6 Years of Research Has Taught Me This About Vaccines
AUTHOR NOTE: This is an ongoing work in progress. I started diving into vaccine research in 2015. I posted this blog early 2016 on my personal website. The last edit was on November 14, 2021 and now lives on Medium. As I receive questions and rebuttals, I update the end of this article.
Why I started Researching Vaccines
I started researching vaccines lightly in 2010, but my research skills were still developing. I did what many people did back then; I continued down the rabbit hole I wanted to go down. That hole was the anti-vaxx movement. You see, in 2010, my brain hadn’t quite fully developed yet. I was almost there, but wide-reaching, baseless conspiracies were still interesting to me.
Then, in 2013, a major shift happened in my life. As I moved out of nightlife and entertainment, I continue my career path in an industry that had little to no standards or regulation; digital marketing. When you wade in the waters of uncharted territory, you’re forced to go it alone. This is where I started to really cut my teeth in research. I learned to dig deeper than the headlines and media stories, to explore every side despite biases, and most of all, I learned to substantiate my research through what I call the personal touch.
Here is my personal touch to research:
- I first, read the article in front of me.
- I then research the platform and the author, if I’m not familiar with them.
- I, next, look at all linked articles and periodicals.
- After that, I start to review the counter-point no matter how sure I am of the original source material.
- Once that’s completed, I look for further evidence to support each side.
- From there, I look at who is funding the more persuasive information with the most data.
- Then, it’s about the assessment of language used and whether either side use suggestive terms or passive conclusions.
- At this point, I will write out all I learned and form a conclusion.
- It basically comes down to whomever has the most evidence following the scientific process wins.
- I then revisit the topic periodically to see if there is any new persuasive data to counter my conclusion.
This is VERY time consuming. The typical article that I read which interests me takes up days of my time. However, as I’ve honed my skills I have learned how to better digest information and look for red flags quicker.
The more conspiratorial amongst humans rely on skimming data and their followers taking their analysis and conclusions as gospel. They don’t want you to read the entire article that they’re referencing in a lot of cases. This is why you’ll never run into an anti-vaxxer blog like this.
As you get older, you become more cognizant of your health. Suddenly I was travelling more, and some places required vaccination. That’s where my research into vaccines really started in 2015. I was hesitant about the many jabs I was going to receive.
Then, in 2016, I was temporarily paralyzed from a freak accident, so to say I had a lot of time on my hands is an understatement. Just before the accident, I had two friends passionately debate the validity of vaccines and stand strong on the grounds that autism is caused by these injections. Between the two friends, they have five kids, with two being autistic.
It’s hard to debate or challenge parents about a topic that affects their kids. If you push too hard, you chance losing them as friends because they are so emotionally tied to the topic.
At the time, I told both friends that I didn’t know enough to comment but that I would try to learn more.
Stuck in bed, I continued my journey down the rabbit hole that in 2020 would become the single most polarizing topic in our lifetime. I only reference this to display how much time I had on my hands. It was shortly after that I joined Facebook groups with millions who stand against vaccines.
Over the past 6 years I’ve given up much of my time and even a bunch of money to researching this subject. All told, I’ve likely spent over 100, 24-hour days of total time diving deep into the world or pro-vaxx vs anti-vaxx.
I am not paid to do this. I have no affiliation with any scientific or medicinal organization. I’m simply a curious guy who knows the fundamentals of research.
I really think we need to get this right at some point, especially with the great debate about the COVID-19 vaccine. With the growing number of anti-vaxxers out there, the next pandemic is looking pretty scary.
How I Research(ed) Vaccines
When I endeavoured to write this article in 2016, I was still on the fence about vaccines. When I’m on the fence about something, I become obsessed with the topic.
There is nothing more annoying than someone who chimes in on a topic they know nothing about. It’s important to state that everything I am saying is the product of research, education, and discussion. I am not a doctor. Before doing anything that affects your health, talk to your doctor. If they dismiss you, find another doctor that won’t.
Not all medical professionals are created equally, like in any profession. There is a reason someone becomes an award winning, respected expert in their field … and that reason is why you should never take the word of a GP over the world renowned specialist.
This is why, as nurses quit over getting the jab (which makes no sense to me since they had to get vaccines just to study nursing) I’m not sad about it.
Statistically speaking, there are bound to be misguided to downright evil in all professions. Nurses that stand against the COVID-19 vaccine are somewhere in the middle and they will regret their choices later in life.
I’ve spent years studying every scrap of data, newspaper articles, online forums, and looked at every piece of information I could find regarding vaccines, their link to autism and other medical conditions.
My primary goal was to seek an answer to an important question, “Do vaccines cause enough harm to outweigh their good?”
