure? Huh? Trying to associate a disease with a symptom? Lol? That isn't valid when talking about pain and suffering caused by a preventable disease?

The measles vaccine infact prevents far more pain and suffering than it does death. Should it be banned? I mean we are talking about fighting symptoms, not the disease, what lunacy!

Dude, are you talking just to talk? Read your own quote and take it to heart.

Another point why I think pain and suffering vaccines would be stupid and waste. What are the biggest and most common symptoms of vaccines in particular, sometimes even medicine? The common symptoms of vaccines are all those things that are causing the pain and suffering to begin with.

So for example IF they came up with Hay Fever Vaccine, it would probably have side effects something like this. Dry mouth, Sneezing, Itchy and runny eyes.

Why on earth would anyone take a vaccine to control side effects and symptoms of a disease when the vaccine will give them the exact same side effects. It will NOT reduce any pain an suffering. So you trying to tell me that under no context is Pain and Suffering Vaccine is not a valid point is just nuts. They are meant to do both my arse, NO they are not, they are meant to PREVENT the disease, but they quite commonly give the same side effects so in no way possible can it reduce the pain and suffering. Talk about no logic.

Now you are just making up hypothetical fluff to support your claim. Lol.

Where did I say we should create a vaccine for just pain and suffering? If measles only kills 500 people a year, and the vaccine kills 100, that is ignoring all the people who get measles and have terrible pain and suffering. That is my point. This isn't rocket science. Death isnt the only outcome from a disease, it isn't the only thing a vaccine prevents.

You have not come right out and said such a thing. You have however implied it several times.
So if they were designed to do both (which they aren't) but IF they were. That COULD mean they could be designed for either as well. Could make a vaccine to prevent death. Could also make a vaccine prevent pain and suffering. Like I said NO you did not directly say that.

But also when I was talking about our network news asking for vaccine for Hay Fever just solely to alleviate the pain and suffering of people. I was specifically talking about them asking to have vaccine created specifically and only to reduce pain and suffering. Your reply was:
"There are plenty of diseases out there with an extremely low mortality rate that should still be tackled with vaccines because of pain and suffering. Attempting to say otherwise is silly."
Once again not said directly, but seemed to be implying it, especially that last sentence. Sorry if I was wrong and that was not your intent.

You are an idiot.

will you quit looking in the damn mirror when you type Ford

Did you even graduate the 3rd grade?

ford, once again, you missed what the other person was saying and continued to argue only your point.

Yes, you are correct that measles causes more than just death. But we are not talking about ONLY measles here.

Your argument is that people should be required by the government to get any vaccine that the government deems necessary.

Our argument is that people should have a choice.

Hawkster pointed out that there is a vaccine (I believe in the works, or being talked about) for hay fever. This vaccine does not save lives, as hay fever does not kill. But, once you give the government control to require vaccines, there is no stopping them.

So, once Bush Jr. Jr. takes office and has big pharma putting money in his pocket, next thing you know, our kids will be forced to get the hay fever vaccine.

Let's not give the government more control than they already have.

NOTE: I hope you understand my reference to Bush jr jr as being any politician who is easily bought.

wtf are you talking about?

hawkster quoted a quote that i quoted of him about pain and suffering not being the goal of a vaccine. it had nothing to do with choice and big pharma and the tin foil hat you wear. it was about the purpose of vaccines. we done moved on.

are you high? stop tying to eat at the big boys table.

Oh swell Ive got a damn jarhead asking me if I graduated 3rd grade. Hell yeah, I was married to my sister in 4th grade. You gots sumtin to say about hillbillys, jarhead?

Please provide proof you made it past elementary school. I have seen better responses from 2nd and 3rd graders.

You married your sister? Wouldn't surprise me. Enter WV joke here.

my problem is , that i lack trust in the big companies . and my two kids are vaccinated , i have another on the way , and he will be vaccinated . i just dont like my kids being guinea pigs for the big multinationals . there was a flu vaccine here about 4 years ago , 6 kids died in this state from complications . my kids never got that one , it wasnt a standard vaccination . but on checking up the comapny , it had identified some issues in testing , but had gone ahead with the release anyway .. so as mentioned , my new kids will be vaccinated , but , if he isnt well , he will wait till he is before getting a scheduled vaccine and by preference , if a single shot vaccine is available instead of one with organic mercury in it as a preservative for multishot vials well i will pay extra for that if its there . really big pharma , i thought we had worked out in the 70's that mercury was bad for you ... however , cant let information get in the way of bad governance can we

That has been proven that it was not related and no harm came from that preservative.

