Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition
from the the-way-of-the-world dept
Last week a story started to blow up that was used, once again, by the media to beat up on Facebook. The headline, from the Daily Beast, says it all: Facebook Axed Pro-Vaccine Ads From Hospitals and Health Orgs, Let Anti-Vaxxer Ads Slip Through. As the story notes, Facebook has (smartly) decided to not allow anti-vax nonsense advertising. It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising. It does this for a pretty good reason: anti-vax nonsense is killing people. Vaccinations save lives (and I know some anti-vaxxers reading this are foaming at the mouth to scream at us in the comments, and let’s just be clear: you’re wrong and you should stop it before you kill more people). Anyway, here’s what went down:
This month, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the state?s official health department, bought 14 ads to promote a statewide program providing free pediatric vaccinations. Facebook removed all of them.
During the same time period, Children?s Health Defense, an anti-vaccine nonprofit founded and chaired by the nation?s most prominent vaccine conspiracy theorist, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., successfully placed more than 10 ads stoking unfounded fear about vaccines and other medical conspiracy theories.
I saw some people on Twitter using this to attack Facebook, but actually it just highlights the same point we’ve been making for a few years now: content moderation at scale is impossible to do well and you will always, always make mistakes. And this is one of many kinds of mistakes that happen all the time. Unless someone is deeply, deeply engaged in these issues, distinguishing between anti-vax anti-science quackery can sometimes be difficult. And if moderators are taught to be wary of “vaccine” advertisements, they may just start to key in on anything that mentions vaccines — including something from a government Department of Health. In some cases it appears that automated systems are to blame:
?It?s our understanding that auto-blocking software flagged these ads, since the text resembles when ads appear to be spreading vaccine misinformation,? said Emily Lowther, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Hospital Association, who expressed frustration at the phenomenon.
Of course, perhaps what’s more interesting is that part of the reason the Daily Beast was even able to write this story is because of Facebook’s transparency on advertisements with its Ad Library.
You could say that Facebook must do a better job at this kind of thing, but that would require focusing even more attention on these ads, which inevitably means some other set of ads will end up getting messed up as well. Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and that’s not a Facebook issue, it’s a societal one. There are some people who are going to be pushing bad information, and they’re always going to seek to make it look as legit as possible. That’s a problem, but expecting that one company can magically fix it seems like a silly thing to do.
Filed Under: ads, anti-vax, content moderation, vaccines
Companies: facebook
Comments on “Content Moderation At Scale Remains Impossible: Vaccines Edition”
That's one of the problems, yes
Content moderation at scale is impossible to do well, and that’s not a Facebook issue, it’s a societal one.
Or, in this case, a ‘limits of technology’ problem.
When you’ve got two sides arguing about the same topic(in this case those that are correct vs nurgle cultists) then odds are good they’re going to be using a lot of the same language, with the difference being the context of how the terminology is being used, and as many articles on TD have made clear over the years ‘context’ is simply beyond automated filters currently, and likely will remain that way until AI tech becomes a lot more advanced.
Add in societal(and potentially legal) pressures to ‘Do Something’ resulting in ‘shoot first, ask only if it comes up’ CYOA-style moderation and while ‘they blocked the good while letting the bad through’ is humorous in a slightly warped way it’s not too surprising, as eventually the timing for such a ‘match’ was bound to come up.
Re: That's one of the problems, yes
And that doesn’t even get into the quagmire of contentious issues where the issue isn’t one of misinformation, but fundamental disagreements about what is desirable. Abortion for example.
Re: Re: That's one of the problems, yes
If a good girl with a gun shoots a bad girl in the foetus, is that murder?
Bravo, sir.
Also, I’m happy to take some heat if any such people need it explain to them again why their (usually) vaccinated asses didn’t see diseases like measles and polio during their own childhood, and why their belief in misleading propaganda puts many others at risk, not just their own spawn.
Also, a mathematical one. It’s pretty much impossible for anything to achieve 100% perfect accuracy on subjective data, given that the results themselves are subjective. But, let’s say that Facebook magically creates a system that is 99.999999% accurate. With the amount of content Facebook receives, that still makes it mathematically certain that some posts will still slip through. Plus, certain that there will be false positives.
Re: Re:
Plus, certain that there will be false positives.
And the harder you try to clamp down on the Anti-Vaxers, the more false positives.
Re: Re:
Fucking braindead idiot
Re: Re: Re:
You mad, bro?
So it's hard
Facebook makes its money off these ads. If it’s impossible to moderate them correctly, what is the public’s recourse? Zuckerberg’s argument for free expression doesn’t cut much ice against the concrete injuries Facebook is causing. Regulation should exist to protect the public until Facebook can solve this problem that you say is impossible to solve.
Re: So it's hard
"Regulate until the impossible is done…" So, you’re saying that public expression should be permanently government-regulated? That doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Re: Re: So it's hard
He appears to be saying that if something’s impossible then regulation will magically make it possible – and that the regulators will not make any mistakes themselves in doing that.
Otherwise, he’s saying that Facebook should be punished for things outside of their control, and he doesn’t see the obvious issues that smaller players will face trying to adhere to the same rules.
Re: So it's hard
Yep. someone is saying things that are getting people killed. But we must punish Facebook for someone elses speech.
Re: Re: So it's hard
"Platforms don’t kill people, PEOPLE kill people."
Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
You seem awfully desperate to tie this in with guns. Are you intelligent enough to understand the many fundamental differences?
Re: Re: Re:2 So it's hard
I would read that as a mickey take on the old pro-gun argument that guns are cuddly, innocent items which only when misused by a "bad person" will kill or harm another. (Of course, it is quite fine for a "good person" to use a gun to kill or harm another so long as the target is "bad", standing on the "good" property, the wrong colour skin if police, or holding a bag of skittles.)
Re: Re: Re:3 So it's hard
"I would read that as a mickey take"
Perhaps, but it’s a silly thing to bring up at all in this context, yet he’s done it twice.
Re: Re: So it's hard
Your argument would hold some weight if we were talking about random post on FB, but we aren’t. We are talking about ads that FB is selling. I think there is a huge distinction.
Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
Considering the number of ads on Facebook, it’s a distinction without a difference.
Also, Facebook isn’t selling ads. They’re selling space for ads.
Re: So it's hard
Find a platform that you like, and do not use Facebook. To do anything else is to try and impose your standards on somebody else.
Re:
Then such regulation will exist until Facebook doesn’t, because the problem will likely never be solved. No system is infallible or free from even implicit biases—not even an algorithm. 100% perfect moderation at the scale of Facebook’s size is improbable to the point of being impossible; it can’t happen no matter how much you tell the nerds to nerd harder.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.
I’ve just about suppressed zombies again, in large part because nearly all the old "accounts" have been resurrected. (IF were ever real, were abandoned for years…) You would however, if had my list, note that almost none of those have made a second comment. It’s exactly as though Techdirt doesn’t want the suspicious long gaps seen. — If don’t agree, then state some other reason consistent with dozens of "accounts" out for just one comment after 3-4-5-6-7-8 year gaps.
The resurrections almost never last long. … Except for "Scary Devil Monastery" which made one comment, waited over 5 years to make a second, then took off at over 1000 a year! Anyone new, just go look at the 5 year gap after first of "Scary Devil Monastery" (easy way is on 2nd page, adjust the number up to total – 20):
https://www.techdirt.com/user/perge74
The "SDM" account is one of my best proofs. After total absence for FIVE YEARS, it turns out ardent Techdirt fanboy, vicious anti-dissent! You cannot explain those FACTS as other than astro-turfing.
And of course, actually "SCM" is Timothy Geigner, who also does the ultra-fanboy "Gary" account, apparently with Masnick’s permission. Way back, Masnick called Geigner Techdirt’s "comment enforcer", and clearly still is.
Anyhoo, today it’s "Internet Copy Editor": 3 comments total, (1 per year), out after 40 month gap; begun Mar 18th, 2016
Re: Re: Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.
Yes, taking the pills the nice men in white give you is a good thing.
Re: Re: Hey, Blue Balls
And of course, actually "SCM" is Timothy Geigner, who also does the ultra-fanboy "Gary" account
Wave Hiya buddy! How goes your quest to purge the mid-west of the jews?
Re: Re:
Not everyone stays on Techdirt 24/7 like you do, Blue Balls.
Re: Re: Re: Late in every way...
He’s a bit late today actually, been busy yelling at the kids trick’n’treating that they are breaking copyright by looking like well-known figures whose IP is owned by corporations.
Re: Re: Hey, what's vaccine against ZOMBIES? -- EXPOSURE.
"The "SDM" account is one of my best proofs. After total absence for FIVE YEARS, it turns out ardent Techdirt fanboy, vicious anti-dissent! You cannot explain those FACTS as other than astro-turfing."
Except it’s fairly explainable due to me moving, switching jobs, having a real life or otherwise taking a hiatus from the online environment.
A FACT would be that astroturfing through an account in hiatus dormant for a few years is a very VERY inefficient way to astroturf.