What I found were the following articles, websites and pages online that make up most pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine viral information. The list is:
- Natural News
- Dr. Tenpenny on Vaccines and Current Events
- Stop Mandatory Vaccination (Page & Site Now Gone)
- March Against Monsanto (Page & Site Now Gone, although there are sub-sects of the movement)
- J. B. Handley & Natural Nana
- Erin at Health Nut News
- Revolution for Choice
There are, of course, thousands of other websites and personalities to check out on the topic, but this is where I started. My problem was that they all had low-key opinions disguised by big words as “science” in them. That bothered me so I moved onto door number 2; subscribing to medical journals (while keeping my ear to the ground in anti-vaxx groups):
These journals can be nearly lethargic as you wade through complicated medical terms. What I liked about them is that they didn’t present biases, just information.
I also read everything I could find on:
Reading a journal with citations and peer reviewed evidence is like texting your friend and asking them for the address to a restaurant they’ve been to. They text back the address and you’re on your way. If you get a little lost, you ask those in the neighbourhood for help. Eventually, someone gives you a GPS out of the kindness of their heart. No matter what, though, you get clear directions each time, even if your brain can’t properly digest them.
But reading a lot of sites out there like Collective Evolution is a novel experience altogether. Maybe your friend texts you the address and adds in their own anecdotal experience when they went to the restaurant, which was negative. Now, suddenly, you question whether you want to go to that restaurant. Their commentary made you think, but it’s based on one opinion out of likely thousands of diners. Nonetheless, you think.
The news presents biases all day, every day, and for most of us, it is a cause for pause. However, we must find sources that provide us with information and data that we can breakdown and form opinions around, rather than carrying someone else’s opinion. If we’re not willing to do that, we must abandon an opinion on the subject completely, as we have no basis for argument.
The journals got me so far before I ran out of information to digest. That’s when COVID-19 happened, and it seems like at that moment, many people lost their ability to digest information (more on that later). As I sat there waiting out the lockdown, I thought about the subjects that I am most passionate about. This is one of those topics.
So, I registered for a HST course in virology, immunology and epidemiology to learn even more. It’s a fundamentals course that also explores clinical disease, vaccine and therapeutic development. Essentially, it’s a microbiology course.
I felt the courses would compliment my background in research that I have because of my career choice. Wow, was I right. I’ve learned so much since starting the course, and it has led me down rabbit holes so deep I can’t see the light when I look up at times.
I’ve had access to the most brilliant minds in medicine and vaccination. Being in this course, I saw what it’s actually like to be on the front-lines of the pandemic and the race to create a vaccine that not only worked, but worked under the strictest of scientific safety protocols.
What I found amazing was how they would address the questions out there about vaccines. They were always calm and collected. Dr. Kizzy and Dr. Fauci guest lectured in the course, and when asked about the questions of those whom are vaccine hesitant, they simply provided the scientific argument. I am less composed at times, because, well, I’m not a doctor.
This subject is scary and dark (if you believe “the internet”). But, I think you’ll find that a lot of the scary parts are emotionally driven, not rational. My vaccine hesitancy is gone because I know the following truths to be accurate based on everything I’ve done to learn as much as I can:
- Every single claim by anti-vaxxers can be addressed by science. I’ve seen scientists grilled for hours about the various conspiracy theories floating around the anti-vaxx community and not one has stumped them.
- Nothing on this earth comes without complications.
- In the moment you are reading this, science is doing the best job they can with the tools they have, and tomorrow, they’ll do better. What’s hard to take is that we can’t always wait for tomorrow, sometimes we need to use the tools of today, even with risks (as long as the medicinal risks outweigh the threat’s risks).
My research hasn’t stopped there. I made COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines a central theme of my podcast, Shit People Post. I have had anti-vaxxers, epidemiologists, virologists, and even an anti-masker on the show.
Here’s a link to the entire playlist of episodes related to these topics.
So, 2400 hours minimum of research, a course, and a podcast later, I am pro-vaxx. But if you’re anti-vaxx don’t stop here because I say that.
I took the deep dive into your side. The least you can do is the same for my side. If you’re really as pragmatic and “woke” as you say, then you should have no issues with digesting information that doesn’t come from your echo chamber.
I’m sure I’ll update this often as I continue down on my journey in medical sciences, so if you’d like updates as I go, please subscribe.
Vaccine Hesitancy vs Anti-Vaxxers
I think smart people understand the difference between hesitancies and conspiracy theories. Questions are healthy, especially when you don’t specialize in the subject. Smart people can’t call anyone out on asking questions because knowledge is only obtained through inquisition.
It’s when someone stops asking questions that the polarization of a topic is realized. I am now pro-vaxx, but I’ll never stop asking questions. The anti-vaxx movement just asks the same questions over-and-over, and when science addresses those questions, they simply come up with a new “theory” to tout.
There is no better example of this than in using mercury/thimerosal in vaccines (more on this later). This was the cornerstone of the anti-vaxx movement for a long time.
You know why so few vaccines use mercury or thimerosal anymore?
