I love it, as soon as you get a megathread going the first comments are pro vaccine.

Don't use pro vaccine/anti vaxxer labels like they do. Don't stoop down to their level, simply speak pragmatically.

Is it possible some of them could be dangerous? YES

But there are certain vaccines that none of us can deny are beneficial, assuming of course the government hasn't changed these vaccines in recent years in a plot to poison us all... In which case we're all fucked anyways right?

We need to have REASONABLE conversations about this. /r/conspiracy is all about FREE THINKING people, meaning critical evaluation of all information and logic.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO INJECT THINGS INTO THEIR BODIES OR THEIR CHILDREN'S BODIES. Whether or not an individual vaccine is dangerous is a whole other discussion.

Although I generally agree with you, when I say "pro vaccine" I mean those that see vaccines as 100% good, no downsides, and should be forced on everyone.

Not necessarily people that see the benefit in some vaccines.

I agree. I get really frustrated when they take very complex issues and try to make them black and white.

While some of the vaccination fear is based in ignorance, I can't blame these folks for being skeptical.

Some of these same people that are whine about the "anti-vaxxers" are the same people that are die-hard anti-GMO, anti-corporate. They have complete distrust for the "evil corporations" when it comes to them paying taxes, but when a big corporation gives them a vaccine, they question nothing. They listen with blind faith. I think GMO's should be approached with the same criticism and skepticism, but I think they shouldn't considered simply good or bad. I think there are some GMO's that are completely harmless, but some that are quite dangerous.

This is why we should approach these issues with reason and intelligence. If the science is challenged, with the goal of finding the truth, and the "official story" is proven accurate it will also mean a bunch of new data was collected and scrutinised. This new data may contain some information that solves new problems, finds new cures, etc.

There's been a massive spillover from the default subs into /r/conspiracy as of late.

Don't be disheartened. It means you're on the right track.

500-600

There were over 5000 during the SLC saga. Not saying the two were definitely related, but there's no such thing as coincidence.

You love it? I love being downvoted but citing evidence to the contrary to this sub. goes both ways

/s wooosh

It might be obvious, given that they're our sister ship, but Imgur also has a strong pro-vaccination campaign hitting its front page recently, again with no apparently obvious origin.

I mean, if there'd been a high-profile case in the news I could totally understand it, but the sudden appearance of all these links out of nowhere seems totally bizarre, no?

[deleted]

Yah don't forget his follow-up statements either.

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/

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

[deleted]

He expressed objection due to a specific (small) finding not being included in the final released paper, citing the need for the CDC to release all findings, not matter how insignificant.

In large scale studies there are bound to be outliers and bits of data that an article may not address. I was under the impression that all Mr. Thompson Was expressing his disagreement with that certain aspect being excluded.

Do I think that should've been addressed in the paper? absolutely. Do I think it really does anything to hurt the case for the safety of vaccines related to autism? Absolutely not. The research showing the lack of correlation is vast and scientifically unchallenged.

I certainly wouldn't call him a fraud, at least not in the same way as someone like Andrew Wakefield.

wakefield was made a scapegoat AND was eventually vindicated. Dont stop researching

Vindicated? No, he hasn't. Here is a compilation of studies that prove he is a liar and fraud.

https://www2.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

I'm curious: If you're implying that vaccinations are harmful (seems safe to assume, but just making sure), why do you believe so? Can you provide any sources?

Have you heard of the Canadian Problem? Initial data on the H1N1 "pandemic" a few years ago seemed to find that people in Canada who received the seasonal flu shot were more susceptible to, and suffered worse symptoms from the H1N1 virus. Dr. Danuta Skowronski, lead epidemiologist at the BC centre for disease control, performed a double-blind, placebo controlled study on ferrets to see if the initial data was replicated, AND IT WAS! A rarely spoken of effect of some disease strains is infection can actually make you MORE susceptible to other strains. This may be the case here, or it could be that people who actually got the flu that year developed stronger antibodies to H1N1 than the flu shots provide. It is well known knowledge that most vaccines offer only temporary incomplete immunity.