But do go on, Bobmail, and repeat the same tired old attempts to marginalize people who happen not to agree with you when your arguments keep failing.
"Except for "Scary Devil Monastery" which made one comment, waited over 5 years to make a second, then took off at over 1000 a year!"
Except that way back then I was as prolific in posting as I am now, although mainly on torrentfreak…so just keep talking out of your ass, Bobmail.
Re: So it's hard
Facebook isn’t causing anything here.
What is the public’s recourse?
Err… to which public do you refer?
Any public should engage in counter-speech, critical thinking, and using evidence to make decisions. Also, ignoring advertising would be a massive boon to mankind in any case.
How are regulations going to protect them? Are you part of the dangerous "do something" crowd? Who is supposed to protect us from you? (Maybe you should see about having concrete and attainable regulations reinstated and properly enforced – like the ones which have served well until government after government has stripped them away. Please start with federal and state EPA regs if you are getting into that.)
Re: Re: So it's hard
However, that does not mean Facebook is not a problem.
Re: Re: Re: So it's hard
Perhaps. I’m unconvinced that it’s a significant problem that could or should be solved by the government getting involved.
Re: Re: Re:2 So it's hard
I agree, but FB is still a problem.
Re: Re: Re:3 So it's hard
Fair enough.
Not about moderation but bad journalism
This seems more like a problem with gotcha journalism rather than content moderation. Facebook made a mistake and then corrected it. I dislike Facebook as much as the next person, but they eventually sorted it out.
The Daily Beast on the other hand, is trying to blow up a non-story. Their scoop is that people make mistakes. If they want to show how Facebook is evil they can easily find better examples. This is just lazy journalism. This is yet one more example of journalists going for an easy story rather than doing the work to look at the more troubling ways that Facebook is impacting society but are more difficult to write about.
Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism
"gotcha journalism"
What? … Not this nebulous phrase again.
Was this part of an interview where crafted questions are asked intended to trip up the interviewee? You know … like "What magazines do you read?" Tricky questions are hard to answer when you lie all the time and do not know what reality is anymore.
Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism
If nobody had written about the mistake, would it have been corrected?
Re: Re: Not about moderation but bad journalism
This is a valid point. They likely would not have made the change if only the advertisers complained. From the article it does not look like Facebook has a good way to appeal these decisions. The authors of the article focus primarily on the bad decisions rather than how Facebook could improve the process. The authors still focus on the part that will attract the most attention rather than the bigger issue of how to fix the mistakes that Facebook admits happened.
you’ll never stop those who dont understand or even WANT to understand something like this! all they see is what THEY WANT and everything else is completely ignored. that not only includes all the harm that their desire(s) will cause but there is no intention to even want to mend what they screw up. considering, yet again, the aim is to take something away from ordinary people, ie, the use of the internet and give, yet again, control of something else to those who have the most to hide, that is governments, politicians, the rich, the famous, the elite and all their friends!! being in control of us is not only the ‘name of the game’, it is their priority. heaven forbid if we have/keep something that those above cant use against us but is not usable by us for our benefit, regardless of whether it is against ‘them’ or not!!
If they are too big to moderate, then they are just too big. It’s just like if a bank is too big to fail, then you either have to regulate closely so failure is less likely or break it up.
Re: Re:
How do you propose breaking up Facebook?
Geographically? Politically? By age? Favourite colour?
If I’m in one category, how can i maintain friendship links with someone in another? … by finding another service that’s more like Facebook-that-was, and ’round the cycle we go again?
Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
I think Facebook can be broken up…but not by a lynch mob or by direct government action.
Instead, remember "protocols, not platforms"….then….
a) Remove all copyright protection from Facebook (and other primarily user-generated platforms) content
b) Enforce open interface rules on these platforms… so they have some healthy competition and users can switch to smaller platforms with better moderation systems that better match their values and moods.
Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
So give people the choice of handing away their copyright for nothing; or handing it to traditional publishers, if their work is accepted, in the hope of receiving royalties. That is tilting the playing field so far towards the traditional publishers that it becomes a cliff.
Re: Re: Re:2 Breaking up Facebook
Facebook, itself a big publisher, should not own copyright in posts from the public, especially not from a contract of adhesion, and without any kind of marking or acceptance of legal responsibility via section 230.
So Techdirt, I want to explore if taking a copyright should require also taking legal liability for content, and this is the CDA 230 nudge we need to enable small platforms to compete with larger ones? What if, when Craigslist sued a scraper site for copyright, they also took on liability for the illegally discriminatory ads they were carrying?
Re: Re: Re:3 Breaking up Facebook
Read the terms of service, as anybody who posts to Facebook grants them a license to reproduce their posts, to the groups that the poster selects. The poster still has their copyrights in their posts, and can publish them whole and unmodified elsewhere, and make money from their posts without interference or permission from Facebook.
Re: Re: Re:3
CDA 230 was not designed to help the government pick “winners and losers” in re: Internet services. Using it for that purpose would pervert the intent of those who wrote the bill in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:3 Breaking up Facebook
Facebook doesn’t own a copyright in posts from anyone but themselves. They get licenses to your posts, but you still retain the copyright.
Also, removing CDA §230 would only make it harder for small platforms to compete with larger ones.
Re: Re: Re: Breaking up Facebook
The obvious problem is that the only value FB offers is due to its size. If people wanted to leave for a smaller platform, they’d do it (there’s no shortage of social media platforms that might replace it).
Clearly, there’s no interest in a smaller Facebook.
Re: Re:
It’s just like if a bank is too big to fail
False equivalency. If a bank "fails" as you described, it closes and people loose their money.
When Facebook "fails" to moderate a posting or advertisement the damage is incomparable.
That is like saying, "My bank made a mistake on my statement and a teller was rude to me. Since they can’t get this right they should be shut down!"
Re: Re: Re:
My thoughts also.
This is beyond comparing apples to oranges, this is fruit salad.
Re: Re: Re:
A bank can be too big to be allowed to fail. You can thank fractional banking for that and that banks are underwriting each other.
That means that a big bank that fails can gut a lot of other banks, which is why in many cases the government/federal bank (or equivalent) steps in to save it with loans and guarantees.
If you don’t know what fractional banking is, google it – then ponder what happens when a bank loan money from another bank so they can lend it out to others.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rocky I don’t see what that has to do with the comparison?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
(I never got to the punch-line, I got a call and I apparently managed to post it when I left the computer).
Oh, comparing Facebook to banks is just silly because Facebook can fail hard without it financially crippling people since they can just move to another social platform. So it is a false equivalency.
Although, fractional banking as such is a interesting solution with some very dire ramifications when it fails.
Re: Re:
There is no such thing as "too big". Too powerful, sure. But the two are not the not same. Oh, and by the way, sites with less than 1,000 users have trouble with moderation. So tell me, how big is too big?
Microsoft Windows is installed and used on 85% of all desktops/laptops. Windows has the highest malware infection rates of any other operating system and probably the most security bugs and vulnerabilities. They are constantly putting people at risk by not making a 100% safe and secure operating system. So tell me, are they "too big"?
"Platforms don’t defame people, PEOPLE defame people." Same flawed argument used in gun control.
"Auto safety at manufacturing scale is too expensive." In that scenario we don’t allow auto manufacturing.
Content moderation is certainly possible "at scale" but SUBJECTIVE content moderation is not possible at any scale without becoming censorship. Use of terms like "troll" or "incorrect information" on things which are subjective are clear indicators, and especially what constitutes racism, misogyny, etc.
Re: Re:
"In that scenario we don’t allow auto manufacturing."
Incorrect. But, that’s a completely different scenario. Nobody’s saying that Facebook cannot afford to pay for 100% effective moderation at scale, they’re saying that it impossible to achieve at any cost. As you say, once you’re dealing with human subjectivity, it’s censorship and in the eye of the beholder.
To use your auto safety example – we don’t demand 100% perfection from car makers, we demand the best possible effort and when they fail, we judge their reaction to and ability to have prevented any safety issues. People don’t seem to be demanding the same from Facebook, they seem to be demanding flawless perfection with punishment when they inevitably can’t achieve that due to pesky reality getting in the way.
Re: Re: Re:
Love these silly comparisons, but at least this one has automobiles in it.
I wonder … when was the last time FB was subjected to a recall of their defective product(s)?
LOL
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I wonder … when was the last time FB was subjected to a recall of their defective product(s)?"
Never, since they supply the services from their own locations, meaning you have nothing to return to them to fix. Talk about silly comparisons…
Re: Re: Moderation at scale is impossible...
Here’s the crux of the problem:
Moderation is a matter of ranking for both importance and reasonableness in context, including who I am and what is my current state of mind or role….
Given that there are days I want to see what the idiots are up to on 4chan, (or both sides in the vacc/anti-vacc debate), but other days would prefer to ignore those dumpster fires, get vaccinated because i’m not stupid, and do tech stuff and Indian elephant polo scores, how do you moderate that?? (and this goes before someone quotes crap to say how bad it is, sometimes that’s fine, sometimes not).
