Vaccination & epidemic

[jinx]

I'd be more easily convinced he saw something specific if he'd mentioned it.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by jinx

Yes, there have been quite a few, from pharmaceutical to climate research. I hope you didn't miss them all.

My response is already in #342 in this thread.

In the short run, yes, all those things you put into scare quotes are corruptible. Less corruptible than in almost every other institution, but yes.

In the long run, no. Truth will out. Redundant studies will find conflicting results, new theories will be advanced and tested.

The guy who discovered that stomach ulcers are caused by a virus was going heavily against medical consensus... and faced some battles at first... but the truth was evident. The guy who invented the MRI faced an uphill battle, as nobody believed he could be coming up with something useful. In the end, truth won.

Why doesn't the CDC operate in the way you'd prefer? Dunno. Your explanation seems to tend towards "The organization is involved in an unlawful, multi-decade conspiracy to maintain the status quo at all costs." I doubt this.

The explanation that you desire requires more and more extraordinary narratives over time. This makes me more skeptical.

That misinformation being that Desiree specifically was injured by a vaccine, or that it is actually possible to be injured by a vaccine?

That misinformation being that the flu vaccine is dangerous.

[Clodfobble]

Dangerous is a relative word, and meaningless in this case.

Do you, or do you not, agree that it is possible to be injured by a vaccine?

[Undertoad]

Of course I would agree; of course!

But since the flu shot is one of the safest vaccines, it's much more likely to prevent you from injury/serious illness/death, so to describe it as "dangerous" is silly.

It's like - once in a while, somebody gets clocked by an automotive air bag... a handful of people have died, mostly children. Dangerous? Well they've saved about 10,000 lives, so you make the call.

Meanwhile, my DJ google alert is STILL, to this day, filled with tards reason-challenged bloggers linking the original DJ YouTube video, to tell people how dangerous the H1N1 shot is. Never mind that wasn't the vaccine she received. Never mind she's all better now, her situation is descrbied as permanent.

And now that I mention that, I recall that "permanent" was how you, Clod, described DJ's condition in post #395 of this thread.

[Flint]

I could prevent myself from getting toenail fungus by chopping off my foot. Should I? Would it be dangerous?

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Of course I would agree;

But since it's much more likely to prevent you from injury/serious illness/death, to describe it as "dangerous" is ridiculous. It like - once in a while, somebody gets clocked by an automotive air bag... a handful of people have died, mostly children. Dangerous? Well they've saved about 10,000 lives, so make the call.

See... to me....the chances of getting the disease you're inoculating against are slim to start out....and then, the chances of being killed by that disease are yet another level of slimness.

the chances of getting injured by some fucked up concoction of who knows what... that some money motivated government sponsored program decides is a good thing... in general terms....is at least equal, if not greater.

[Undertoad]

Man i gotta stop editing after posting

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

See... to me....the chances of getting the disease you're inoculating against are slim to start out....and then, the chances of being killed by that disease are yet another level of slimness.

The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year. I could not find a death attributed to the regular flu vaccine this year. H1N1 has about 13 deaths due to vaccine -- although one is from a motorcycle injury, so I'm not sure how that works.

the chances of getting injured by some fucked up concoction of who knows what... that some money motivated government sponsored program decides is a good thing... in general terms....is at least equal, if not greater.

*shrug* maybe, worse things have happened, although not with so many eyeballs involved.

[Flint]

Oh yeah, there's so many eyeballs. Of course, if they see anything it's because they are wrong/crazy.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Of course I would agree; of course!

But since the flu shot is one of the safest vaccines, it's much more likely to prevent you from injury/serious illness/death, so to describe it as "dangerous" is silly.

It's like - once in a while, somebody gets clocked by an automotive air bag... a handful of people have died, mostly children. Dangerous? Well they've saved about 10,000 lives, so you make the call.

The difference is, they acknowledge the danger and work to mitigate it--after airbags killed a few children, they started offering an airbag offswitch for the passenger seat, so the driver could make the call as to whether there was a child or an adult in the seat. The child-airbag death rate has gone down; they've made an effort.

In the case of vaccines, they've made no effort. They removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines only after Congress ordered them to do so. And they still recommend that same flu shot for pregnant women and babies; what if it's not one of the "safest" for that demographic? They'd never know, because even now they're only nominally looking into it. There happens to be a pandemic rise of not one but several diseases in children, mostly autoimmune. Exponentially more children have these debilitating diseases than ever died or were seriously injured by the diseases we're immunizing against.

Assessing relative risk is important. But they have to be willing to honestly assess it.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The numbers are available. Regular flu: 100,000 hospitalizations per year, about 35,000 deaths per year.

How many of those were already severely sick with something else? How many of those were actually vaccinated against the flu, but ended up with a different strain anyway?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

In the case of vaccines, they've made no effort. They removed thimerosal from childhood vaccines only after Congress ordered them to do so.

Incorrect. There's no evidence thimerosol is dangerous, but removing it can make vaccines more dangerous, because less effective preservatives are used.

And they still recommend that same flu shot for pregnant women and babies; what if it's not one of the "safest" for that demographic?

Not at all interested in "what if's". Prefer evidence.

Assessing relative risk is important. But they have to be willing to honestly assess it.

You have the intelligence, but not the education or background to determine if they do.

How many of those were already severely sick with something else? How many of those were actually vaccinated against the flu, but ended up with a different strain anyway?

Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case. If you want to double or quadruple those numbers or more, tell people the flu vaccine will permanently fuck them up.

Oh, you did! Well aim high.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Cut those numbers in half and we still have a good case.

Tangental “style and tactics” note: it is really funny to watch someone else do that. I love the "cut my numbers in half and I still win!" routine.

[Undertoad]

We don't have to do to half. It's thought that a certain number would die anyway or would get another strain, but the numbers on those are not half.

Meanwhile, your one liners are a substitute for serious thought on the matter, and I suggest you either get serious, or fuck off out of the thread, like I fucked off out of Clod's.

[Flint]

I was actually paying you a compliment in regards to how you express absolute confidence in your position. I've always enjoyed using the "cut my numbers in half" routine wherever I've felt that my position was overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. And, as a tangental note to the thread, I am amused to see this technique being used by someone other than myself.

I will take it that you misunderstood my post, and not that you are a total ƒucking asshole.

One more thing: I must insist that my "one liners" are the direct result of, and an expression of, serious thought. Sometimes I do not feel that stretching my basic observations into a multi-paragraph diatribe is necessary. For example, when I am studying for a final exam on Monday.

[Undertoad]

Apologies then, it was the word routine that threw me.

Feel free to fuck into the thread.