You do know there are various types of the same compound right? I understood it when I read, but I am no scientist and cant explain it. Either research it yourself and you can read it yourself or just know the fact that there was nothing bad with it at all.

But yea one should be leery of big pharma, they have mega lobbyists for a reason and out to make money .. yet there are good and well established medical criteria in place too. Most of the problems can be found out if you research it enough. After all, they cant make money if they kill everyone lol.

Flu vaccines are a bit tricky too. They have to try and develop for the new strain each season PLUS get it out in time before most people get the flu. Yes there have been times when they know they have not gotten out the best Flu vaccine possible, but when that has happened that is a known issue that anyone can find out about, so just do your homework or just ask your doctor, they will more than likely know.

You shouldn't be entirely trustful of government or corporations. Often for different reasons. But you do need both. Government can play a vital regulatory and oversight role. The free market is very efficient at driving capital to its most productive (in terms of profit, not welfare) use. People have demanded that government oversees itself (at many levels) and yet more private groups attempt to oversee government. Transparency in government is critical to that kind of oversight.

We have some debate going on still about whether the SEC is "too close" to the private companies it is supposed to oversee. Some pretty questionable evidence has emerged from whistle blowers, etc. Likewise, we have a similar situation with the auto companies. I am sure the same thing (regulatory capture) is occurring at the FDA on a regular basis. But no system is perfect. Having no regulation and oversight is certainly worse.

Here we are talking about something a bit different... Private enterprise in the capital markets pretty much consistently serves those who can pay for whatever product or service. They simply aren't going to market vaccines to the poor, for example. But herd immunity is important for society as a whole. Since private enterprise isn't going to tackle that, the government steps in as a matter of public health/welfare/safety. This creates all sorts of conflicts of interest -- you now have the government as the regulator/overseer AND the "buyer" (used loosely since they make the purchase decision but not the purchase if they just mandate the public to buy).

They are under public pressure to solve the problem (whatever disease you pick) and are hungry for a solution (political win as well as public good). They also have cost savings in mind (usually a selling tactic by pharma) of preventing future expenditures via prevention vs. treatment.

Frankly, its a whole tangle of conflicts.

There will never (IMHO) be a "zero tolerance" policy for drug/vaccine side-effects. It is almost always a measure of the good vs. the harm, in a statistical analysis. Statistics are great but they (by necessity) hide the individual cases. I.e. - some people who wouldn't have had problems before do have problems now, while other people that would have had problems before don't have problems now. Guess which ones make the news? In the case of "treatments" where the afflicted are "cured" it is the latter. In the case of vaccines, which are about prevention, it is the former.

It is a lot like anti-terrorism. We are all skeptical of the over-extension of the TSA, etc. and have little visibility into whether "prevention" tactics "work" because we're talking about the bad things that would have happened that aren't now, and we aren't seeing this. Thus why anti-terroism is met with similar skepticism as vaccines -- is it all a huge waste of time and money (at taxpayer expense and some private industry benefit) based on unverifiable scare tactics?

I am glad folks are having these discussions. I don't possess the expertise to make decisions on any drug. I do value those who have that expertise and use it to try and make sure this tangle of interests serves us all in the end. I really really really hope that anyone who exploits this "fuzziness" for personal gain rots in prison or a graveyard as soon as possible. I think those people are few and far between, thankfully.

That was long winded. If you made it this far, you need a better hobby. :)

how am i supposed to read that

spaces, spaces e v e r y w h e r e

I disagree pretty strongly with a couple of statements here:



First off, no *government* oversight does not mean no oversight. You yourself mentioned in this very post that there are citizen groups dedicated solely to government oversight. Those citizen groups exist specifically because government routinely fails at oversight of any kind, especially when it comes to being its own watchdog. The more power we give the government with the goal of doing the things which we supposedly can't do ourselves, the more corrupt government becomes, and the more worthless government oversight becomes.

I object more strongly to the second paragraph above. To assume that benevolence will not exist without government involvement is, IMO, entirely the opposite of the truth. American history is full of examples of people (and corporations) who work towards a goal which benefits all of us, or even benefits only the very poor. Whether its the rich (Franklin, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Gates, etc), corporations looking to better their public image, or the millions of us who give to the countless charitable organizations that exist, people do more to help each other *in the absence of* government involvement. Yes, private enterprise does have a main goal of serving those who pay for goods and services. But to say that private citizens or businesses will not help the poor is just plain wrong. We just won't waste the fruits of our labor on causes which are unnecessary or fraudulent as eagerly as the government will.