One vaccine that offers some of the least effective immunity is the whooping cough vax, DTaP. Scientists found that every year after vaccination, the odds of catching whooping cough increased by 42%, meaning after 5 years a vaccinated person is no more protected than unvaccinated. The largest major outbreak of whooping cough in America affected a population that was around 90% vaccinated. Now this brings me to the second problem with DTaP: DTaP vaccination ENHANCES b. Parapertussis colonization by 40,000 times! Parapertussis is another strain of whooping cough, though not as symptomatic as Pertussis. The vaccine actually greatly increases your chance of getting and spreading whooping cough! This comes back to the dynamic I was discussing before: being infected with some strains of virus can make you more susceptible to others.

This leads me to my last main point: some inoculations can actually make you a vector for the spread of the virus! Here is a study done on an outbreak that occurred right after mass Polio vaccination with the OPV vaccination. An important thing to note: the OPV polio vaccination is a live-virus vaccination, and it is banned in every major first world country. Guess why? Because it actually increases the risk of Polio. Now instead of destroying this trash what have they done? Universally pawned it off on the third world. There are hundreds of reported Polio outbreaks that occur right after a mass vaccination. The whole "India is now Polio free!" situation? It's bullshit! To understand this I have to get into the history of Polio vaccination. Long story short, Polio is actually a host of separate syndromes. Polio eradication in the first world was more of a "reclassification" of the disease. Now instead of Polio we have new, symptomatically identical conditions such as asceptic meningitis, and non-polio accute flaccid paralysis. While it is true that the new polio vaccine in the first world is effective and Polio is very rare here, the disease we knew as Polio in the 1940's is not completely eradicated. Now, back to India. Despite the fact that "Polio" has been eradicated, rates of NPAFP have skyrocketed! Not only this, but risk of NPAFP is directly correlated to the amount of OPV shots received! if this isn't a smoking gun, then I don't know what is.

There are a few more important things to note about vaccines, such as: the varicella, or chicken pox, vaccine is tied to a huge increase in shingles cases. Shingles is a caused by the same virus as chicken pox which gets reactivated later in life. It is a FAR more debilitating condition than chicken pox. There is some debate over what exactly is happening here, obvious shill publications are giving the same ludicrous excuse as they do with cancer "the higher incidence is because people live longer." This is stupid, because the varicella vaccine was introduced in 1995 and people don't live all that much longer than they did in 1995. The rise in shingles is also strongly correlative with varicella vaccination rates. Some scientists have posited that when old people are around children with the virus, it acts as a "booster" to keep shingles at bay, now that chickenpox vaccination has greatly reduced the incidence of the virus, the older generations are no longer exposed to this booster.

Hmm... some interesting info here. Thanks for the reply!

No problem! I'm always very glad when people are willing to read and acknowledge my comments.

Lol... CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION (a big prinicple to understand when reading scientific research)

A few points: -the article about whooping cough is only referring to the chance of acquiring whooping cough AFTER a fifth dose, no where does it say the vaccine is ineffective. the study is just showing a slight correlation between the fifth dose of the vaccine and increase of whooping cough YEARS later (which makes sense because science has already shown us that this specific vaccine is KNOWN to wear off years after).... the point here is that the vaccine is still worthwhile to young children, it just will wear off (as expected)

-the OPV polio vaccine is a ATTENUATED vaccine... which means the virus they use has LESS virulence (altered genome) which means it provides active immunity with none to slight side effects. The article you linked about the outbreak states that the strain of polio was known to be from a different country and over half the population was already vaccinated before the increase, which you state "made the people vectors".. if you knew anything about polio, you would know that primates are NOT vectors for the virus... there is a difference between being a vector and being infected.. also, the opv is not a "live vaccine" it is a attenuated as i stated before. you also aren't mentioning there are two types of polio vaccines and that the one which injects dead virus (causing the immune system to form antibodies) is much more widely used. -you also state that rate of NPAFP have skyrocketed.. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLIO; NPAFP = NON POLIO ACUTE FLACCID PARALYSIS...the article literally states the correlation might just be an artifact (meaning the statistics are irrelevant)

in conclusion: you make a lot of statements that with a simple reading of the articles provided, are shown to be simply correlation... not actual causation. do yourself a favor, instead of reading into bullshit science and filling your head with lies, take an immunology course or some basic microbiology and find out exactly how wrong you are.

have you noticed that no reputable doctor will ever say vaccines are bad? it's hilarious when people think they have figured some shit out that doctors haven't

source: human biology degree

You may well be correct but that dismissive talking down to people earned you a down vote from me. If you have a point to make then treat people with respect and discuss it in a civil manner.