Sometimes you feel like a nut…sometimes you don’t.
The only real solution involves multiple independent moderation domains that are each themselves reasonably small scale, and giving end users real choices among them.
The context issue is currently unsolved by computers, so moderation will need to be crowdsourced in some sort of average sense.
Re: Re:
Wondering if you could point out some objective content moderation for comparison.
Re: Re:
How is that a flawed argument, as it us people that post to the platforms. If you go down the road that platforms are responsible, you end up requiring that the pre-check all postings, which effectively kills all platforms unless they are posting letters to the editor as an axillary to their man content.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Must be great to be a True Believer
Masnick: "As the story notes, Facebook has (smartly) decided to not allow anti-vax nonsense advertising. It will, of course, allow important pro-vaccination awareness advertising."
Because when you’re a True Believer, any other views are heresy and must be suppressed.
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
Are… you trying to say that it’s the PRO vaccine movement that’s solely based on faith and ignoring opposing arguments? Because science, history, facts and reality would like to disagree with you if so.
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
A large difference exists between a mere questioning of the efficacy and safety of vaccines—which is fine and proper and scientific, even—and anti-vaxxers pushing the dangerous idea that vaccines are inherently and improbably more dangerous to everyone than the diseases those vaccines mean to prevent. You not being able to see that difference is a personal problem; good luck in solving it.
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
Exactly. A parent saying "hey, I’m worried about the safety of vaccines for my child" is fine. A parent saying "I’m worried, so I’ll take the word of random bloggers and celebrities and assert that any doctor who tries to correct me is part of the conspiracy" is not. The former is natural. The latter is dangerous, not only to that parent’s kids, but to everyone around them.
Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
And Jill Stein was saying that WiFi was too dangerous to be used around children in the last election cycle. The anti-vaxers ate it up and claimed she was being scientifical. Everyone who tried to correct her was "sucking up to big pharma" or had some weird motive to point out that her statements were bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:2 Must be great to be a True Believer
Yes, that’s the problem here. As soon as someone believes some pseudoscience, they’re trained to reject the actual science. At least with wifi, the downsides of believing the misinformation don’t include the possibility of maiming and killing children.
Re: Re: Re:3 Must be great to be a True Believer
The larger problem is that everyone is a True Believer when it comes to their views. No one ever concedes anything, and those who control the wires control the flow of information.
Re: Re: Re:4 Must be great to be a True Believer
But at least we can all agree that anti-vaxers are objectively harmful to themselves and others.
Re: Re: Re:4 Must be great to be a True Believer
If no one ever concedes anything (or changes their mind, or accepts new ideas), the flow of information is irrelevant.
Re: Re: Re:4 Must be great to be a True Believer
"The larger problem is that everyone is a True Believer when it comes to their views."
Not true. Take this issue, for example. I base my view that vaccines are vital and that anti-vaxxers are dangerous idiots on history and science. However, if science were to conclude that vaccines were more dangerous than the diseases they prevent, I would change that view.
I’m a "true believer" in reality. these people are believers in fiction. I would change my view based on evidence that challenges my current view. These people have been presented with gigantic levels of evidence, yet they ignore what it says.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
A large difference exists between… safety …and … dangerous…
This is an oxymoron.
If there is a question of safety, then how is that not dangerous?
If there was not a question of safety, then there would be no question of danger.
This is like giving O Positive blood to somebody with a Negative blood type.
Blood transfusions save lives, therefore it is OK to give positive blood to a negative blood type. NO, it not OK.
Neither is it OK to give the drug companies a blank check and a Get Out of Jail Free Card while they give campaign donations to politicians who invest the Congressional retirement fund in Drug companies, or whatever corruption they come up with.
It is NOT OK to ignore WHY the vaccines cause side effects.
And for some of the diseases, I think there are more injuries from the vaccine than from the disease. Those contraband anti-vax websites would have the statistics.
Re: Re: Re: Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
Let me stop you there, THINK. If you bothered to inform yourself you would KNOW that the disease is much worse.
Re: Re: Re:2 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
Here’s the crazy thing, though not what the OP had in mind:
There probably are more injuries from the vaccine from the disease… because if noone is getting the disease, a rare, tiny injury from vaccination means the statement is true.
However, without Vaccination, there would be huge injury from the disease.
Re: Re: Re:3 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
That’s actually what’s sad here. These people have grown up vaccinated against these diseases, as have their peers. Because they’re all immune, the diseases are rare and weak. Generations now have no real first-hand knowledge of kids crippled by polio, maimed by measles or killed by smallpox. Because of that, they think that there’s no real danger from the diseases, and are instead concerned with the more immediate "threat" of the vaccine, however small that might be.
The problem with this is that by the time they have caused enough outbreaks for these preventable diseases to become as virulent as they were a century ago, it won’t be these idiots who suffer. It will be their grandchildren, along with the grandchildren of people who understood how bad their actions were from the beginning. They, being vaccinated, won’t suffer. Their children are at greater risk, but are still protected by herd immunity from children with non-idiot parents. The following generation will be the ones dealing with real disease.
Re: Re: Re:4 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
1) not sure these things get more virulent over time…killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn’t an effective long-term strategy. In fact, making the host sick isn’t really a goal of these microbes, becoming commensal is much more effective to ensure long-term reproduction and survival.
2) The measles outbreaks are happening now. I don’t think we will have to wait for the grandchildren!
Re: Re: Re:5 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
"not sure these things get more virulent over time"
Example: The Plague has several forms and as the disease spreads it can change forms and become much worse, once airborne (Pneumonic plague) is spreads much faster.
"killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn’t an effective long-term strategy"
I doubt microbes take that into consideration. Consider Ebola, it kills quickly and does not seem to care about its long term strategy for survival.
"making the host sick isn’t really a goal of these microbes"
Today I learned that microbes have goals.
Re: Re: Re:6 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
And which is a more successful organism, Ebola or rhinovirus?
Re: Re: Re:7 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
I am not a scientist, but my guess is that organisms which are successful (able to sustain large populations over periods of time) have been made that way via natural selection and their success/demise is not of their own doing.
Re: Re: Re:7 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
"And which is a more successful organism, Ebola or rhinovirus?"
I don’t think anyone caught in an Ebola outbreak really cares whether it’s going to survive long term.
Re: Re: Re:5 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
"1) not sure these things get more virulent over time…killing your host that proceeds to vaccinate isn’t an effective long-term strategy."
That’s true, but death is far from the only negative side effect from these diseases, kids are blinded, there’s evidence that they cause immunity to fail against other diseases, etc. The disease will be fine when the kid is crippled, but humans normally like to avoid that kind of thing.
"2) The measles outbreaks are happening now."
Yes, but these take time to gather momentum. It will take a few decades before they get to the same point as they were a century ago, but it will happen while there’s little disease breeding colonies allowed to thrive.
Re: Re: Re:6 Thinking and believing isn't KNOWING!
Luckily, the measles virus is slow to mutate, so we’ll probably not see a new version spread frum the cultists’ bioreactors as a new plague.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
"the dangerous idea that vaccines are inherently and improbably more dangerous to everyone than the diseases those vaccines mean to prevent."
This is an admission that vaccines are inherently dangerous.
Vaccines are not nutrients.
Vaccines consist of pathogens and toxins.
Vaccines stimulate the immune system.
Because the immune system thinks vaccines are inherently dangerous.
The immune system is a host defense system comprising many biological structures and processes.
In order to do a valid risk assessment, you must compare many biological structures and processes, not just one process such as a rash.
The skin is an organ of elimination, so a rash is a manifestation of the body ridding itself of pathogens and toxins.
But the immune system is comprised of other biological systems besides the skin — the digestive system and the central nervous system, for example.
What do vaccines do to those systems?
What do vaccines do to the genetic makeup of the host?
An organ transplant changes the genetic makeup of the host.
So does a bone marrow transplant.
What does the chicken and monkey genetic material do to the host?
Is brain damage better than a rash?
Re: Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
I’m not going to address everything you’re talking about as I frankly don’t have the time or patience to do so. However, there’re some fundamental flaws with what you’re talking saying.
How? Where in that does it say that they are inherently dangerous? And at any rate, everything has an inherent nonzero level of danger. We just have to compare the danger it poses to the danger posed by the alternative in order to make a reasoned decision. You can’t just say, “This is at least somewhat dangerous. Therefore, I should avoid it,” if avoiding that thing is even more dangerous.
Did you know that nutrients can be dangerous, too? It’s all about the dosage and underlying conditions. There are people who are allergic to oxygen and sunlight. And too much oxygen or sunlight can actually kill you. This statement is completely meaningless.
That’s kind of the point. Vaccines essentially act like target boards that the immune system uses to practice for the real thing.
Also, the immune system can be pretty overprotective. That’s why we get allergies and autoimmune disorders, and why organ rejection is a problem. It often perceives a threat where none exists (or way out of proportion from the threat actually posed).
