Vaccine Inserts don&#x27;t lie

lifeworship (66) 9 years ago

They don't tell the whole truth, either, but I understand.

$0.06

2 votes

marxrab (65) 9 years ago

My daughter is getting her 6 month shots tomorrow. I am always terrified to get her shots out of fear of effects. Some I believe are good like the ones for polio and smallpox. But they give kids so many more shots today than in the past. This one story about the parents with triplets becoming all autistic on the same day after vaccines is terrifying http://www.healthnutnews.com/triplets-regress-autism-day-genetics-not-vaxxed-story/ . Really interesting post.

frankbacon (65) 9 years ago

Highly rEsteemed!

tonyr (60) 9 years ago

very good post mate.

personz (66) 9 years ago

There is a strong argument against this interpretation of the vaccine insert from Snopes and others. Whether or not you trust Snopes, if you read the article you can decide for yourself if their reasoning stands.

Here's some highlights:

Regarding SIDS

While the blog highlighted Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) alongside autism as reported adverse effects, directly beneath the referenced passage was information that the rate of SIDS was lower among vaccinated infants than among unvaccinated ones

Regarding the general interpretation

Another aspect of the vaccine excerpt reproduced above was that automobile accidents and drownings were included among the causes of reported deaths that occurred after vaccination, which underscores that the nature of such statistics is an inclusive one encompassing adverse events which clearly have no causal relationship with vaccine.

Regarding autism

The insert information was labeled current “as of December 2005,” which first would mean its sudden “discovery” by an anonymous blogger over a decade later was of questionable (if not negligible) import. But the age of the documentation was important for a second reason: the prominent medical journal The Lancet didn’t formally retract a controversial 1998 research paper which falsely advanced the belief that vaccines were linked to autism until February 2010. While that retraction was significant and definitive, twelve years passed between the paper’s publication and The Lancet‘s disavowal of it [...]

So while it was true autism was listed among the reported adverse events in the Tripedia/DTaP vaccine’s insert, that same insert explained that all adverse events were listed, regardless of evidence of causation.

Now, I have to admit that this isn't evidence that the vaccine information says that this vaccine doesn't cause autism, but it sure doesn't say that it does cause it.

Here's another long read within which I found the Snopes article link.

aggroed (78) 9 years ago

Snopes is owned by one of the major media companies, which in turn is owned by the banks, which own the pharma companies. This whole thing is one giant spider web of ownership. It's like when I found out that some of the daily rag stuff promoting and reviewing movies was owned by the movie guys. They are literally just hyping themselves. Needless to say, I don't trust snopes worth shit.

I think more importantly the CDC owns 20+ vaccine patents. The organization that you would think most likely to protect you from harm over something like this is actually a vaccine owner. There is a massive conflict of interest there and in how the leadership positions keep rotating between pharma exec and CDC leadership.

It's just as easy to find some formal organization promoting vaccine safety as it is to find irate and heart broken mothers and fathers that will you tell you point blank with tears in their eyes that vaccines damaged their kids.

$0.00

personz (66) 9 years ago

That's exactly why I said this

Whether or not you trust Snopes, if you read the article you can decide for yourself if their reasoning stands.

And since you've not addressed anything specifically I take it you did not read it. Regardless of bias (we all have it) fact, logic and scientific proof stand up on their own.

$0.00

aggroed (78) 9 years ago

Well, there is science and then there is tobacco science. 4 out of 5 doctors suggest Camel brand cigs! You have to learn to spot the difference. If you read the literature put out by the pharmacuetical companies about vaccines they clearly lead to believe that things are healthy and you have to take them or else you endanger everyone else. If you suspend disbelief and look at their actual studies, time ranges on their data, and ways that they manipulate data that they get you find a completely different story.

So, yes, you have to go with unbiased science when forming an opinion. As a PhD scientist I believe that. What you don't have to do is trust every source you read, agree with every conclusion a scientist makes, believe people that profit immensely over things, or trust two 2-non science fatties on a couch getting paid to post.

$0.00