The Cost of Not Vaccinating

UxoriousMagnus

Pardon?

UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Uhhh....the MMR vaccine is the most insane thing you could put in your body. What is the cost of getting the Measles?....how about what is the cost of getting Autism? You can say all you want that the MMR vaccine isn't causing autism but then you would be a blind fool. The pharma companies are starting to admit it.....the courts are starting to admit it.....when is the dumb'ed down public going to admit it?

Plus you say that you were in the military and had tons of shots and look how great you are?......then you tell us you are on some pretty heavy anti-psychotics ....... uh....yeah...

edit on 10-1-2014 by UxoriousMagnus because: (no reason given)

Why is it "the most insane thing you can put in your body"?



It doesn't matter what I say or anyone SAYS about the MMR causing autism, it's what all of the studies say which is important.
And every single one of them says there is no correlation.
What's the cost of getting measles?
Let's see, meningitis, pneumonia, blindness etc etc.
Why did autism rates still increase when they stopped giving the MMR in Japan?
Why was autism on the increase before the MMR was released?

Can you point out where the pharma companies (or anyone else in medicine) is pointing out that MMR causes autism as that's news to me.
As for the courts saying there are...I think that if you look into them properly you'll find they didn't say they caused autism at all. You have to take time to read the official court transcript though rather than just regurgitate it from an anti-vax site.
Think about it, would you let a lawyer diagnose an illness you had?
Thought not.

..................
no....your right....the pharma companies are looking out for me and my family. They have never done anything unethical and well......thanks for setting me straight there....

Instead of just regurgitating the standard conspiracy mantra, you made statements which I've questioned.
Do yourself some justice by answering them.

Sovaka
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Of course these SELF FUNDED studies will say there isn't a connection or issue.

Otherwise they would be liable for countless civil suits as well as redesigning the vaccination and re-manufacturing of said vaccination.
Millions of dollars later... It's just easier and more profitable to put out something that is dangerous and claim its safe.

Then if anything gets close to the courts about damages, they pay out in settlements at a fraction of a percentage of what they earn.
Which is the better BUSINESS path to follow?

Please take into account their complete lack of morality.

Ah yes, all the self-funded studies which have been blindly accepted and never ever checked at all by anyone else. Ever.
Think about it properly for once instead of just being regurgitant.

Bassago
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

While not an anti-vaccine person I do not really trust the big pharma agenda. Also the results coming out of the vaccine courts show there are problems. How deep the problems go I have no idea.

There are many legitimate arguments to be made against Big Pharma and they do indeed do some very immoral things (withholding valuable trial data that can cost lives, for example) but it is fallacious to use these actions as proof that everything they do and produce is evil.

As for the vaccine courts, these are NOT scientific evidence of causal links between vaccines and autism. Most of the time the courts will award payouts even if the most tenuous, scientifically unsound link is presented. All they need to demonstrate is that there is evidence of some condition and that they were vaccinated. That's it.

The vaccine courts were set up to give pharma companies limited liabilities because pharma companies don't actually want to produce vaccines. They make up less than 1.5% of their profits and aren't something that can be sold with a big mark upand glitzy marketing. It's a public service they are unwilling to provide because they make far more off marketing and producing their commercial products. Costly lawsuits filed against pharma companies would cost them a lot of money to defend, making them simply cease vaccine production all together. By limiting their liability and paying out in vaccine courts based on weak correlation evidence to nip such court cases in the bud allows them to begrudgingly continue their obligated public service.

reply to post by Pardon?


They HAVEN'T been checked or fallen into any double blind study.
Because the FDA does NOT require ANY Pharmaceutical company to do an external test on their products.

As long as the Pharma company can prove they have done their own study to the best of THEIR ability, it's good enough for the FDA.

So why oh why would a profit mongering Pharma company every outsource their product testing when they know it would fail.

By the way, you didn't respond to the latest HPV vaccine and all the "good" it has done.

I wonder why...


Too busy regurgitating what Pharma has told you?

[snip]

Sovaka

Too busy regurgitating what Pharma has told you?
That's okay, we know you do it just to earn a paycheck... But don't worry, we know how to pick you out.
Just go about your business.