I have no respect for ignorance

"have you noticed that no reputable doctor will ever say vaccines are bad? it's hilarious when people think they have figured some shit out that doctors haven't"

I don't know a lot about vaccines - I'm trying to learn by reading arguments from both "sides" with my limited amount of free time - but this statement is a dumb appeal to autority. We're talking about the same doctors that are pushing useless and likely harmful statin drugs to millions of people based on outdated anti-cholesterol science so their stamp of approval of vaccines as a whole isn't an argument in favor of vaccines.

And by the way I tought you were doing OK until that paragraph. You sound like you have enough knowledge to debate these things in an intelligent manner but for some reason you felt the need to add that paragraph. Please refrain from shooting yourself in the foot next time. Some people here are trying to understand a few things and we appreciate good arguments not these appeals to authority.

(bet he didn't read it)

How much are you willing to lose on that bet?

/u/caitdrum, I fucking love you.

Listen dude - this is a great response, but it really deserves its own post so that more people will see it. Do you want to post it? or if you want, let me know and I'll post it for you later when I have time. But someone should get this info out there.

Well said!

Your last point about chickenpox.

Your only claim for the number of shingles cases rising is from older people not having the booster from being around those with chickenpox, right?

Since you can't sue big pharma over vaccines killing and crippling you, the govt. handles the compensations.

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/dojpresentation.pdf

Seriously...do these people think we'd be better off without vaccines? Do they not understand how we got rid of polio and smallpox?

Do they not understand how we got rid of polio and smallpox?

Do you?

Please actually read the sections on smallpox and polio.

Both the smallpox and polio vaccines made the epidemics worse.

Smallpox and polio were on there way out, naturally, just like cholera, yellow fever, and dozens of other diseases that vaccines were never developed for.

Please, please read the material I've provided for you if you truly want to educate yourself.

Edit: Yup, he didn't read it. Shocking.

And I get -10 for predicting that! Poor me! /s

The first person you cited was Russel Blaylock. Jesus fuck dude. Stopped reading after that. For anyone who doesn't know. He is a retired neurosurgeon who now opposes vaccines to promote his pseudoscience supplements that he sells under "Brain Repair Formula". This sub is a fucking joke sometimes.

The problem with your argument is that you mock a source in a conspiracy sub because it's a conspiracy supporter being cited.

This source wasn't a conspiracy theorist from birth.

The man that you are so adverse to had the intellect to become a surgeon. Had the respect of his peers at least until he began entertaining unpopular ideas and was well respected by them.

Your argument with the source is an attack on this mans character, intelligence, and views but is flawed because none of that addresses his qualifications or claims.

So here's a thought experiment for you to try, no need to answer me back it's for your personal pleasure.

If Einstein were alive today and publicly denounced the governments story about the WTC would you consider his work in physics quackery? Would you stop reading everything he writes because it doesn't jive with what you believe?

Well said.

Your argument with the source is an attack on this mans character, intelligence, and views but is flawed because none of that addresses his qualifications or claims.

It's the epitome of an ad hominem.

It's appalling to me that /u/ItsaSparty is being upvoted.

There clearly is fuckery afoot.

I already think Einstein was a quack, what do?

Classic ad hominem.

You didn't address a single point in my research.

Incredible that your drivel gets upvoted.

Incredible that your drivel gets upvoted.

Brigading at it's finest.

So he probably knows a bit about the brain, then?

Probably more than, say... you?

But does he know more than his peers? Who all oppose his views, saying they have no scientific backing.

