RE: pifgc - Steem Science / Crowdfund science on steemchain
I really appreciate your input. I'm not sure what you mean by my world view. But just to reassure you, i'm interested in discovering data that has integrity and allowing that data to inform genuine conclusions and further research wherever it leads. I'm interested in truth. I'm talking about using the best principals of science, principals that seem to be discarded by institutions whenever the data and conclusions reveal something inconvenient or outright damaging to influence and profit.
When you say vaccines are safe, what do you mean precisely? I genuinely would like to understand you. You are a biochemistry researcher and I believe being absolutely genuine when you say that. There can be no doubt that vaccines cause permanent injury and death...even the manufacturers will admit to side-effects. So for you, what does "safe" mean? To be completely up front about my opinion, my trust in vaccines has been shaken to its core by what I have researched and what I've seen with my own eyes.
We all have a view of how the world works, that statement wasn't an accusation. As a scientist I remind my self to go where the data takes me, not where I want. So it was more a reminder to keep the scientific method at heart.
We must always go where the data takes us, if that is contrary to previous findings then it is. If it confirms previous findings then it does. Try not to consider what corporations do, I work for a biotech company, and my companies profits aren't my concern in my experiments. I go where the data takes me, sometimes that isn't somewhere good in my companies eyes. Nevertheless that doesnt change how I treat or report the data.
As for safety.
Nothing in life is 100% safe, everything has a potential negative. (Get in a car and drive to the store and you have a small percentage chance of death). Vaccines are "safe" as the negative potential outcomes associated with them are very small. "Shaken to the core by what I have researched" there isn't sufficient data IMO to cause that. There is plenty of misinformation though. There is bias in scientific publishing, especially in lower tier journals. Most publications critical of vaccination are funded by antivaccination groups (and the researchers usually disclose involvement in vaccination lawsuits). Why is it that those with an agenda are the only ones to find so many problems? Are they going where the data takes them? Why aren't there a plethora of other groups independently finding such issues? There are a lot of academic groups studying vaccines. The scientific consensus is clear that the benefits of vaccination by far out weigh the minimal side effects. Are they perfect ? Hell no, and that's why resesrch continues even on solved problems as a better technique may be just one experiment away.
Dont't worry, i didnt' take it as an accusation...I just wanted to understand. So for clarity, you believe 'safe' is a relative term that is subject to a pesons perspective. So what I would define as safe is simply a lot safer than your definition of safe. No problem. Let me ask you this....do you believe the science exist to prove the medium and longterm effects of an ever changing, ever growing list of vaccines in the vaccine schedule in cases where the schedule is followed? If it does exist, i'd appreciate a reference please. If it doesn't. Would you agree that to say something is safe that hasn't been studied is negligent, arrogant and possibly criminal?
I don't believe anything in this case, belief removes us from a discussion of facts and logic. Safe is a relative term however most people do not have the necessary background to adequately assess the safety of every possible thing (not trying to imply that people lack the ability to judge an unsafe situation from a safe one, but that its a bit more complicated). It is for this reason why we have experts in a wide variety of areas areas to determine relative levels of safety. It is not possible to know enough about everything to make a reasonable judgement in many cases (vaccines being one, certainly most people lack the necessary training to understand the details behind their precise mechanisms of action, along these lines most people lack the training to understand why they are safe). Does the science exist? there are plenty of publications on these sorts of things (eg. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23297680), I certainly have not read all of them. If you would like to find more, I would suggest searching on www.pubmed.gov, however the number of searchable publications is large, and with out good and specific search terms it may prove difficult to find exactly what you are looking for (especially if you don't yet know, what you want to know). Nevertheless, its not my job to know everything about this particular topic (science is just too massive for me to know the specifics, or perhaps I am just not smart enough to know it!), were you to ask me about the DNA replication/repair enzymes I work on, I could likely provide a more exhaustive list.
Would I say to say something is safe that hasn't been studied is negligent, arrogant, and possibly criminal? That depends on a variety of factors. How similar is the poorly or un-studied "thing" to other well characterized and similar "things" ? If highly similar, no it is justifiable to say it is also safe even with out significant study. If significantly different from anything else ever characterized, then that would be an issue. However, as far as vaccination is concerned, they have been studied to death and are safe.
I really appreciate your willingness to have this discussion with me, thank you. I can appreciate what you are saying and I must endeavor to avoid making conclusions based on false assumptions. As a non expert, I've done as much research as I'm capable of and have made the best conclusions I can. If the experts working for big pharma are corrupt....that means everything downstream is suspect. I think there is enough evidence to question our trust in them already. There is no question that vaccines have side-effects and for some, perhaps many children, those side-effects are life-changing ....yet they are injected without their consent. There are risks to contracting an illness, but given that most children recover completely from most of them and gain lifelong immunity, might that not be preferable? There is no question that the longterm effects of the vaccine schedule and the many new vaccines in it have not been studied....that to me is completely unscientific period. Let's just experiment on the most vulnerable in our society and hope it turns out ok? This is hubris.
I hope that we can all find a way to rebuild trust, unfortunately I think the only way to do that is to start again and do science in a way that is not complicated by money and politics.
Thanks so much! And may I say again, i know that not all scientists are corrupt, not all data is corrupt and I daresay you are one of the ones with integrity :)