Please explain where anyone said that anyone was only using a rash as part of a risk assessment.
Nothing worth noting (outside of certain individuals with allergies to the vaccine or something).
First of all, the only way the nervous system is even involved in the immune system is in regulating it. The nervous system itself isn’t actually part of the immune system.
Second, the thing is that outside of the lymphatic and circulatory systems, the rest of the immune system only serves to prevent diseases from entering the circulatory system in the first place. Almost all vaccines are injected, thus bypassing the rest of the immune system entirely to skip straight to the white blood cells. Oral vaccines would interact with the digestive system as well, but I don’t think we even use those any more.
Again, outside of certain individuals with a preexisting condition (namely a weakened immune system in this case) the answer is really nothing at all. The only genetic information contained in the vaccine is that of the dead and/or weakened virus(es), and your body will quickly dispose of them.
No, but a rash is a far more likely (though still rare) reaction to have to a vaccine than brain damage, so it’s pretty much irrelevant.
Re: Must be great
JDL, thanks for your regularly scheduled anti-science post. You are in part responsible for measles making a comeback – stand proud!
Re: Re: Must be great
I’m more worried about polio
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
Would you like some measles?
Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
I believe this post was meant as a joke post but that obviously failed looking at the responses.
Re: Re: Must be great to be a True Believer
"I believe this post was meant as a joke post but that obviously failed looking at the responses."
Poe’s Law. When you try to make a parody of the irrational all you come off as is as a bona fide sample of the original.
Re: Re: Re:
See also: "I was only pretending to be stupid!"
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Too true. There’s no need at all to come up with even more insane ways to imitate the trolls – they’ll do that entirely on their own anyway.
The winning argument here, however, seems to be that it’s up to the government to create a neutral, free-speech portal, but since people would use that to criticize the government…
Re: Re:
Such a portal would be overrun with the kind of posts you see on 4chan’s /b/ in short order—or, even worse, the kind of posts you see on /pol/.
Re: Re: Re:
Along with a few other posts that would never see the light of day, as on USENET.
Still the only way to have true free speech. A simple posting tax (even 0.0001 or whatever) could offset the costs by reducing traffic.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, yeah. We get it, you’re an old dude who can’t get out of the past.
No it’s not. No one is stopping you from starting up your own blog and saying whatever you want.
Pfft! You call that "free" speech? Did you miss the part where the government can’t interfere in freedom of speech?
Re: Winning argument
Nope…
The gubmn’t should enable competition to allow smaller platforms to thrive….by dropping copyright in many cases and requiring interoperability.
Re: Re: Winning argument
That won’t work out the way you think it will. I’m guessing you never played any sport or game where it was necessary to look beyond just your current move and the next one.
If Facebook were to open up its data on the API it already has to any and all comers absolutely nothing would change. Facebook would still be just as big as they are. There may be countless little social networks popping up using FB’s API but FB would just as likely block those sites from adding messages and content to FB’s database. Nobody on FB would ever see that content and those little sites would languish in obscurity.
Interoperability will solve absolutely nothing.
Re: Re: Re: Winning argument
"Interoperability will solve absolutely nothing"
… except maybe the problems we have due to a lack of interoperability?
Because when you’re a truth believer, views not supported by evidence are hearsay.
Re: Re:
Gah – meant that to be a reply to JdL
Re: Re:
"Because when you’re a truth believer, views not supported by evidence are hearsay."
Views != Fact
When you state your views as though they were fact, you should expect some push back.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Rep. Bill Posey
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/10/zuckerberg-hearing-anti-vaxx-question-and-ads/600577/
“Are you 100 percent confident that vaccines pose no injury to any person on this planet?”
That was a real question asked today by Bill Posey, a congressman representing Florida’s Eighth District, to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.
At the hearing, Posey said, “The federal government has created a vaccination trust fund that has paid out over $4 billion to compensate those who have been injured by vaccinations.”
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/facebook-ceo-grilled-on-anti-vaccine-content
“I support vaccinations of children and adults, but I also support open and frank communication about the risks of vaccination,” Posey told Zuckerberg. “You testified that you believe in giving people a voice. Is Facebook able to assure us it will support users’ fair and open discussions and communications about the risks as well as the benefits of vaccinations?”
…
Posey responded by asking whether Zuckerberg is positive that vaccines don’t pose health risks.
“I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to be 100 percent confident but my understanding of the scientific consensus is that it’s important that people get their vaccines,” he responded.
Posey concluded his line of questioning by telling Zuckerberg that many of the people harmed by Facebook’s policy are parents of disabled children, and that he doesn’t think the government or Facebook “should be so quick to turn our backs on them.”
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4825322/user-clip-vaccination
Re: Rep. Bill Posey
I’m sure he could have just said "I don’t know how vaccines work", and "I get all my information from 4chan", and got the same information across with less effort.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
Who are you referring to— Posey or Zuckerberg?
Re: Rep. Bill Posey
I doubt that aspirin is 100% safe. Why is the antivax cult demanding 100% safety? Even water is bad for you in large quantities, is there an anti-water cult making all sorts of silly claims? That dihydrogen monoxide can kill you dude!
Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
Aspirin? Reye’s Syndrome, ulcers, whatever.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
Well, I, for one, want 100% safety in my vaccine. And what does aspirin and water have to do with vaccines? That is not the topic here.
Re: Re: Re: Rep. Bill Posey
You are correct, aspirin and water are not the topic here – one hundred percent safety in medications is the topic here. My question is why does anyone demand one hundred percent safety from anything – that is simply not going to happen.
You could have a perfect whatever pill that solves your ailment but you choke on it whilst swallowing …. not 100% safe is it?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That’s great. Let me know when you start your company that can guarantee 100% safety in vaccines. If you live long enough and don’t contract the measles and die before then.
The topic is 100% safety. The reason why water and aspirin were brought up is because neither of them is 100% safe. You can die from ingesting too much water, you can drown in it, etc… Here’s the list of side effects of aspirin:
You can die from a number of conditions on that list. That doesn’t exactly sound 100% safe to me.
Re: Re: Re:
You’re not going to get it. All drugs have a risk of side effects, even if the effects are ultimately mild.
It’s almost as if human biology isn’t 100% consistent across all of humanity and everyone will react differently to everything from aspirin to the MMR vaccine. Imagine that~.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Package Inserts
http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts.htm
Package Inserts and Manufacturers for some US Licensed Vaccines and Immunoglobulins
https://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf
M-M-R® II
(MEASLES, MUMPS, and
RUBELLA VIRUS VACCINE LIVE)
ADVERSE REACTIONS
The following adverse reactions are listed in decreasing order of severity, without regard to causality,
within each body system category and have been reported during clinical trials, with use of the marketed
vaccine, or with use of monovalent or bivalent vaccine containing measles, mumps, or rubella:
Body as a Whole
Panniculitis; atypical measles; fever; syncope; headache; dizziness; malaise; irritability.
Cardiovascular System
Vasculitis.
Digestive System
Pancreatitis; diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea.
Endocrine System
Diabetes mellitus.
Hemic and Lymphatic System
Thrombocytopenia (see WARNINGS, Thrombocytopenia); purpura; regional lymphadenopathy;
leukocytosis.
Immune System
Anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions have been reported as well as related phenomena such as
angioneurotic edema (including peripheral or facial edema) and bronchial spasm in individuals with or
without an allergic history.
Musculoskeletal System
Arthritis; arthralgia; myalgia.
Arthralgia and/or arthritis (usually transient and rarely chronic), and polyneuritis are features of infection
with wild-type rubella and vary in frequency and severity with age and sex, being greatest in adult females
and least in prepubertal children. This type of involvement as well as myalgia and paresthesia, have also
been reported following administration of MERUVAX II.
Chronic arthritis has been associated with wild-type rubella infection and has been related to persistent
virus and/or viral antigen isolated from body tissues. Only rarely have vaccine recipients developed
chronic joint symptoms.
Following vaccination in children, reactions in joints are uncommon and generally of brief duration. In
women, incidence rates for arthritis and arthralgia are generally higher than those seen in children
(children: 0-3%; women: 12-26%),{17,56,57} and the reactions tend to be more marked and of longer
duration. Symptoms may persist for a matter of months or on rare occasions for years. In adolescent girls,
the reactions appear to be intermediate in incidence between those seen in children and in adult women.
Even in women older than 35 years, these reactions are generally well tolerated and rarely interfere with
normal activities.
Nervous System
Encephalitis; encephalopathy; measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE) (see
CONTRAINDICATIONS); subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE); Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS);
acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (ADEM); transverse myelitis; febrile convulsions; afebrile
convulsions or seizures; ataxia; polyneuritis; polyneuropathy; ocular palsies; paresthesia.
Encephalitis and encephalopathy have been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of
M-M-R II or measles-, mumps-, and rubella-containing vaccine administered since licensure of these
vaccines.
