Anti-Vax Movement

[AF 802]

So, does this mean....
Lolcows generally have autism, autism makes them weird, so autism is caused by vaccines?

I can make up psuedo-scientific bullshit too, anti-vax fucks.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

This is kinda funny, because everybody likes to imagine themselves to be galileo or on his side, the bringer of truth on face of adversity. I gotta admit, me too.

Keep in mind that Galileo had not finished college and his reputation of criticizing aristotlian philosophy caused educated men to look down on him as a buffoon.

If Galileo had asked for transparency and research, you might have dismissed it.

Galileo wasn't censored for this theories, genius. He was censored for literally calling the pope a moron in his theological tracts and saying that anyone who disagrees with him was a brain-dead heretic while living a stone's throw away from the Vatican. The heliocentrism trial was a case of the Vatican throwing the entire book at him to make an example (his trial, by the way, showed that heliocentrism was orthodox and supported by the Bible). Pop-culture history is often wrong.

And there has been research and clinical trials about vaccines; that's how vaccines get made. The only notable study showing negative effects from vaccines available to the public was the Wakefield study, which was methodologically flawed and involved Wakefield directly tampering with his subjects and falsifying data to get the result he wanted. Wakefield's solution, by the way, was using these new, safer vaccines made by a company that just so happened to be putting up money for his research in the first place. But I guess Big Pharma is totally cool and trustworthy when it confirms what you already believe.

 

[Piga Dgrifm]

Well thank god I didn't claim that vaccines cause autism then and your reaction is showing exactly how fucking militant people are.

The US government institutions are capable of conducting large scale detailed studies on the adverse effects and absolutely refuse to do so. When an independent body like the Lancet even attempts to look at the data they are quickly shutdown.

The US government has also paid out BILLIONS in damages to families who were victims of vaccination because Big Pharma literally wrote the law to say the US is liable for all damages caused by their vaccines.

View attachment 653650

And no correlation isn't causation, but perhaps it will give some of you a moment to consider we might not need every single vaccine that we're being sold.

You must have gotten lots of vaccines, because you seem pretty darn Autistic.

 

[Ginger Piglet]

It might still be a good idea to continue. It might not be. If the CDC could stop suppressing data that would be nice. If studies were done on adverse effects, that would be better.

Someone's just seen Vaxxed, clearly.

 

[Sawmill]

Galileo wasn't censored for this theories, genius. He was censored for literally calling the pope a moron in his theological tracts and saying that anyone who disagrees with him was a brain-dead heretic while living a stone's throw away from the Vatican. The heliocentrism trial was a case of the Vatican throwing the entire book at him to make an example (his trial, by the way, showed that heliocentrism was orthodox and supported by the Bible). Pop-culture history is often wrong.

Sorry but you are half right and half wrong here. I agree (nor did I say anything to suggest otherwise, as you seem to have thought) that Galileo wasn't just judged for his support of the heliocentric model: you are certainly right that his writing of simplico, a small minded man defending the status quo was part of it and other political agenda's and personal motives were at play as well. Whether the Simplico character was meant to be a stand-in for the pope is debatable. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure you'll correct me, Galileo was judged on the basis of the 1616 injunction where he had at that time promised to not defend, hold or teach the copernican method. An injuction that had irregularities and was likely fabricated. So your claim of the church throwing the book at him is true and then some.

However they did not suspend the ban on the heliocentric model until April 16, 1757 and they didn't allow books printing on the subject until 1820. To say the theory itself had no bearing at all on the process isn't exactly accurate.

-----

You say there is only one study ever that showed adverse effects of vaccine and that it was a flawed study. How do you square that claim with the US government compensating billions total to people as a result of court cases? Is the government that incompetent in defending themselves legally?

(Link given earlier on this page or the one before, I can dig up again if you like)

 

[Ginger Piglet]

Sorry but you are half right and half wrong here. I agree (nor did I say anything to suggest otherwise, as you seem to have thought) that Galileo wasn't just judged for his support of the heliocentric model: you are certainly right that his writing of simplico, a small minded man defending the status quo was part of it and other political agenda's and personal motives were at play as well. Whether the Simplico character was meant to be a stand-in for the pope is debatable. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure you'll correct me, Galileo was judged on the basis of the 1616 injunction where he had at that time promised to not defend, hold or teach the copernican method. An injuction that had irregularities and was likely fabricated. So your claim of the church throwing the book at him is true and then some.

However they did not suspend the ban on the heliocentric model until April 16, 1757 and they didn't allow books printing on the subject until 1820. To say the theory itself had no bearing at all on the process isn't exactly accurate.

