Quote:Vaccines in the US are an inherently low-quality product because the vaccine industry isn't liable for damages they cause. All studies post-1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) on US vaccines are akin to a quality-control check where only a few very selected batches are vaccines are tested for safety, and then no real quality controls exist for the batches that are used on the public. Liability is traditionally how you ensure product quality, and without liability, vaccines manufacturers are incentivized to make as dirty vaccines as possible if it increases their bottom line. 


The fact that you have to sue to the government for vaccine injury and it's capped at $250,000, even for death (and this amount has not increased due to inflation since 1986) and in a special court without a jury trial is a joke. Would you ever trust a product that when defective or poorly made causes death or brain injury and the maker is not liable, even if they intentionally made a defective or poor quality batch? This is corruption at its finest, and the victims are literally babies. 


It's a sad state of affairs because I truly believe that clean vaccines are a good thing, but with no liability, the vaccine industry is incentivized to make dirty, higher profit vaccines, filled with cheap preservatives to avoid other more expensive means of preservation. If you're pro-organic, you're really anti-dirty vaccines, you just haven't realized it yet.


[The above was my first post. Some random joe didn't get that I wasn't talking about studies and replied and asked about the scientific studies showing vaccines were unsafe, so my reply below]


Without getting into the scientific issues, the problem is clear if you think in terms of three pillars safety analysis: (1) scientific safety/causation, (2) individual safety/causation and (3) manufacturer liability.


Car travel has been studied and proven to be safe, scientifically. Yet, car design defects do cause individual death - that is cars can individually cause death. You can have something that is scientifically safe, such as a car, that can individually cause death when it is poorly designed.


So let's look at the three pillars of the car industry: Car travel has been proven scientifically safe, yet cars individually cause death, sometimes by defective design, and car manufacturers are liable for their defects. Countless historical examples in many industries have shown that liability is an essential component of quality control: https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-1-why-does-business-need-ethics/case-the-ford-pinto/ (among many other examples you can google). The punitive damages award, by the jury, was also essential for deterrence to profit-maximizing around defects in the ford pinto case.


Now let's do a three pillars safety analysis of to the vaccine industry. Let's assume they have been proven safe (which I disagree with, but I digress). You have no manufacturer liability, no punitive damages when you sue the federal government, no jury, a special court. You have thousands of cases that the special vaccine court has found that vaccines individually caused death or brain damage (https://www.mctlawyers.com/vaccine-injury/cases/). People need to understand - especially doctors - that scientific causation does not preclude individual causation and that poorly made, liability-free products that injected into one's bloodstream can and do cause irreparable damage, and that the fact that the only industry in the US that has a liability shield is vaccines is a telltale sign of corruption at the expense of the lives and health of US children. The makers of the Ford Pinto did the math and decided not to correct the defect of an exploding gas tank when the car was bumped from behind because they believed it was cheaper to pay off the lawsuits. Liability, with punitive damages, is the reason the Ford Pinto case is taught in business school as a reason to make higher quality products. I can gaurentee you these exact same discussions are being held by vaccine manufacturers, except they pay $0 per death or damage they individually cause, so it is in their financial interest to make a poor quality product, at the expense of their customers. It's a really sad state of affairs. 

Quote:The problem is not vaccines themselves. Its the US pharmaceutical sector.

(10-19-2017, 05:12 PM)GentleWanderer Wrote:

(10-19-2017, 12:15 PM)Stranger Wrote: It is my opinion that a certain percentage of the population have a genetic vulnerability which is triggered by vaccines.  When you do a large-scale study without identifying this subset, the effect is too small and it is not statistically detectable.  It is incredibly disingenious for the medical profession to claim that vaccines are safe and do not cause autism based on that type of research.  There are way too many reports of similar effects which used to be called "childhood disintegrative disorder" and is now just a part of "autism spectrum".