The risk of serious neurological disorders following live measles virus vaccine administration remains
less than the risk of encephalitis and encephalopathy following infection with wild-type measles (1 per
1000 reported cases).{58,59}
In severely immunocompromised individuals who have been inadvertently vaccinated with measlescontaining
vaccine; measles inclusion body encephalitis, pneumonitis, and fatal outcome as a direct
consequence of disseminated measles vaccine virus infection have been reported (see
CONTRAINDICATIONS). In this population, disseminated mumps and rubella vaccine virus infection have
also been reported.
There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have a
history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may
have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination.
Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles
vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed. This is far less than the association
with infection with wild-type measles, 6-22 cases of SSPE per million cases of measles. The results of a
retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest
that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing measles with its
inherent higher risk of SSPE.{60}
Cases of aseptic meningitis have been reported to VAERS following measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccination. Although a causal relationship between the Urabe strain of mumps vaccine and aseptic
meningitis has been shown, there is no evidence to link Jeryl Lynn™ mumps vaccine to aseptic
meningitis.
Respiratory System
Pneumonia; pneumonitis (see CONTRAINDICATIONS); sore throat; cough; rhinitis.
Skin
Stevens-Johnson syndrome; erythema multiforme; urticaria; rash; measles-like rash; pruritis.
Local reactions including burning/stinging at injection site; wheal and flare; redness (erythema);
swelling; induration; tenderness; vesiculation at injection site; Henoch-Schönlein purpura; acute
hemorrhagic edema of infancy.
Special Senses — Ear
Nerve deafness; otitis media.
Special Senses — Eye
Retinitis; optic neuritis; papillitis; retrobulbar neuritis; conjunctivitis.
Urogenital System
Epididymitis; orchitis.
Other
Death from various, and in some cases unknown, causes has been reported rarely following
vaccination with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines; however, a causal relationship has not been
established in healthy individuals (see CONTRAINDICATIONS). No deaths or permanent sequelae were
reported in a published post-marketing surveillance study in Finland involving 1.5 million children and
adults who were vaccinated with M-M-R II during 1982 to 1993.{61}
Under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, health-care providers and manufacturers are
required to record and report certain suspected adverse events occurring within specific time periods after
vaccination. However, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has established a
Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) which will accept all reports of suspected events.{49}
A VAERS report form as well as information regarding reporting requirements can be obtained by calling
VAERS 1-800-822-7967.
Re: Package Inserts
Cool. Just like every medication, vaccines have a list of possible issues associated with them, to be taken into account with your doctor (not some random blogger) when deciding what’s medically best.
Now, compare that to this:
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/measles/complications/
Common complications
More common complications of measles include:
diarrhoea and vomiting, which can lead to dehydration
middle ear infection (otitis media), which can cause earache
eye infection (conjunctivitis)
inflammation of the voice box (laryngitis)
infections of the airways and lungs (such as pneumonia, bronchitis and croup)
fits caused by a fever (febrile seizures)
Uncommon complications
Less common complications of measles include:
liver infection (hepatitis)
misalignment of the eyes (squint) if the virus affects the nerves and muscles of the eye
infection of the membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord (meningitis) or infection of the brain itself (encephalitis)
Rare complications
In rare cases, measles can lead to:
serious eye disorders, such as an infection of the optic nerve, the nerve that transmits information from the eye to the brain (this is known as optic neuritis and can lead to vision loss)
heart and nervous system problems
a fatal brain complication known as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), which can occur several years after measles (this is very rare, occurring in only 1 in every 25,000 cases)
Measles in pregnancy
If you’re not immune to measles and become infected while you’re pregnant, there’s a risk of:
miscarriage or stillbirth
your baby being born prematurely (before the 37th week of pregnancy)
your baby having a low birth weight
If you’re pregnant and think you have come into contact with someone with measles and you know you’re not immune, you should see your GP as soon as possible.
Re: Re: Package Inserts
It’s amusing (but not surprising) that the method these liars use to claim harm from vaccines is identical to the process that frauds, I mean homeopaths, use to claim their quackery is effective.
"X happened sometime around when I took Y, therefore X caused Y!"
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
"It’s amusing "
It would be amusing if it were only themselves they were damaging. At least homeopaths don’t normally harm people outside of themselves and their own children.
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
The drinking bleach one almost unbelievable, who in their right mind would even consider doing such a stupid thing?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Way too many people:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/the-fda-warns-not-to-drink-bleach-in-case-you-needed-that-reminder/
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
There’s overlap.between bleach cronkers amd antivaxxers. One of the motivators for "parents" strapping their children to their beds and forcing bleach into them is the false claim that doing so can cure autism.
(In reality it only psychologically traumatizes them and dissolves their intestines)
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
idk, sounds like child abuse to me.
Re: Re: Re:6
It is child abuse.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
????
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
Head On! Apply directly to the forehead!
It was 99.9999998 percent WAX.
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
Placebo power!!!!
Re: Re: Re:3 Package Inserts
I recall that studies have found that homeopathic remedies are the only thing besides nothing that is less effective than administering a placebo.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Package Inserts
Why did you post a UK website instead of the US CDC website?
Are things different across the pond?
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
PaulT hails from the UK. Therefore, he naturally looks at the UK site.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Package Inserts
There is beginning to be a problem with your suggestion.
Google:
california vaccine medical exemptions doctors
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Package Inserts
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/hcp/index.html
Treatment
There is no specific antiviral therapy for measles. Medical care is supportive and to help relieve symptoms and address complications such as bacterial infections.
Severe measles cases among children, such as those who are hospitalized, should be treated with vitamin A. Vitamin A should be administered immediately on diagnosis and repeated the next day.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or, you can get vaccinated against measles and never get it in the first place. Sounds like a much better option to me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
People are afraid of the side effects, and there is no motivation for the drug companies to make them safer.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
And I’m afraid of spiders, yet the vast majority of them are harmless to me and actually help control the local mosquito population. Just because people are afraid of something doesn’t mean anything other than they are afraid of it. People are afraid of vaccines for no good reason.
Uh, yeah, there is. It’s called "losing a lot of money" otherwise. If the vaccines aren’t relatively safe then A) they won’t get approved by the FDA to begin with, B) they will get fined and/or shut down by the FDA, and C) they will be subject to a class action lawsuit and/or criminal investigation costing them, at best, millions or billions of dollars, and at worst criminal charges and going to jail. They have PLENTY of incentive to make them as safe as possible. If they aren’t at least reasonably safe, why hasn’t the entire vaccinated population of America (hell, the world) dropped dead yet?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
" C) they will be subject to a class action lawsuit and/or criminal investigation"
Nobody can sue the drug companies – Pay attention.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Yes, they can. Especially if they have evidence they were harmed by the drug companies. What on earth gave you the idea they were immune to lawsuits? I can cite several if you want proof.
I was. Obviously you were not.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
"Nobody can sue the drug companies
Yes, they can. Especially if they have evidence they were harmed by the drug companies."
You cannot sue a drug company for a vaccine injury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Injury_Compensation_Program
The Office of Special Masters of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, popularly known as "vaccine court", administers a no-fault system for litigating vaccine injury claims. These claims against vaccine manufacturers cannot normally be filed in state or federal civil courts, but instead must be heard in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, sitting without a jury.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruesewitz_v._Wyeth
Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a section of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
That’s because vaccines do not, by themselves, cause injury.
Regardless of that, if vaccine makers are found to be deliberately not taking proper precautions to make sure the vaccines they produce are safe and do not contain too high levels of impurities, they ABSOLUTELY can be sued because that’s deliberate intent and against the law.
The FDA can also sue them for negligence and fine them and/or shut them down. Drug companies are in no way immune to lawsuits.
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
So, there is no medical treatment for measles after you get it, meaning it’s very hard if not impossible to cure. Furthermore, measles can cause additional complications and can be very severe.
By contrast, in addition to many being mild, the side effects from the vaccine for measles are pretty easy to treat and almost never have long-term effects. In addition, it prevents measles, thus getting the vaccine all but ensures the previous issues will never come up.
So basically, get the vaccine.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
Are you a doctor?
People are afraid of the vaccine.
People have applied for compensation for injuries from the Vaccine Court.
They don’t trust the ingredients, safety studies, reporting of side effects, and the fact that the doctors don’t inform people of the side effects before they are given.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Why does it matter?
Irrelevant. Nobody cares. People are scared of all kinds of stuff. A lot of which is harmless.
Also irrelevant. Many have been denied compensation due to lack of evidence that vaccines caused the injuries.
That just means they are a bunch of uneducated idiots. You are more likely to die in car crash than you are to have any negative side effects from getting vaccinated. Yet people aren’t screaming their heads off that we should junk all the cars and go back to the horse and buggy days. (Well, maybe the Amish.)
This is blatantly false. It is required by law that doctors inform patients of the side effects before administering any vaccine. They even give you a fact sheet that has all the side effects listed on it before sticking you. And generally doctors aren’t the ones giving you the vaccines, it’s nurses.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
"It is required by law that doctors inform patients of the side effects before administering any vaccine."