We need a version of Godwin's Law that states as soon as a party accuses the other of being on the payroll of [insert shadowy organization here] they automatically lose the argument.

reply to post by GetHyped


Yes because that doesn't benefit anyone on the payroll of any company...

That sounds like a typical payroll employee response...


Jesus are you guys even trying anymore?

Sovaka
reply to post by GetHyped

 

Yes because that doesn't benefit anyone on the payroll of any company...

That sounds like a typical payroll employee response...


Jesus are you guys even trying anymore?

Bro, do you even logic?

reply to post by GetHyped


"Do you even logic"

Wow... Just wow.

Yes I logic... I logic all over the place.

Why would anyone introduce something that would favour only a single party?
Oh I know... Because it will ONLY BENEFIT them.

Are you serious.

C'mon man.

Sovaka
reply to post by GetHyped

 

"Do you even logic"

Wow... Just wow.

That woosh was the joke flying over your head.

Yes I logic... I logic all over the place.

Debatable.

Why would anyone introduce something that would favour only a single party?
Oh I know... Because it will ONLY BENEFIT them.

What on earth are you talking about?

reply to post by GetHyped


You replied to my post in response to another's post about Godwin's law.

Are you not following the conversation or are you just replying for the sake of posts?

GetHyped
We need a version of Godwin's Law that states as soon as a party accuses the other of being on the payroll of [insert shadowy organization here] they automatically lose the argument.

edit on 10-1-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)

An argument where a proposal would only benefit a single party.

Catch up my boy.

reply to post by Sovaka


Accusing people of being on a payroll because you disagree with their opinion is not only infantile and logically void but also only used by those who don't have an argument to stand on. If you don't have the maturity and intellectual integrity to counter an argument with evidence and reason then perhaps social media is not the place for you.

reply to post by GetHyped


When an argument is put forth in the 'PRO' of an argument that has an outstanding contrast of 'CON' without valid proof, with zeal that paramount a fanatic, one can only come to one conclusion.

Either they are bought and paid for, or they don't know the full story.
Either by willful ignorance, lack of knowledge and therefor no base in the argument or they are bought and paid for.

While I agree there are a set of Vaccines that are beneficial... There is plenty of proof that most vaccines that have come out since early 2000's do not have an acceptable "collateral" damage side effect victim tally.

Either by autism, sterility, countless other debilitating issues or even death.

Most of the times when these "advocates" have to relinquish their foothold on the subject to surmounting proof that vaccines cause some serious health issues, they fall back to "Well not everything is perfect and the need of the many out weight the need of the few".
A defeatist argument to save face.

Sovaka
reply to post by Pardon?

 

They HAVEN'T been checked or fallen into any double blind study.
Because the FDA does NOT require ANY Pharmaceutical company to do an external test on their products.

As long as the Pharma company can prove they have done their own study to the best of THEIR ability, it's good enough for the FDA.

So why oh why would a profit mongering Pharma company every outsource their product testing when they know it would fail.

By the way, you didn't respond to the latest HPV vaccine and all the "good" it has done.

I wonder why...


Too busy regurgitating what Pharma has told you?
That's okay, we know you do it just to earn a paycheck... But don't worry, we know how to pick you out.
Just go about your business.

I live in the UK.
The FDA has no jurisdiction here.

There certainly have been independent studies on vaccine safety and efficacy.
And guess what, they ongoing. They never stop.
They're still collating new data from when the MMR was released in the 1960's from millions of patients.
They just won't be referenced on anti-vax sites.
Have a look around for them.

I didn't respond to the HPV as you didn't ask a question.
You just made a sarky comment.
If you want me to answer you, then ask a question.
But to pre-empt you there has been no evidence of serious side effects from the HPV.
sciencenordic.com...

There are loads of stories though.
And loads of law firms on the cases.....
In fact there are plenty of law firms who even have Gardasil in their names!!!
So I wonder who's pushing that side of things eh?


By the way, you didn't respond to my reply to your mercury comment.
Care to elaborate on that?