I've heard such a story recently told by a mom, her two childs became autistic shortly after having received a shot. And with a collective of others are in the process of engaging lawsuit against pharmaceutical compagny.

Quote:Carmen S. Villar, MSW
Chief of Staff
Office of the Director
MS D­14
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, Georgia 
30329­4027

August 29, 2016

Dear Ms. Villar:

We are a group of scientists at CDC that are very concerned about the current state of ethics at our agency.  It appears that our mission is being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interests. It seems that our mission and Congressional intent for our agency is being circumvented by some of our leaders. What concerns us most, is that it is becoming the norm and not the rare exception. Some senior management officials at CDC are clearly aware and even condone these behaviors. Others see it and turn the other way. Some staff are intimidated and pressed to do things they know are not right. We have representatives from across the agency that witness this unacceptable behavior. It occurs at all levels and in all of our respective units.  These questionable and unethical practices threaten to undermine our credibility and reputation as a trusted leader in public health. We would like to see high ethical standards and thoughtful, responsible management restored at CDC. We are asking that you do your part to help clean up this house! 

Quote:STATEMENTOF WILLIAM W. THOMPSON, Ph.D., REGARDING THE 2004 ARTICLE EXAMINING

THE POSSIBILITY OF A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MMR VACCINE AND AUTISM

My name is William Thompson. I am a Senior Scientist with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, where I have worked since 1998.

I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article
published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who
received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions
were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the
final study protocol was not followed.

I wantto be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless
lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines
prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly
outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.

My concern has been the decision to omit relevant findings in a particular study for a particular
sub group for a particular vaccine. There have always been recognized risks for vaccination and I
believe itis the responsibility of the CDC to properly convey the risks associated with receipt of
those vaccines.

I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the
CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism
spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be
transparent. I was not, however, aware that he was recording any of our conversations, nor was I
given any choice regarding whether my name would be made public or my voice would be put on
the Internet.

Quote:

• On February 29th, a Danish government study by a prestigious team of Scandinavian scientists found that the DTP vaccine, the world’s most widely-used immunization, while protecting African children from Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis, was wreaking havoc with their immune systems. Vaccinated children were dying at up to 10 times the rate of unvaccinated children.
  
  
• In August 2014, Dr. William Thompson, a CDC senior vaccine safety scientist, confessed that his bosses at CDC ordered him and three other scientists to destroy data showing that black boys who received the MMR vaccine prior to three years old, as the CDC recommends – were 3.36 times more likely to receive an autism diagnosis than those who waited. This effect was not observed in other race categories. Nevertheless, when the CDC published the study results in Pediatrics in 2004, the agency omitted the destroyed data, fraudulently declaring it found no risk of autism from the MMR vaccination.
  
  
• A recent Mayo Clinic study shows that Somalis’ antibody response to the rubella component of the MMR vaccine is twice as high as among Caucasians. That finding may support parental reports of regression of Somali children into autism after vaccination.
  
  
• A 2014 study published in Pediatrics, showed higher rates of autistic disorder among African Americans in Los Angeles County compared to Caucasians. The relative risk of severe autism was 152% higher among U.S. born blacks as compared to U.S. born whites, and an astonishing 263% higher among foreign-born blacks.
  
  
• Perhaps most tellingly, a 2010 study in Stockholm, Sweden, replicated an earlier study by the same team showing a 4 to 5 times increased risk of severe autism in Somali children compared to non-Somali children. The Minnesota Somali parents’ concerns about increased autism risk are not unfounded.
  

Quote:Mogensen and his colleagues hypothesize that the DTP vaccine might weaken a child’s immune system against non-target infections.  They conclude, “Though protective against the target disease, DTP may increase susceptibility to unrelated infections… DTP was associated with 5-fold higher mortality than being unvaccinated.  No prospective study has shown beneficial survival effects of DTP.”

Quote:The vaccine debate in the US at least is artificially constructed due to the way the issue is portrayed in the media. It's really not about vaccinate or not vaccine (or even delayed vaccination). 