False
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? Or are you just in denial about what the federal regulations say?
Re: Re: Re:3 Package Inserts
I’m an autistic person who has been vaccinated. You could say that I have experience from the other side of the equation. But unless you are a doctor, I don’t see how that’s remotely relevant.
That fear is irrational, as I’ve already explained.
Well, that doesn’t actually matter unless they actually won compensation. Any moron on the street could apply for compensation for injuries from vaccines. That doesn’t mean that their claims have any merit.
That really says more about them than the vaccines. If they don’t trust any of those, I’m not sure what to tell them. It doesn’t sound like they’d trust any evidence that doesn’t conform with their preconceived notions. But that’s not my problem.
As for the bit about doctors not informing people of the side effects, that is either a lie or, if true, grounds for a lawsuit. Doctors are required to inform their patients of any side effects of any medications they administer, including vaccines, beforehand by law and under medical ethics.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Package Inserts
"Any moron on the street could apply for compensation for injuries from vaccines."
False – There is a Statute of Limitations and you have to find a lawyer who is willing to take the case.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Actually, you can represent yourself, not that you should, but there are plenty of lawyers willing to take such a case, unfortunately. Also, the statute of limitations is kind of irrelevant if the moron on the street brings the case within the statute of limitations.
Re: Re: Re:5 Package Inserts
Uhhh… that doesn’t actually refute what I just said.
The statute of limitations doesn’t impose any restrictions on who can apply for compensation; only when they can do so. Even a moron on the street can apply for compensation within the statute of limitations.
Plus, I said that anyone can apply for compensation. I never said anything about how successful the application would be. In other words, my statement could be read to include anyone who could apply for compensation, regardless of whether or not the application has any merit whatsoever, including cases where the alleged wrong falls outside the statute of limitations.
First, they could file their claim pro se, without a lawyer. True, a claim filed pro se is substantially less likely to succeed, but again, my statement says nothing about the likelihood of success. All that matters is that the claim could be filed, not whether or not the claimant would win.
Second, as we’ve seen in many cases reported on this site, even a moron on the street can get a lawyer willing to take the case, even if the case has no merit.
Look, I was addressing this particular claim:
This statement says nothing about whether the applications were filed with a lawyer or pro se, whether or not they were within the statute of limitations, whether or not they were otherwise deficient on their face, whether or not the claimed injuries were proven or not, or whether or not causation was proven or not. In other words, you said nothing about their success or likelihood of success, or even anything about the merits of the applications. You may have tried to use it as evidence that vaccines cause injuries, but if so, that is simply insufficient. (You also said nothing about how numerous these applications are.)
To demonstrate the insufficiency of the statement (which you offer no evidence for, but it’s probably true), I said:
Your response doesn’t address this point, really. While failing to apply within the statute of limitations or not having a lawyer to represent the claimant may suggest that the claim has little or no chance to succeed, that only proves my point. Your original statement did not exclude people with little to no chance to succeed. People can file a claim that has absolutely no chance to succeed.
Your original statement would still be accurate even if exactly two people have applied for compensation for alleged injuries allegedly caused by vaccines, neither of whom had a lawyer, both filed outside the statute of limitations, neither of whom had actually suffered any injury from any cause whatsoever, neither of whom had ever actually been vaccinated, and neither of whom prevailed. It is extremely broad and completely meaningless.
But fine. Let’s restrict the applicable cases to those filed with a lawyer within the statute of limitations. That still doesn’t disprove my main point. Sure, maybe not just any moron on the street would be able to file an application that falls within these restrictions, but that doesn’t raise the bar much higher than that.
Even under these new conditions, the statement would still be true if at least two people applied for compensation for alleged injuries allegedly caused by a vaccine, had at least one lawyer representing them (it could be the same lawyer for each), and filed within the statute of limitations, even if none actually suffered any injury at all from any source whatsoever, if none had ever been vaccinated at any point in their lives, and/or the alleged injuries were not or could not possibly be caused by any vaccine or the particular vaccine at issue. It’s also still true even if every petitioner lost on every claim.
That’s not enough to prove that there are people who have been injured by vaccines. That’s not even enough to prove that there are people who think they have been injured by vaccines. It certainly doesn’t prove that the harm caused by vaccines matches or exceeds the benefits of being vaccinated by any measure.
To be clear, this particular comment is not saying anything about the actual truth or falsehood of any particular claim or allegation. I am sure that there exists at least one person out there who was genuinely injured by a vaccine, where compensation was sought and obtained for that injury. All that I’m saying is that, even if I accept everything you’re saying as true, without more, this particular claim is completely and utterly meaningless. There are few conceivable and/or possible scenarios where that statement would be false. It proves essentially nothing.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Package Inserts
"Doctors are required to inform their patients of any side effects of any medications they administer, including vaccines"
False
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Actually, TRUE. Care to try and dispute the federal regulations?
Re: Re: Package Inserts
Result found: Grossly negligent and corrupt "Doctor" Tara Zanvliet now facong punishment for selling fraudulent exemptions to trash.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state is causing problems.
Google: "Thorn Schwartz" vaccines
Thorn Schwartz, 11, who is severely autistic, is not allowed to go to school anymore, according to his parents. That’s because his school district. The family is now suing the school and the state commissioner of health.
In June after an outbreak of measles, … in … New York City, the state repealed the religious exemption for vaccines. But lawmakers said they didn’t change the medical exemption. The Schwartz family wants state Supreme Court to suspend the denial so Thorn can go back to school…
On Sept. 9, the Schwartzes got a letter from the school principal that said the BOCES doctor reviewed Thorn’s exemption and ruled it is “not consistent” with guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control…
“I also object,” writes Kerri, “to a doctor who does not know Thorn being able to decide what his body can or cannot tolerate, or what is in his best interest medically… There is no way a doctor who has never met Thorn or at least talked with Dr. Ostrander can make a decision about the effect that vaccines could have on Thorn.”
…
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
Google: "Thorn Schwartz" vaccines
Funny how you leave out the part that there is no actual medical reason preventing Thorn from being vaccinated against measles.
"His parents feel it might be a bad idea" is not a medical opinion.
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
"The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state "
Never mind the micromanagement by the fed and insurance cos.
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
Funny,
Pretty much sums up Ms. Zandvliet’s gross negligence – granting phony exemptions to patients she never examined and all.
Re: Re: Re:3 Package Inserts
"Immunocompromised" amd "Has had severe allergic reaction to components used in a vaccine" are on the list of medically valid reasons to offer an exemption from vaccinations.
"Her father’s half-brother has asthma"
"She’s had been vaccinated with no ill effect"
"He has autism"
"Her parents paid me $180 in cash"
(All are real antivaxxer excuses) Are notably absent from that list.
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
What, is he going to get more autism?
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
Well, if the medical reasons given did not include “allergic reaction to vaccines” or “immune deficiency” or something like that, then there is absolutely no medical reason not to get the vaccine.
If there is a legitimate medical reason that Thorn should not take the vaccine, that should have been included in the form for his exemption. That is, the form should have included all the information needed for a doctor who has not personally met Thorn or spoken to his doctor to independently determine that, based on the guidelines from the CDC, Thorn should not be vaccinated. If the reasons given are not consistent with CDC guidelines to exempt someone from vaccines, then the child isn’t exempt. The burden of proof is on the parents/doctor to prove that a vaccination would be likely be more harm than help for the child, and the reasons have to be consistent with science-based medical knowledge.
And by the way, “severe autism” is not a good reason not to get vaccinated. There is no link between vaccines and autism. Plus, I’m pretty sure the theory was that vaccines cause autism. Even if that was true (and it absolutely is not), why would that mean that a person who already has autism shouldn’t be vaccinated?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Package Inserts
"there is absolutely no medical reason not to get the vaccine."
Are you a doctor?
Re: Re: Re:4 Package Inserts
One need not be a doctor to share facts from them.
Re: Re: Re:4 Package Inserts
Irrelevant. I am merely stating what doctors and researchers have said. The only medical reasons to not get vaccinated are immune-deficiency and allergies, as those are the only cases where vaccines have ever been shown to cause any injury that is severe, long-lasting, or both, and the only known causes for an increase in either the chance or severity of adverse effects from vaccines that can be predetermined.
Perhaps you don’t believe me. You want proof. Well, here’s the thing: I am not making a positive claim. If you want to argue about my point, then you’ll have to prove that there is another valid medical reason to not get vaccinated. You have the burden of proof here. If I’m wrong, then it shouldn’t be that hard to prove me wrong. Just find one other medical reason that would be a valid reason to not get vaccinated.
Re: Re: Re:4 Package Inserts
Oh, and by the way, I like how you trimmed that quote to suggest that I said that there is absolutely no medical reason to not get vaccinated, when the entire quote would show that I’m saying that the only valid medical reasons to not get vaccinated are if you’re allergic or have an immune deficiency:
(BTW, that also would include a family history of allergic reactions to the vaccine or one of its ingredients. That would also be a valid medical reason, and it falls within my statement, or at least that was my intention. After all, that would suggest a strong likelihood that the person would also have an allergic reaction to that vaccine.)