-----

You say there is only one study ever that showed adverse effects of vaccine and that it was a flawed study. How do you square that claim with the US government compensating billions total to people as a result of court cases? Is the government that incompetent in defending themselves legally?

(Link given earlier on this page or the one before, I can dig up again if you like)

Because court proceedings do not determine science. No, the special masters merely had to be convinced that there was an adverse event that was compensateable at law with no liability accrued. This is like saying that the sun goes round the earth because a Court found as much.

Oh, and when I said you'd recently seen Vaxxed, that wasn't a compliment. Vaxxed is the biggest shitshow of them all and basically a way for Del Bigtree to gouge from the credulous.

You may wish to read this, and the sources to which it links, then try again.

 

[Tanti-Fanti]

The sad part about anti-vaxxers is that their efforts to not get vaccinated are just going to do more harm than good. Eventually when an epidemic happens (because of course it will and HAS already happened) we'te going to get to a point in which if nothing is done, even more people will die. And then you have these crunchy fb moms who willingly poison their children with essential oils or some crap because they don't want to admit they are wrong.

I can already see even more schools and workplaces requiring vaccinations with no opt-outs which some people have due to these guys. And eventually we'll come to a point in which it's going to be illegal not to get them.

So really, all their efforts are going to be in vain because at some point there is going to be an even bigger pushback to control these people from doing anymore stupid things.

There's being concerned about how you receive vaccines and then there's believing a faulty study that was debunked years ago because you don't want to admit your child won't be perfect.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Sorry but you are half right and half wrong here. I agree (nor did I say anything to suggest otherwise, as you seem to have thought) that Galileo wasn't just judged for his support of the heliocentric model: you are certainly right that his writing of simplico, a small minded man defending the status quo was part of it and other political agenda's and personal motives were at play as well. Whether the Simplico character was meant to be a stand-in for the pope is debatable. Unless I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sure you'll correct me, Galileo was judged on the basis of the 1616 injunction where he had at that time promised to not defend, hold or teach the copernican method. An injuction that had irregularities and was likely fabricated. So your claim of the church throwing the book at him is true and then some.

However they did not suspend the ban on the heliocentric model until April 16, 1757 and they didn't allow books printing on the subject until 1820. To say the theory itself had no bearing at all on the process isn't exactly accurate.

-----

You say there is only one study ever that showed adverse effects of vaccine and that it was a flawed study. How do you square that claim with the US government compensating billions total to people as a result of court cases? Is the government that incompetent in defending themselves legally?

(Link given earlier on this page or the one before, I can dig up again if you like)

1. The ban was de jure and remained in place due to political reasons; it was never really enforced de facto. For example, the writings of Kepler were not banned by the Vatican despite their foundational basis in the Copernican method. The ban was in essentia a further posthumous punishment of Galileo himself, and not some grand condemnation of heliocentrism as a whole. By the time the Vatican lifted its ban, the heliocentric model had long been the accepted model within the scientific community even within the monastic orders.
2. Firstly, because there can be errors in the vaccine production process that render the vaccine dangerous, even when the vaccine is harmless when properly prepared. Secondly, because there can be cases in which a child is unknowingly immunocompromised, which can render a vaccine dangerous as the body cannot fight off even the weakened virus. Thirdly, I know at least part of your billions of dollars was released as compensation to the relatives of the Tuskegee experiments, where vaccinations were used as a cover for illegal human experimentation. Fourthly, because as @Ginger Piglet pointed out, court cases do not decide scientific fact.

 

[Sawmill]

This is like saying that the sun goes round the earth because a Court found as much.

Oh, and when I said you'd recently seen Vaxxed, that wasn't a compliment

Lol, I can laugh at a good joke at my expense. It's gotten funnier now that it seems you are serious about a joke.

Edit: and honestly it is a sensible response to at first take any contrary claim on this subject with a good dose of skepticism. You have 40 pages filled with all kinds of idiot antivax social media posts, I get that there is the expectation that I would be such a "Simplico"

I'll check out your source and come back for an in depth response to @Graffiti canvas longer post as well when I've had a chance to read and check his sources.

And just to make sure I understand you correctly, your contention that the billions the US has paid that I linked to before have all without exception have been for adverse effects that are compensatable, but weren't caused by the vaccines? Or did I understand you incorrectly? Let me know.

 

[Ginger Piglet]

your contention that the billions the US has paid that I linked to before have all without exception have been for adverse effects that are compensatable, but weren't caused by the vaccines?

Yes, because courts do not decide scientific fact, solely that there is a potential likelihood that they may have.

 

[Sawmill]

The ban was de jure and remained in place due to political reasons; it was never really enforced de facto.