There are concrete, reasonable steps that people are asking for that I think most reasonable people would agree would both make vaccines safer and increase trust in the vaccine system.

The first and probably most important step is to undo the 1986 NCVIA Law which is a one-of-kind law that provides blanket design defect immunity to vaccine manufacturers, thus literally creating a perverse incentive to not improve the safety of vaccines.

Regarding safety, people, even science-oriented, seem to have trouble understanding the difference between scientific/statistical causation and individual causation. Some cases and example of scientific/statistical causation versus individual causation - air travel is statistically speaking the safest form of travel, yet, individually planes that are sometimes poorly designed or poorly tested can and do cause actual death and plane crashes. That's why individual causation and design defect liable is so important, because without that no one is incentivized to investigate why there are some many seeming cases 'caused' or 'triggered' hours or days after vaccination, because statistically speaking they are safe. It's like having a plane crash and then refusing to investigate because statistically speaking plane travel is safe.

To give a more on point case study: The Ford Pinto (which had a defectly designed fuel tank that would likely explode when rear ended). The Popular Mechanics Article on the Ford Pinto notes that "Reports range from 27 to 180 deaths as a result of rear-impact-related fuel tank fires in the Pinto, but given the volume of more than 2.2 million vehicles sold, the death rate was not substantially different from that of vehicles by Ford's competitors. The far more damaging result for Ford was the PR disaster. The company long endured a reputation for putting profits ahead of build quality, which, ironically, drove even more customers to foreign and competing brands."

The PM article also notes that Ford did a cost benefit analysis of fixing the defect or leaving it in and paying design defect liability, and decided to leave it in because it was statistically safe enough and because they could afford to pay off those they knowingly kill or injured by having the defect. This is the some of profit-seeking decisions that are made even with design defect liability. Imagine what sort of decisions are being made in vaccine manufacturers where they have no such liability and it's no surprise that people don't trust the US vaccine system.

(03-08-2019, 11:05 AM)xise Wrote: I agree with much you have to say about using discernment and trusting that regardless of what happens all is well. At the end of the day, I personally don’t think the sky is falling; if indeed current vaccines are somewhat unsafe as I believe is likely, it’s not something that is killing or harming babies in droves.

Quote:Rather, it’s a small percentage of unnecessary harmfulness that we generally accept that is more reflective of the values of our society about how in all things we cut slight corners in the name of profit and expediency, and then realize decades later what has happened (ozone layer, climate change, roundup, heavy metals/arsenic contamination of groundwater and rice due to chemical usage, plastic pollution in the ocean, etc).

(03-08-2019, 02:33 PM)redchartreuse Wrote: An image comes to mind, for example, of a rabid vegan who is obsessed with the plight of the cows, meanwhile missing that the bees are in extreme danger due to our unenlightened methods of growing fruits and vegetables, and not the least of which is the process of making their precious almond milk.  

If the bees go, we all go.  So, to my estimation, their well-being should be of a top concern among animal activists.  And then we can figure out the cows later, once we have secured the survival of advanced life on the planet.

(03-08-2019, 11:05 AM)xise Wrote: I agree with much you have to say about using discernment and trusting that regardless of what happens all is well. At the end of the day, I personally don’t think the sky is falling; if indeed current vaccines are somewhat unsafe as I believe is likely, it’s not something that is killing or harming babies in droves.

Rather, it’s a small percentage of unnecessary harmfulness that we generally accept that is more reflective of the values of our society about how in all things we cut slight corners in the name of profit and expediency, and then realize decades later what has happened (ozone layer, climate change, roundup, heavy metals/arsenic contamination of groundwater and rice due to chemical usage, plastic pollution in the ocean, etc).