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
Notwithstanding that "The micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state" has yet to exist, all the following text works to disprove that claim…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Package Inserts
Huh?
Re: Re: Re:4 Package Inserts
Here is the help you need.
Re: Re: Re:4 Package Inserts
Toom1275 is saying two things about your claim that “micromanagement of doctors and medical exemptions by the state is causing problems.”
1) The implied claim that the state micromanages doctors and medical exemptions is false.
2) Everything else you said in that comment, presumably in order to prove your claim, actually refutes your claim.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Package Inserts
People who have had adverse reactions to vaccines naturally seek doctors who will give out medical exemptions because they specialize in treating the vaccine injured. Since California abolished philosophical and religious exemptions, more people have sought medical exemptions. Many don’t want to actually wait until they are vaccine damaged in order to get medical exemptions. If one child in the family has been damaged, they don’t want to risk having another child damaged.
If I saw a lot of damaged children around me, I wouldn’t want to wait until my child became damaged and then seek a medical exemption. I would want to prevent damages and get a medical exemption BEFORE my child was damaged. Wouldn’t you?
And if a lot of doctors are afraid of giving out medical exemptions, then people who are afraid of side effects seek out doctors who are sympathetic to vaccine damaged children.
In the California hearings, which can be seen on Del Bigtree’s High Wire website, legislative delegates can be seen asking about getting medical exemptions, because the proposed legislation would arbitrarily target doctors who specialized in helping the vaccine injured.
Someone called 50 doctors and asked if they would give medical exemptions, and all said, NO. So these vaccine injured can’t even get medical exemptions for conditions under the CDC guidelines. So what are they supposed to do? Homeschool the children? This was brought up in the legislative hearing?
So the problem that was anticipated has come true very quickly, as you can see from the articles. This doctor has been targeted, and it has a chilling effect on other doctors in the state.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
All doctors can give out medical exemptions. They are just required to do it for valid medical reasons. If someone truly did have an adverse reaction to the vaccine, they would then receive an exemption from it. That is allowed by law. What’s not allowed is "I don’t want it! Nyah!".
But not for valid medical reasons.
If they can provide evidence that their other children would also be damaged by receiving the vaccine then they can get a valid medical exemption. If not, too bad so sad.
I would. But I don’t see a lot of damaged children around me, or in the country in general. Can you point out these high numbers of damaged children that seem to be invisible?
Again, too bad so sad. Being afraid is not a legitimate excuse. You need to have actual physical evidence you or your child would be harmed by a vaccine.
Yes, because in most cases those injuries were not caused by vaccines and were instead caused by other factors.
Probably because they all prefaced their questions with "I’m afraid of vaccines".
This is blatantly false. BY LAW doctors, even under the new rules in California, are required to give out medical exemptions if they have good reason to believe the person receiving the vaccine would have a severe adverse reaction to it.
That is a legitimate option, yes. Or just get the vaccine. There are cases where a child’s immune system is so compromised that they cannot receive a vaccine. In those cases their immune system is so fragile that even catching a cold from another child could kill them. In those cases their parents have to be super careful and actually do homeschool them to limit their exposure. This is a valid reason to be exempted from vaccines.
No, it hasn’t, as I’ve explained. You’re just making stuff up and using questionable sources to make your point.
Which doctor was that? Seers? The guy who got suspended because of malpractice? I have no sympathy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
"BY LAW doctors, even under the new rules in California, are required to give out medical exemptions if they have good reason to believe the person receiving the vaccine would have a severe adverse reaction to it."
Please document this.
There was a video going around, referenced in the CA legislative hearings, where a woman called 50 CA doctors asking if they gave medical exemptions for vaccines, and they all said, No.
If you find a doctor in CA who gives medical exemptions, please let me know his name. I am looking for one.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
SB 276/714 does not prevent any doctor from issuing an exemption that is consistent with the standard of medical care for that condition or consistent with medical guidelines, unless they are on probation, facing accusation, or otherwise contributing to a public health risk in one or more communities.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
I don’t see anything in the CA law that says a physician has to give any medical exemptions to anybody.
Why would they want to – they would be flagged after giving 5 for an entire year. And if they were second-guessed by the system 5 times, then would be busted.
The news is already full of doctors being rounded up and persecuted, just in the last few weeks.
So if you have an at-risk child you can either have them vaccinated and play Russian roulette on whether they will have a seizure and die after being shot up – again – or you can keep them home from school.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB276
SB-276 Immunizations: medical exemptions.(2019-2020)
(2) A clinically trained immunization department staff member, who is either a physician and surgeon or a registered nurse, shall review all medical exemptions from any of the following:
…
(B) Physicians and surgeons who have submitted five or more medical exemptions in a calendar year.
…
(7) The department shall notify the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as appropriate, of any physician and surgeon who has five or more medical exemption forms in a calendar year that are revoked pursuant to this subdivision.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Funny, you left out that part earlier. I wonder why.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Because antivaxxers are incapable of speaking without lying, and lies of omission still count.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
No one is saying that they are required to issue a medical exemption. We’re just saying that they can.
This is presumably based on what you later quote from that law allowing exemptions:
Except that that would only be a problem if the doctor is handing out at least five exemptions in a single year, at least five of which were found to be invalid and were revoked. So long as the doctor only issues exemptions for valid medical reasons, they have nothing to worry about.
In fact, because cases where there is a valid medical reason for not getting a vaccine are rare and most people get vaccinated at most once per year in most years (even if that one time includes multiple vaccines; that could be covered under a single exemption), most doctors wouldn’t ever have a reason to submit five or more medical exemptions in a single year unless they were submitting at least one invalid one that should be revoked. So actually, it makes perfect sense to give doctors who have submitted five or more exemptions over the course of a single year should receive increased scrutiny.
Furthermore, in order for an exemption to be revoked, not only would certain conditions have to be met for the exemption to be reviewed in the first place, but also the exemption would have to be for a nonmedical reason, for a medical reason that does not adequately support an exemption, or for a valid medical reason that is shown to not apply to the patient (this particular one is harder to prove).
So any doctor with one or more patients who have a valid medical reason to not get vaccinated have no good reason not to issue an exemption to such patients. This is especially true for the first four patients. Any doctor who submits five or more medical exemptions in one year should be scrutinized, and any doctor who submits five or more medical exemptions within one year that have been revoked should be busted for it. The former suggests that something unusual is going on, and the latter suggests that the doctor is willing to issue medical exemptions to people who don’t actually need them. And as for “being busted”, that just means the appropriate medical board will be notified about the doctor’s actions; if there is no actual wrongdoing, nothing is keeping the board from taking no action against that doctor.
Contrary to what you said, merely being second-guessed five or more times in a year isn’t enough to get busted; their exemptions would have to actually be revoked, not just get re-examined.
Show us, then. I’d bet that in all of those cases, the doctors issued exemptions for nonmedical reasons, invalid medical reasons, or valid medical reasons that simply don’t apply to that patient.
First of all, only those who have a severe allergy to one or more of the ingredients of a vaccine are going to have a seizure and die from getting that vaccine; even those with immune deficiencies aren’t going to get a seizure from the vaccine; they’ll just get a disease or something (not that that’s not serious or potentially deadly or anything). If they survived getting that same vaccine before despite having had a severe allergic reaction to it, only a truly incompetent or unethical doctor would refuse to issue a medical exemption to that patient.
In fact, if a person has had the same vaccine before, has not acquired an immune deficiency since then, and has survived long enough to get the vaccine again, then unless that person had a major adverse reaction the first time, that person has nothing to worry about. If they had such a reaction the first time, then any competent, ethical doctor would be willing to issue a medical exemption for that person, and that exemption would not be revoked. If they had acquired an immune deficiency since then and are aware of it, then that should be in the medical record and an exemption should be issued by a doctor prior to the second vaccination.
In other words, if a child is legitimately at risk of having a severe adverse reaction to a given vaccine and a doctor is made aware of it, that doctor should be able to do tests to safely prove that the child is at-risk and issue a medical exemption for that child to not receive that vaccine. If a parent genuinely knows that their child is at-risk, and the reason is valid, then they should have absolutely no problem getting a medical exemption from a doctor, and that exemption will not be revoked.
This is a perfectly valid option. In fact, children who are at-risk because they have an immune deficiency probably should be kept home from school, anyway.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Ok: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/about/facts-vis.html
Yeah, because she was looking for INVALID medical exemptions. In other words, she was trying to find someone who would giver her a fake medical exemption when none was warranted. Medical exemptions are still a thing in California
Here you go. However, I would expect you will have to prove that you or your child has a pre-existing medical condition that would make it dangerous for either of you to receive a vaccination and not just a personal belief based on false facts and quack science.