This is what I love about all the staunchly pro-vax people that have entered the conversation in the past 30 days or so. They, to a man, claim to champion science - but refuse to engage the scientific method when considering a topic. Anyone who agrees is right, anyone who disagrees (to any degree!) is a witch to be burned at the stake.

The propaganda machine churns on unabated.

No, this is YOU refusing to accept scientific consensus. Anti-vaxxers like to cherry pick scientists and doctors that back up their point while ignoring the rest of the entire medical/scientific community who has reached a consensus. But wait, this is just a massive conspiracy covering all realms of science, pharmacology and medicine. That's clearly the most sensible answer.

I'll have to disagree with Mr. Chrichton on this one. If multiple scientists are performing tests and coming up with reproducible, verifiable results and one guy says something different, it's hard to be swayed there. Do you also deny climate science?

You blanket statement a lot.

We can flop the discussion to certain GMO seeds unable to be independently tested. Unless you're on Monsanto's payroll, in their labs (on site or off), you'll never be able to check the "science that's in."

and coming up with reproducible, verifiable results

This is the key, and the point you seemed to miss. It's not the consensus itself that matters, it's the data and results. The number of people who say they agree or disagree is irrelevant.

No further questions, your Honor.

http://youtu.be/Twch-T-n8Ns

Will she do?

This sub makes me embarrassed be alive. Glad you crazy fucks don't actually exist in the real world.

I feel like i'm in a crazy house.

[deleted]

Here ya go.

I've provided hundreds of sources to dozens of scientific studies in this link.

Enjoy.

Holy shit man. Thank you!

This woman is awesome.

http://youtu.be/Twch-T-n8Ns

If everyone read her book, Dissolving Illusions, the world would be a safer, healthier place.

On the Bill Gates thread,

ctrl+F "Common Core"

no results.

Yeah, I'm willing to put down a thousand dollars on the AMA being staged

Sickening. That's my reaction to this post.

These vaccine circle jerks make me sick. YOU guys can go get all the shots you want from these SCUM Big Pharma companies.

Let's trust big PHARMA GUYS! I wouldn't trust these companies to wash my car let alone INJECT an unknown highly toxic cocktail into my body.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html

According to U.S. federal investigators, GlaxoSmithKline (http://www.naturalnews.com/036416_GlaxoSmith...):

• Routinely bribed doctors with luxury vacations and paid speaking gigs • Fabricated drug safety data and lied to the FDA • Defrauded Medicare and Medicaid out of billions • Deceived regulators about the effectiveness of its drugs • Relied on its deceptive practices to earn billions of dollars selling potentially dangerous drugs to unsuspecting consumers and medical patients

Books for further research,

http://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-nation-Poisoning-Population-Shot-Time/dp/0984595422/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418724787&sr=1-1&keywords=vaccine+conspiracy

http://www.amazon.com/Dissolving-Illusions-Disease-Vaccines-Forgotten/dp/1480216895/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_z

Very well done!

It's been a popular topic in the news, it's not surprising that it's been on the front page.

I was banned from adviceanimals.reddit.com for pointing out logical fallacies in several pro-vaccine arguments.

See here and here.

It takes very little effort to own these people.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Man you're a spiteful whiney little bitch aren't you

Umad?

Nope. but it sure looks like you are

Bare assertion fallacy ;)

Whatever dude

Red herring.

Have you considered that you have fallen for a plot between pharmaceutical corporations to discredit vaccines and thus make themselves richer and more people sick? How can they not be behind it? If less people take vaccines they will make more money not less, because they will sell more drugs to treat the symptoms instead as a continuous income source rather than one driven by the occasional outbreak.

Well Vaccines don't work and are a money scam themselves. So your theory is moot. They WANT people to take their poison cocktails because it's a double whammy. They get money for the vaccine, and after the vaccines mess you up THEN you go get more healthcare.

There ya go.

Books for further research,

http://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-nation-Poisoning-Population-Shot-Time/dp/0984595422/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418724787&sr=1-1&keywords=vaccine+conspiracy

http://www.amazon.com/Dissolving-Illusions-Disease-Vaccines-Forgotten/dp/1480216895/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_z

Because when people post scientific data you guys downvote it. People who think vaccines are a conspiracy make me look crazy when I talk about the real vaccines

Because when people post scientific data you guys downvote it.