(03-08-2019, 01:43 AM)redchartreuse Wrote: I noticed that this thread got bumped, and so will throw a few factoids in to mix:

1.  Correlation does not equal causality.  This point cannot be overstressed, and is the main reason why people with no scientific training get sucked down rabbitholes of health disinformation.

Quote:he will get all vaccines he can ingest.

(03-08-2019, 04:12 PM)Louisabell Wrote: Hi redchartreuse, I don't think I've said hi to you before, so hello.

Quote:I just wanted to let you know that I think there are a few vegans on B4 who do care deeply about the plight of cows and in my estimation are not "rabid" in the slightest. Of course I could be seeing the world through my own rabid goggles.

Quote:1.many fruits we eat require cross-pollination and farmers help the bee population by setting up colonies on their orchards.

Quote:2.livestock animals also consume food, usually from plants from deforested grazing land or mono-culture grain or soy crops - all destructive for bees. Conservation of energy means more calories go into livestock than we get out. This would explain why 26% of the Planet's ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33% of croplands are used for livestock feed production. So when you consume animal products, you are also consuming the plant matter it took to sustain that life.

(03-08-2019, 11:54 PM)redchartreuse Wrote: So, in bringing the analogy back to the topic of the thread, sure, we could continue to fight an endless battle between the rabid vaxxers and the rabid anti-vaxxers, and squander even more of our resources in the process, or we could all collectively turn our focus to dealing with the more fundamental problem: rabidness.

It's the rabidness... overzealousness... fanaticism... hysteria... extremism... fervor... that is at the root of so many of our societal problems.  Transmute that, and there might be some hope for humanity yet.

(03-09-2019, 12:26 AM)xise Wrote: even crazy people can end up having valid positions.

Quote:There are a lot of crazy people out there, and I think it's very useful to be able to filter out the good arguments from the crazy ones, if you want to end up with the truth (or something close to it). 

Quote:the underlying situation that creates emotion for the issue for people, crazy or not.

(03-09-2019, 12:54 AM)redchartreuse Wrote:

Quote:the underlying situation that creates emotion for the issue for people, crazy or not.

Which in your view would be...?

Quote:In holding that §22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U. S. C. §300aa–22(b)(1), pre-empts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act’s legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, I respectfully dissent.

(03-08-2019, 11:54 PM)redchartreuse Wrote: Sure, of course!  I hope you didn't think I meant to imply that all vegans are rabid.  My point is that it isn't the concern over vaccines (or cows) that is that problem, it is the rabid attitude that prevents one from seeing the larger picture, from which they might actually draw a connection to others.

(03-08-2019, 11:54 PM)redchartreuse Wrote: And while you can make a very rational argument to an overly intellectual type as to why it is important for them to embrace their emotions, you cannot make any argument to an overly emotional type as to why it is important for them to embrace their intellect.

(03-09-2019, 01:16 AM)Louisabell Wrote:

(03-08-2019, 11:54 PM)redchartreuse Wrote: Sure, of course!  I hope you didn't think I meant to imply that all vegans are rabid.  My point is that it isn't the concern over vaccines (or cows) that is that problem, it is the rabid attitude that prevents one from seeing the larger picture, from which they might actually draw a connection to others.

Thanks, your response is well received and I'm glad you got the opportunity to further clarify your points.

To respond to the idea of rabidness, I think there is a fine line between passion and rabidness. Definately rabidness, by its' very definition, is not embued with wisdom. So I wonder if the path of martyrdom is also a form of rabidness?

I'm not sure about that, but what I do know is that on both sides of the vax argument I see a lot of love from parents, family and community members towards their children as they so badly want to make the right choice by them.

I see a lot of beauty in that, and it makes me think that maybe the world we live in is less about being as safe as possible, and more about having our love for eachother tested.

(03-08-2019, 11:54 PM)redchartreuse Wrote: And while you can make a very rational argument to an overly intellectual type as to why it is important for them to embrace their emotions, you cannot make any argument to an overly emotional type as to why it is important for them to embrace their intellect.