Hey I never knew that. Thanks.

Thirdly, I know at least part of your billions of dollars was released as compensation to the relatives of the Tuskegee experiments, where vaccinations were used as a cover for illegal human experimentation

Holy shit. I had never heard about this. And a at a cursory glance, though you might already know,bapparently just this year there was a US district judge who said Rockefeller foundation, Bristol-Meyers Squibb and John Hopkins University must face a billion dollar lawsuit for a similar experiment with guatemalans.

Looking at the data, the tuskegee experiments compensation do not seem to be included, but I'll get back on it when I have looked into that further.

Yes, because courts do not decide scientific fact, solely that there is a potential likelihood that they may have

Thanks for clarifying.

Okay so now we have the claims that

A. "the only notable study showing negative results from vaccines available to the public was the (ed. flawed/pandered) wakefield study"

B. Not a single case of the billions spent by the US government as compensation have been for adverse effects of vaccinations

And

C. The US government has awarded billions in compensation, for which you are only eligible if you can prove in court that the adverse effect was more likely the result of the vaccine than not (with 80% of cases being settlements).

So then I am left with the following questions staring me in the face: why would a court ever order in favor of the vaccine causing adverse effects if there is no scientific data to support such a conclusion in the first place?

Furthermore, how was the VICP able to make a vaccine injury chart at all?

https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/vaccinecompensation/vaccineinjurytable.pdf

 

[Meowthkip]

@Sawmill What does big pharma have to gain by purposely botching vaccines?

Also, did you eat glue as a kid?

 

[Sawmill]

What does big pharma have to gain by purposely botching vaccines?

Various motives are possible. I hadn't heard of the Tuskegee experiments before, but it's a good example that the US government doesn't always have your back. A new one came to light not too long ago, for infecting hundreds guatemalans for an experiment. http://archive.is/tjWQk

Cutting costs, profit, research. The goal doesn't have to be 'purposeful botching', as much as preferring to make more money at lower cost.

I get that you might not agree, but why is the idea itself, just the possibility that either government and/or pharmaceutical companies/ corporations could lie or put their own interests over health hard to even entertain as being possible?

Also, did you eat glue as a kid?

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Wouldn't Big Pharma make more money if people get more infectious diseases? There's people out there still in iron lungs from getting polio in 1953! That's a lifetime of treatment!

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

Various motives are possible. I hadn't heard of the Tuskegee experiments before, but it's a good example that the US government doesn't always have your back. A new one came to light not too long ago, for infecting hundreds guatemalans for an experiment. http://archive.li/tjWQk

Cutting costs, profit, research. The goal doesn't have to be 'purposeful botching', as much as preferring to make more money at lower cost.

I get that you might not agree, but why is the idea itself, just the possibility that either government and/or pharmaceutical companies/ corporations could lie or put their own interests over health hard to even entertain as being possible?




View attachment 654106

This would be due to the General Case Against Conspiracies: “You can’t run a large conspiracy in secret without any outsiders noticing or any insiders blowing the whistle.”
In this case, the "large conspiracy" would be "the pharmaceutical industry is deliberately releasing highly dangerous vaccines onto the market, either out of the desire to cut costs or Nefarious Goals." Let us examine who would have to be in on this:
-Firstly, every pharmaceutical company that manufactures vaccines or who has ever had an interest in manufacturing vaccines, with every person at a level that could feasibly know this, from production to executives, cooperating: after all, if a corporation had real evidence that their competitors were releasing a dangerous, unsafe product that would compete with their own, there would be no logical reason to not reveal this to the entire world unless you were part of a larger conspiracy. Likewise, if one knew of something like this was occurring within a company, nothing more than being "in" on the conspiracy (whether through collusion, bribery, or blackmail) would prevent you from informing the press. My rough estimate would say this conspiracy would already have to involve ~6,000 people, not factoring in any other layers.
-Everyone employed at the CDC who could know about this, from epidemiologists up. Current head count: ~8,000.
- Everyone employed at the FDA from vaccine auditors and quality control up. Current head count: ~10,000.
-All foreign aid workers who help vaccinate the third world. Current head count: ~15,000.
-Every single researcher who has studied the safety of vaccines, as well as everyone who has audited the data. This one would likely jump the number up a fair bit, to let's say ~25,000.
-The overwhelming majority of all GPs, as they would observe a number of "vaccine damage" cases well outside of the average and say something if they weren't part of the conspiracy. Let's be generous and say only half of all GPs would have to be in on it. This still climbs the number astronomically to ~251,848 (although I was lowballing and not using statistics on the other numbers).
This is just the number needed for the US; let's be outrageously generous and say you would only need to double the number to have the conspiracy control the entire civilized world. That gives us an approximate total of ~503,696.
So, Sawmill, my question is: do you believe it is feasible for over half a million people to secretly coordinate so perfectly that there is no proof of this conspiracy other than spurious statistics? Even Andrew Wakefield didn't allege the damage vaccines were causing was a deliberate act.