Try posting some scientific data that isn't paid for by the companies who make the product being researched, then maybe someone will listen.

As long as you keep posting pseudoscience garbage (well, you didn't even bother this time) that is paid for by pharma corporations, people will continue to ignore you, and rightly so.

I already posted some AskScirence threads

They've never been proven safe in the long term.

Umad?

Source?

I don't have one.

But I can't find a source saying they've been proven safe in the long term.

The burden of proof lies with those making the claim.

Sure they have. Smallpox has been eradicated right? I am sure glad that happened before this anti vax movment started

Red herring fallacy.

Effectiveness is irrelevant to long term safety.

Seems safe enough for me. What has the long term damage been from the smallpox vaccine?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Child_with_Smallpox_Bangladesh.jpg/230px-Child_with_Smallpox_Bangladesh.jpg

That is from the 70s.

Only new age kids and young liberal mothers beleive that shit.

Seems safe enough for me.

Red herring fallacy.

What has the long term damage been from the smallpox vaccine?

I don't think anybody knows.

Only new age kids and young liberal mothers beleive that shit.

Bare assertion fallacy.

P. S. Not giving a warning for your link makes you look like a piece of shit. Just sayin'.

long term damage

Well, it introduced hepatitis B to the world on a large scale, which we still deal with today:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/hepb.pdf

[deleted]

Umad.

[deleted]

Another red herring fallacy ;)

There is SO MUCH evidence that vaccinations work. And any evidence for the opposite are tenous at best. A couple I know had their child die from measles because they were anti vaccination. That made them change their stance, but it was too late. Anti vaccination is about the worst paranoid propaganda about, at least on a par with the raging anti semitism we see.

Sure, but forcing people to take them is pure insanity. There is no debate on this, YOU CAN'T FORCE PEOPLE TO INJECT THINGS INTO THEIR BODY OR THEIR CHILDREN'S BODIES.

Yes you can, because a choice to not vaccinate puts people's lives at risk. Anti vaxxers care about no one but their personal freedoms, and don't give a fuck about how that decision can affect others. The fact that there is even a debate on vaccinations is incredible to me. There is all the proof that they are beneficial to all and zero to suggest the opposite.

How narrow minded. Not all vaccines are created equal.

Let's take is one step at a time:

How does not vaccinating my child for tetanus put others at risk?

Oh shit! Problems already!

Shill alert! Shill alert!

Really? Because no one has died in the last 10 yrs from measles in the US.

I'm not in the us

They've never been proven safe in the long term.

Umad?

Yes they have, considering the eradication of smallpox.

Red herring fallacy.

Effectiveness is irrelevant to long term safety.

I had no opinion on vaccination so far, but now that you are linking Andy Vaxi Nation with Andys Emi-Tism, I do think vaccinations are dangerous, bad, and a sinister weapon against humanity.

I linked to no one.

If everyone read her book, Dissolving Illusions, the world would be a safer, healthier place.

Although I generally agree with you, when I say "pro vaccine" I mean those that see vaccines as 100% good, no downsides, and should be forced on everyone.

Not necessarily people that see the benefit in some vaccines.

No further questions, your Honor.

I agree. I get really frustrated when they take very complex issues and try to make them black and white.

While some of the vaccination fear is based in ignorance, I can't blame these folks for being skeptical.

Some of these same people that are whine about the "anti-vaxxers" are the same people that are die-hard anti-GMO, anti-corporate. They have complete distrust for the "evil corporations" when it comes to them paying taxes, but when a big corporation gives them a vaccine, they question nothing. They listen with blind faith. I think GMO's should be approached with the same criticism and skepticism, but I think they shouldn't considered simply good or bad. I think there are some GMO's that are completely harmless, but some that are quite dangerous.

This is why we should approach these issues with reason and intelligence. If the science is challenged, with the goal of finding the truth, and the "official story" is proven accurate it will also mean a bunch of new data was collected and scrutinised. This new data may contain some information that solves new problems, finds new cures, etc.