+99999999999999

Drug companies are using poor regulations in countries like India to experiment with new drugs on the poor. A particularly horrible example is the testing on the survivors of the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal. Here is a quote from the attached article:

"* The use by drug companies of survivors of the world's worst poisonous gas disaster in Bhopal as "guinea pigs" in at least 11 trials without proper informed consent."

http://www.independent.co.uk/...-guinea-pigs-6261919.html

Ok so now I must ask did the so called scientific studies get it all wrong? Or how many of those studies were tainted and/or cover ups?

Personally I tend to not believe such conspiracy theories and even personally doubt ALL studies are tainted or cover ups. If anything I tend to think they were just inadequate .. either due to too small of test samples or just not being thorough enough.

So why am I bringing this up? Well interesting enough the big pharmaceutical company was even aware that its vaccines DO cause Autism, they were even aware and admitted that vaccines do also cause several deadly adverse side effects which they have neglected to let their consumers know about. In GSK report which can be seen publically here: http://ca.gsk.com/.../537989/infanrix-hexa.pdf it does actually list that SUD (Sudden Unexpected Death) IS one of side effects, yet strangely enough it is still not actually listed as Warning and Precaution to Consumers. Nor is any mention of any other severe deadly side effects mentioned which GSK finally admitted to knowing about.

I had heard that US did actually ban Thimerisol (mercury) to be made with it any more. However, the US did allow them to still use all the stored doses with Thimerisol (we are talking about billions of stored doses). So I had apparently assumed that FDA had primarily banned it due to more of precautionary measure and to appease community fears over such usage.

Italy court has ruled that INFANRIX Hexa causes Autism based on GSK confidential report which shows that even the big drug company was aware that it can cause Autism among several other fatal diseases and adverse side effects which they did NOT inform or warn their consumers about. http://republicbroadcasting.org/...lackout-of-medical-truth/

So now I am second guessing myself, IF the big drug companies knew about this and kept it hidden from the public, did the FDA also know about this, was this the actual reason it banned the use of Thimerisol and IF so than how and why did FDA allow all those stored doses to be used?

As best as I can ascertain (without actually being able to see confidential GSK report) it is around 3% can cause Autism. Also as best as I can ascertain most of the deadly fatal side effects are only around 1%. However when you add them all up that is over 10%. To put this in perspective for vaccines, one example Diptheria at its worst was 10 - 20% of child population resulted in deaths back in early 1900's. So overall, just to follow diptheria example, you have saved 20% of child population only to replace it with killing 10% with adverse side effects. Is it still worth it?

I really do not know, all I can say at moment is sure vaccines are worth it IF is a huge pandemic, but otherwise I am not so sure and question continued use once that pandemic is reigned in. Their really needs to be much more studies done, especially if the so called scientific studies could not find any link between Autism, when even the big drug company knew otherwise.

Math

+10%

vaccines

do

not

cause

autism

Oddly enough GSK disagree with you and admitted they do.

Hmm believe Ford or pharmaceutical company that created and tested it. Sorry ford you lose.


Edit: technically you are correct, the actual vaccine does not, the adjuvant does however. But since it is/was part of the vaccine, you still lose.

One research says they do. 100 says they don't.

I guess they do huh?

The Italian court said yes they do. FDA banned the usage so apparently they seem to think so. As well as most of Europe which has also banned.

Face it the big pharmaceuticals can simply get away with lying and not warning of the dozen or so serious medical side affects that can happen.

Autism isn't one of those side effects.

Correlation and causality. Ingredients can be banned for reasons other than autism. And I'm not too concerned with the Italian courts. Wouldn't be the first time a judge got something wrong.

You are smashing together statistics without a grasp of what they mean. You are terrible at analysis and that is usually a trait of someone searching for support for their view instead of the truth.

I'll give you a popular logical fallacy example

If anyone can get me a dinosaur from Venus for my bday I'd really appreciate it...

I fixed your post for you.