 

[Meowthkip]

View attachment 654106

Ah, yes, please read the rules to a board moderator as if I didn't already know them. You're a bright one, you are.

 

[Sawmill]

So, Sawmill, my question is: do you believe it is feasible for over half a million people to secretly coordinate so perfectly that there is no proof of this conspiracy other than spurious statistics

I'll be happy to answer your question, but why have you refused to answer my question?

You made the claim that only a single study showed adverse effects of vaccination and that it was both flawed and tampered with.

If not a single study shows adverse effects of vaccines at all, how do peoppe manage to prove in court that a vaccine caused adverse effects if there is no scientific data to support such a conclusion in the first place?

Furthermore, how was the VICP able to make a vaccine injury chart at all? (See link above)

----

To answer your question, no I don't think a conspiracy involving half a million people is very likely at all. It is technically possible only under very extraordinary circumstances (like the manhattan project: wartime, a culture of secrecy) and even then not likely for a long time.

So to answer your question more simply: no.

 

[KimCoppolaAficionado]

I'll be happy to answer your question, but why have you refused to answer my question?

You made the claim that only a single study showed adverse effects of vaccination and that it was both flawed and tampered with.

If not a single study shows adverse effects of vaccines at all, how do peoppe manage to prove in court that a vaccine caused adverse effects if there is no scientific data to support such a conclusion in the first place?

Furthermore, how was the VICP able to make a vaccine injury chart at all? (See link above)

----

To answer your question, no I don't think a conspiracy involving half a million people is very likely at all. It is technically possible only under very extraordinary circumstances (like the manhattan project: wartime, a culture of secrecy) and even then not likely for a long time.

So to answer your question more simply: no.

I have answered your question: you simply refused to listen.
There is no proof that vaccines, when properly manufactured, and given to someone who is not immunocompromised, have adverse effects. Any payments from a malpractice suit based on vaccines would happen because a vaccination was administered to someone with a compromised immune system, or because errors were made during the manufacture process. These are cases of medical malpractice, not proof that vaccines are harmful. I can find plenty of court cases where a court finds a heart surgeon guilty of medical malpractice due to complications from heart surgery; this does not prove that heart surgery itself is inherently harmful. This is especially true given that these payments could only happen from a civil suit, which only requires a 51% likeliness threshold; far beneath anything "conclusive".

If you do not believe in a vast conspiracy to cover up something that would otherwise be trivially exposed, what is your alternative hypothesis as to why the dangers of vaccines haven't been exposed?

 

[Meowthkip]

I have answered your question: you simply refused to listen.
There is no proof that vaccines, when properly manufactured, and given to someone who is not immunocompromised, have adverse effects. Any payments from a malpractice suit based on vaccines would happen because a vaccination was administered to someone with a compromised immune system, or because errors were made during the manufacture process. These are cases of medical malpractice, not proof that vaccines are harmful. I can find plenty of court cases where a court finds a heart surgeon guilty of medical malpractice due to complications from heart surgery; this does not prove that heart surgery itself is inherently harmful. This is especially true given that these payments could only happen from a civil suit, which only requires a 51% likeliness threshold; far beneath anything "conclusive".

If you do not believe in a vast conspiracy to cover up something that would otherwise be trivially exposed, what is your alternative hypothesis as to why the dangers of vaccines haven't been exposed?

This motherfucker rated me "late" on a post where I pointed out to him that him shoving the board rules in my face is dumb.

It's not worth arguing with him, he's clearly retarded.

 

[Sawmill]

This motherfucker rated me "late" on a post where I pointed out to him that him shoving the board rules in my face is dumb.

It's not worth arguing with him, he's clearly exceptional.

Because I already knew you were a moderator when I posted it. Posting the rules was not meant combative but as a simple reminder, we are all human, we all make mistakes.

And to be honest I think this post you made is an example of such a mistake.

I may be completely wrong in every single post on the subject of vaccines. Certainly the ratings make it look like some people think so. But I am writing honestly and frankly and I stand behind what I type.

I think when it gets to the point where you feel the need to start telling other people not talk to me for being "an exceptional motherfucker", for one "late" rating, that maybe you're taking things a little too personal. I mean we can all get riled up sometimes in these discussions, I get it.