Sovaka
reply to post by GetHyped

 

When an argument is put forth in the 'PRO' of an argument that has an outstanding contrast of 'CON' without valid proof, with zeal that paramount a fanatic, one can only come to one conclusion.

Either they are bought and paid for, or they don't know the full story.
Either by willful ignorance, lack of knowledge and therefor no base in the argument or they are bought and paid for.

While I agree there are a set of Vaccines that are beneficial... There is plenty of proof that most vaccines that have come out since early 2000's do not have an acceptable "collateral" damage side effect victim tally.

Either by autism, sterility, countless other debilitating issues or even death.

Most of the times when these "advocates" have to relinquish their foothold on the subject to surmounting proof that vaccines cause some serious health issues, they fall back to "Well not everything is perfect and the need of the many out weight the need of the few".
A defeatist argument to save face.

Cite the "proof".
I'm here all day.

reply to post by Grimpachi

I believe vaccinations have saved many lives, polio vaccination for example. But your numbers are not terribly convincing all on their own. With the measles mention, 500 deaths out of 4 million cases is a tiny fraction of a percent, .0125. 48 thousand hospitalizations out of 4 million is still a small percentage, 1.2. If its your own child or someone you know, of course that number doesn't mean a thing, its the pain and suffering that matter, but as far as numbers go..... they are relatively insignificant. The health care costs certainly do add up though. I guess the faith in government is pretty weak these days, and enforced anything causes people to question most anything.

Sovaka
reply to post by GetHyped

 

When an argument is put forth in the 'PRO' of an argument that has an outstanding contrast of 'CON' without valid proof, with zeal that paramount a fanatic, one can only come to one conclusion.

Only the closed, paranoid mind that is incapable of conceiving the notion that not only can opposing viewpoints be held by others but also the possibility exists that their own viewpoint could be wrong would ever come to such an absurd conclusion.

reply to post by Pardon?


www.courthousenews.com...

www.fda.gov...

.: ETA :.

On my search I found;
articles.mercola.com...

Which states that most of the 'Mercury-Free' vaccine options have replaced it with Aluminium or Aluminum (for Americans).

Sovaka
reply to post by GetHyped

 

Why would anyone introduce something that would favour only a single party?
Oh I know... Because it will ONLY BENEFIT them.

If you mean the human race as a single party then the answer is in the OP.

For instance

Before the introduction of a vaccine in 1963 measles caused about 4 million cases annually in the USA, leading to 48,000 hospitalizations and 500 deaths.

Do you have any figures on hospitalizations and deaths due to Measles now? Can you fathom the benefits of the vaccine?

Can you even produce any statistics on how many cases of autism are reportedly caused by vaccines?

BTW please refrain from accusing anyone who disagrees with you as a shill. That is a week and against T&C. Please review the T&C Here. Please review the T&C Here. I believe it is number 13 and or 16 you are violating each time you do so.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Oh cry me a river... 500 deaths.

Big deal.

Have you seen the stats lately from Pharma induced deaths???

Here is some "medicine for you";

www.ismp.org...

www.popsci.com.au...

Now... Who is the greater killer?

.: ETA :.
Here is some statistics relating directly to these Pharma companies;
healthimpactnews.com...

Sovaka
reply to post by Pardon?

 

www.courthousenews.com...

www.fda.gov...

.: ETA :.

On my search I found;
articles.mercola.com...

Which states that most of the 'Mercury-Free' vaccine options have replaced it with Aluminium or Aluminum (for Americans).

edit on 10/1/2014 by Sovaka because: (no reason given)

I'm sure I said that there was a flu vaccine which still contained thimerasol.

Do you understand what the difference between thimerasol and mercury is?
It's not dissimilar to the difference between sodium chloride and sodium.

Is aluminium in the vaccines or are they aluminium salts?
What is one of the most abundant element on earth in salt form?

It's aluminium.
You'll breathe it in every day.
You'll ingest it in some form every day.
If you get a cut or scratch some will enter your body through it as you'll have some on your skin.
It's in breast-milk too.

A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.