Sorry but it was not me (although I am honored you think so highly of me) that made up the GSK confidential report, nor was I one of their expert scientists or statistician (or whomever compiled their GSK list of medically serious terms criteria). Those I am sure can all be blamed on experts. You can not simply deny with no experience in that field whatsoever what is written in plain black and white text from the companies own confidential report available for anyone to see.

Nervous System Disorder - Mental impairment disorders - Autism - 5 - Event Level Seriousness: YES

As well as many other Nervous System Disorders which was put out in their public report specifically stating was NO casual link to any Nervous System Disorders, yet they admitted they lied when confronted in court with evidence which clearly states otherwise in their confidential report. Just short list:

Nervous System Disorder - Central nervous system infections and inflammations - Encephalitis - 19 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Central nervous system vascular disorders - Cerebral haemorrhage - 5 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Cranial nerve disorders (excl neoplasms) - Facial paresis - 10 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Encephalopathies - Encephalopathy - 14 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Increased intracranial pressure and hydrocephalus - Brain oedema - 11 - Event Level Seriousness: YES
Nervous System Disorder - Mental impairment disorders - Mental impairment - 7 - Event Level Seriousness: No
Nervous System Disorder - Movement disorders (incl parkinsonism) - Brain oedema - 46 - Event Level Seriousness: No

Your logical fallacy example is totally irrelevant when compared to actual facts, from experts even admitting they lied and hid the truth. The only thing you have said so far with any validity to it is yes this is only 1 research compared to the 100 done after which showed no link. There are however 2 problems with this.
1) The first was done by the actual company who had the most vested interest in the results and yet still found links to all kinds of nervous system disorders including Autism.
2) GSK does not have good track record and has even admitted to bribery, falsifying records and research to the FDA that they got caught and busted for. So who knows how many of those 100 other researches done after has not been tampered with or led by Dr's and scientists on their payroll.
So does that discount ALL the other research? NO I do not believe so. Yet it does throw serious question in to how many, and I also question were those thorough enough and/or big enough test sample base. I was looking for answers to this, instead of some sheep blind answer trying to ignore facts, all at same time providing no evidence of support for your simpleton replies.

The facts are this is one report when there are dozens that contradict it. You even just admitted that the organisation that published it has a sketchy history....

This is the same damn problem that that redicilious paper made a decade ago and you are falling for it again. Where is the control results? You are reading the parts you want to and ignoring the rest. Oddly enough babies contract disorders without vaccines too. Weird, I know. I didn't blame my kids cancer on her vaccines. Because they are unrelated.

You can call my responses simpleton all you want, but atleast my critical thinking isn't broken. If you really wanted answers you would seek them yourself. But you don't and we both know it. I don't see the point in putting too much effort into showing you something when you already have your blinders on and mind made up.

I'm not anti vax, but I do think getting them done in multi shots can cause or lead to autism. My son is on a modified schedule.

Actually the person who wrote the one report claiming the link has admitted to fabricating the study, and i believe it was an attack on thermisol which had been used as a preservative in shots since the 1930's until 2000, though still used in some flu shots.

Though there appears to now be some question of evidence of the MMR being linked and possibly since the 60's.

An early post by Juice about a sever reaction based on Gluten , I find interesting , and as some questioned points about it. While i'm sure it plausible, I find hard to believe that a 2 year old had never consumed gluten before the shots and not had a reaction. Or was the point about labeling? where though the child was allergic to gluten but the doctor/ health worker giving the shot was unaware that it contained gluten? possibly because of poor information/labeling/

Yes I have been wondering this myself. Per GSK report on both studies (public and confidential) they seemed to find more problems with INFANRIX Hexa (vaccine) along with Prevnar (vaccine) and even put warning about it.

I have also read and even makes sense about giving babies with not as built up immune systems, six required vaccines in such short period of time. It just seems that in itself would at first weaken them and make them more susceptible, they havent even really had time for their immune system to adapt and get stronger before receiving another one. Sadly I have not been able to really find any research even looking into this. Like mrford said, where are the control results? Comparing test results of one vaccine to results of another vaccine like so many research I have seen is just so lacking. You might as well compare results from cocaine to results from heroine and say nope its not dangerous. (Yes I know I am over emphasizing, just making a point). GSK also did test comparing to placebo of non-activated vaccines, so there are some control results, just not really enough control results. Their follow up at bottom of their confidential report into reported trouble cases seemed to be much more thorough and looking into control results than their actual initial test research. *However I will admit that is just what it seems, they could have looked into it more in-depth to begin with and it is just not reflected in confidential report.