Re: Re: Re:2 Package Inserts
I’ll keep this one brief. There are very, very few valid medical reasons that would justify a medical exemption from getting a vaccine as required by the law to enter a public school. In most of those case, this would be because their immune system is incredibly weak, so they probably shouldn’t attend a public school anyway.
If you can’t get an exemption, and you’re unwilling to get your child vaccinated, then yes, homeschooling is a perfectly reasonable option.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Del Bigtree and High Wire
Del Bigtree has a website called High Wire where anti-vaxers can go instead of going to Facebook and Pinterest or Techdirt.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Thing is, should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us? And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease? Especially when the suppliers of such drugs financially benefit from that assumption and cannot benefit from any possible non-drug treatments that could work just as well, if not better.
For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening. Another question. How many of you know how these diseases they’re meant to prevent are actually contracted? Some require very specific circumstances that most people will never come into contact with. And how many people who administer vaccines actually know what’s in them? How many of you do? Why do you trust the word of large drug companies who financially benefit from these things? And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don’t typically vaccinate?
And don’t go talking about otherwording, these are actual questions, and they deserve to be answered. I’m open to learning more, but these are things I wondered about and which no one seems to address when this topic comes up. They seem to simply assume the majority opinion is correct without doing their own research.
One more question. When was the last time allopathic medicine cured anything? And if the drug companies are so concerned about us, why has medicine devolved to simple symptom management? It’s more profitable than actually curing people, because healthy people don’t need drugs, only sick or supposedly sick people do. So why should we trust an industry that prioritizes their profits over helping people even if it means earning less money?
Re: Re:
[AntivaxC provodes no facts in their Complaint to support their contentions]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
What are you talking about?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Our AC here (to whom Toom1275 has assigned the moniker “AntivaxC”) has made a number of claims, but has offered no factual support for any of them. Toom1275 is just pointing that out.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
It’s the perennial low-hanging fruit I’ve taken to picking on when bored.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Are you an administrator of this website who is authorized to make decisions that mere mortals cannot do?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Are you convinced that your arguments comprosed entirely of nonsequiturs, red herrings, and nearly every other form of logical fallacy would be convincing to anyone with functioning cognition?
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Completely irrelevant.
So “mere mortals” are incapable of deciding that someone fails to support their claim or to give someone a funny and/or insulting nickname? People need authorization to do those things? I’m afraid I don’t see the problem here.
Re: Re:
"And why does no one seem to question the idea that only a drug can treat a disease?"
Because we understand how vaccines actually work.
"For all the talk of kids being harmed by not being vaccinated, no one in this thread has provided any examples of it actually happening."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2019/04/29/measles-is-back-blame-the-anti-vax-movement/
"And how do you explain the general healthiness of the Amish, who don’t typically vaccinate?"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-amish-dont-get-autism/
Also, even if it was true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
"these are actual questions"
Which have been answered ad nauseum every time one of you uneducated idiots ask them instead of looking for the actual answers.
Re: Re:
You have to go back a good few generations to see the effects of no vaccinations, or wait for a major disease outbreak due to the loss of herd immunity.
Re: Re:
"Thing is, should we settle for medicines that can as likely harm us as help us?"
Absolutely not. However in the case of vaccinations, we know for a fact that this is not the case, there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines do much much more good than harm. And even your framing of the question is intellectually dishonest. You are a bad person and should be ashamed.
Re: Re:
The current vaccination rate in America is, what, somewhere around 85%-90%? It used to be higher. By your logic, if vaccines have a 50/50 chance of either preventing disease or causing further harm, then AT A MINIMUM, 45%-50% of the American population should have autism by now. They do not. Therefore we can conclude that vaccines are FAR more likely to have health benefits than causing further harm. (Also there are many studies showing the rate of side effects to be a tiny fraction.)
Have you heard of anti-vaxxers and health nuts? Regardless of those nut jobs, vaccines do not treat a disease, they prevent it. There is currently no other way to prevent a disease other than to vaccinate against it. Treating a disease means you already have the disease and now you’re trying to get rid of it, which is infinitely harder and usually more painful, physically and emotionally. I leave it to you to choose which of those two options are better.
All of us. Seriously, how the diseases spread and contracted are well documented. Are you saying you’ve been living under a rock for the last few decades?
Ebola maybe. Chicken pox, polio, measles, and others like them? Yeah everybody has a chance to encounter those on a daily basis and most of them are spread by skin-to-skin contact or by being airborne. Like measles. EXTREMELY contagious. You can catch it by walking into a room a contagious person was in 30 minutes ago.
Practically all of them, since most of them are medical professionals. But what does that have to do with anything? You don’t have to know the specific chemical composition of a vaccine to inject it into somebody. You just need to know that the syringe contains the vaccine.
Anyone who wants to. The ingredients and composition of vaccines are publicly available to anyone who wants to know.
Because they are required to go through federally mandated testing for chemical composition and impurities to be certified for public use. Also several decades of use have shown that they are safe for the general public.
Well they do actually still get diseases and get sick, but even if they didn’t: herd immunity and isolation.
They have been. Many times. But apparently you are just uneducated since you didn’t know that.
https://www.google.com
Then you either aren’t actually reading the articles on the topic or live in an echo chamber, because they are addressed, constantly.
Because the science was settled years ago. Are you going to argue that gravity isn’t a real thing just because no one in the general public bothers to verify it for themselves?
You asked three more.
Today, yesterday, the day before that, every single day for the last few thousand years. Any more stupid questions?
It hasn’t. There are unfortunately some diseases (like Alzheimer’s, MS, Crohn’s, etc…) that we just don’t understand enough about and about the human body to be able to cure them. The best we can do is manage symptoms. However, there are a LARGE amount of diseases that we can now cure and/or prevent through modern medicine.
No one is saying some drug companies don’t do this, but not all. However, if you think for one second that finding the cure to cancer would not make the first drug company to figure it out wealthier than ANY other company in the world, you are delusional.
You have made an assertion with zero facts to back it up and applied to every single company in said industry. One example proves you wrong. But regardless of this, NOBODY is trusting the drug industry. Nobody. People are trusting independent review and oversight agencies that decide whether the drugs these companies produce are safe for humans and can be publicly sold and administered. Your lack of knowledge of how this all works is telling.
Re: Re:
The only medications in general, approved use that would be as likely to inflict harm as to help us are used to treat diseases that are even worse. The most recent known exception was the overprescription of opioids, but that was an outlier.
As for vaccines, I have never seen evidence that shows any vaccine is as likely to be harmful as it is to be helpful, and you present none.
Simple. Any substance capable of treating a disease is, by definition, a drug.
In all seriousness, we have a ton of scientific research on the topic done over the course of centuries. This has been a pretty well-settled question.
Well, there have been the recent measles outbreaks.
Well, I already explained measles (which can be caught by just about every possible vector one could catch a disease) and polio (which spreads through contaminated food or water). HPV is an STD, so that means sex or a transfer of infected blood. Chicken pox and the flu are known to be highly contagious; the former spreads through skin contact, and the latter is airborne. How’s that?
The only one of those I can think of offhand is HPV, which can cause cancer. Unless the vaccine has a pretty high rate of inflicting serious, incurable harm, I’d say the benefits outweigh the risks.
I can’t say with absolute certainty, but I’d imagine any doctor worth their salt is aware of what’s in them.
Well, it varies from vaccine to vaccine, but I believe that in general, there would be a preservative (like thiomersal), some sort harmless liquid like a saline solution, a sample of weakened and/or dead viruses, and maybe an immune booster.
Of course, anyone who is concerned can always ask what the ingredients are.
I don’t. Although I would like to point out that, since more money can be made from treating a disease than preventing it, the incentives aren’t quite what you think they are.
I do trust the many researchers who’ve studied these vaccines and the diseases they’re meant to prevent. I trust the historical and scientific data and statistics, which show that, in general, the vaccines are far less dangerous than the diseases they are meant to prevent. I trust the FDA (though to a lesser extent) to ferret out the truly dangerous vaccines. I trust the CDC (again, to a lesser extent) to adequately way the risks rationally for the good of the public at large.
This has already been debunked, but to the extent that it is true, it can be explained by herd immunity and isolation.
And they have been. Many times.
Also, since you haven’t exactly made a statement about what we believe, “otherwording” wouldn’t really apply.
Either you weren’t really listening, or they had long gotten tired of answering the same question over and over and over again.
It happens all the time. It’s cured my strep throat and pneumonia on several occasions.
I’d just like to point out that this contradicts the premise of an earlier question, and kinda contradicts itself. The industry “prioritizes their profits…even if it means earning less money“? Do I need to explain how nonsensical that sounds?
As for why medicine has, in many cases, devolved into simple symptom management (an assertion with no evidence, BTW), you answered that yourself: it’s more profitable. I actually mention that in another answer. Also, some diseases simply don’t have a known cure, and we’d need some major advance in medicine to find one.
At any rate, like I said, I don’t trust the drug companies. I certainly don’t expect you to, either.