Not saying you're an emotional type, but you earlier wrote on how you believe you moved from a more emotional place to a more intellectual space. So can you breakdown that process, not so much from learning new information, but shifts in consciousness, to see if any wisdom can be gained that can be shared with others?

Quote:It Took Two Months and Nearly a Million Dollars to Save an Unvaccinated 6-Year-Old From Tetanus

~ Ed Cara
Thursday 7/3/2019 5:54pm

A new case report from the Centers for Disease Control released Thursday starkly highlights the costs of not vaccinating children. It details an unvaccinated 6-year-old boy’s encounter with tetanus—and the hugely expensive, two-month-long effort it took to save his life.

Tetanus is caused by the namesake bacteria Clostridium tetani. More accurately, it’s what happens when the soil-loving C. tetani gets into your body—usually through an open cut—and spews out an extremely potent toxin. This toxin can quickly paralyze and send your muscles into constant spasms, beginning with the jaw (if you know anything about tetanus, it’s probably that it causes lockjaw). These spasms can then spread to the chest, back, and gut, leading to painful fractures, problems breathing, and even the complete loss of bowel control. It’s a brutal disease, one that can take months to fully recover from. Even with treatment, 10 percent of victims ultimately die.

Thankfully, we’ve had a working vaccine for tetanus since the 1920s, and vaccination has virtually eliminated the disease in countries with decent healthcare. Most every person in the U.S. is fully vaccinated for tetanus by the time they enter school, with the first of five shots happening at the age of 2 months (booster shots every 10 years afterward are recommended). Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case for the unnamed child in this report, since his family had chosen to not vaccinate him for any condition.

According to the authors, the 6-year-old boy from Oregon had gotten a forehead scrape while playing outside on a farm sometime in 2017. The wound was cleaned and sutured at home, but six days later the boy began experiencing lockjaw and muscle spasms. He then started arching his back and neck involuntarily and eventually could barely breathe, prompting his family to call for help.

The boy was airlifted to the hospital, unable to even drink water because he couldn’t open his mouth. There, he was given several tetanus shots. He then spent the next 47 days in intensive care, needing a ventilator to breathe and constant medications through an IV to control his pain, blood pressure, and muscle spasms. Three days later, he was able to walk 20 feet with help, but he still needed two more weeks of rehab to fully recover the use of his legs and body.

All told, he ended up spending 57 days in the hospital, with a bill of $811,929, and that’s excluding the air transport and rehab care. For context, that’s about 72 times the average cost of a hospital stay for a kid, according to research cited by the authors. And it’s monumentally more expensive than the childhood diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine (DTaP), which can cost around $30 per dose without insurance (the adult boosters are around $60).

The doctors say it’s the first case of childhood tetanus reported in Oregon in 30 years. Between 2009 to 2015, though, there were 197 tetanus cases and 16 deaths reported in the U.S. And some of these rare cases have been even more expensive, with hospital bills for one adult victim reaching over $1 million.

The report doesn’t go into why his family was against vaccination in the first place. And lead author Judith Guzman-Cottrill, a professor of pediatrics at Oregon Health and Science University, told Gizmodo that she couldn’t disclose any family-specific details about the case, including their reasons for abstaining. But she noted the case should provide an important reminder about getting your shots, especially for tetanus. That’s because tetanus is only spread by direct contact with contaminated surfaces, and not from person-to-person like the flu. So relying on others to be vaccinated—otherwise known as herd immunity—won’t protect you from the bacteria, which is practically everywhere in soil.

“Thus, routine vaccination for all, plus boosters, are very important to prevent disease,” Guzman-Cottrill told Gizmodo.

The story ends mostly happily for the boy. A month later, he was completely back to normal, running and using his bike again. But it seems no lessons were learned on his family’s part. Despite the brutal ordeal and pleading by the doctors, they again chose not to vaccinate him for tetanus or any other diseases.