Because science heard the claims by the skeptics and tried to meet people in the middle. They replaced the adjuvant with others, including one that is consumed in mass quantities from breast milk, is in our soil and air, and that we also have in water … aluminum.
So, the anti-vaxxers went and made a boogeyman out of aluminum too. In fact, I can’t find a single piece of research or progress which explores vaccines that doesn’t have multiple layers of conspiracies laced with misinformation presented by the anti group. There is nothing that can be done to satisfy them.
If you were to say, all vaccines are now 100% plant based, they would just say that the plants are GMO or fake. Or, in extreme cases, they would say there is Poison Ivy in the vaccines to kill us from the inside on time released nanobots.
It’s actually very easy to consume the right information, but it’s absolutely boring doing so.
Subscribing to medical journals and reading papers with hundreds of citations and peer reviewed comments is a great place to start.
But, I understand that most people won’t do that (due to lack of time, understanding, or a myriad of other factors) and that’s why we have experts and researchers that are dedicated to a lifelong journey of science.
Think of it like this. You’re reading this right now while having a career as a mechanic, real estate agent, garbage man, head of state … whatever. Now, imagine you’re crushing it in your career and your boss says that he read somewhere on the internet that the way you are doing things is all wrong. He wants you to change things up as a result. You look into the author of the article your boss read and he has absolutely no expertise so you tell your boss he’s not qualified to offer an opinion. You get fired, and that person gets hired to replace you. How mad would you be, and how satisfying would it be for you to watch the entire operation crumble because of this?
Anti-vaxxers are either unqualified or they are low-level in their profession. Name one award winning expert with peer reviewed research that has actually changed the course of science who has come out against vaccines.
Of course then, you’ll say it’s because they can’t get funding. Two problems with that argument; those that can prove change to scientific process always get the money, and the anti-vaxx movement has trillion dollar industry. They spent $1.9 billion on Facebook ads in 2020 alone! The money is there.
They can’t get the funding because they can’t get past the scientific process, which is in place to validate plausible ideas.
I made every effort to offer vaccine information on my podcast in a format that was interesting and entertaining.
Here is Kennen Hutchison, a virologist on his way to a PhD talking about what it takes to become a virologist.
Experts in their fields are above those with counter-claims for a good reason. There are tiers to expertise and all things in life. Who would you rather have if someone kidnapped your kid? The best negotiators, SWAT and detectives in the world, or a team of cops from Buttfuck, Saskatchewan?
While I’m sure the team of cops are good at what they do, you’d much rather have the people that are on the front-lines of these types of situations regularly. Just like you fix some things on your car but take it into a mechanic when it goes clunk in the night, or when you seek a mentor in your chosen field.
To ignore that there are tier levels to all career paths for the sake of getting behind a narrative isn’t just foolish, it’s silly. Those doctors who exist in the corners of the internet, shrouded in shadows and $9.99 eBooks either didn’t put in the work or could not prove their theories so they didn’t move up the ladder. It’s like all chosen career paths. If you can’t prove you’re essential, then you’ll never make your way into the boardroom.
I guess what I’m trying to say is science will explore any claim (though they can’t keep exploring the same shit over and over). However, with vaccines, it is the adverse effects that we learn from to progress; both in safety trials and real-world applications.
Experts in science do their best to make everything as safe as they can until they find new science that can continually improve what they put out into the world.
The really cool thing about the COVID vaccines is everyone has an option between the new science (mRNA) or the old science that has been around forever. mRNA vaccines should have gotten the reception of the moon landing by us, but instead doctors are being called shills for doing their life’s work and it really fucking hurts them. I know they’re sad because I know a lot of them, and let’s keep in mind that when someone is sad, mad, or experiencing emotional rollercoasters, they perform worse at their jobs. We need to stop standing in their way.
Here’s a video on the truly awesome power of mRNA vaccines and how they work:
The Need to be Polarizing
With this debate, as with many, I have found that there is a need to be polarizing. Unless you are, the viewpoint is neutral and thus dismissed.
There must be dramatic opposition so that we can all debate left and right of center to get down to the truth at the heart of any matter. Well, that’s how it’s supposed to work, I guess. We all yell and scream at each other until the evidence is presented. Unfortunately, these days for some, evidence comes in the form of an orange turd or a random website simply saying something.
If you look at the very basic topics as of late, you get an explicitly easy-to-understand explanation backed by generations of science. Here are 3 examples:
- Long-term effects of vaccines (https://youtu.be/lf1qcj3s9EE). After 6-weeks the chance of a vaccine injury fall to 0.0001% and that’s factoring in old, less advanced vaccines. Yes, that even includes VAERS data, yet millions of people say they won’t take a COVID-19 vaccine because the long-term effects aren’t known.
- When a seemingly healthy doctor died after getting a vaccine, the internet went into a frenzy! “COVID-19 vaccines are killing people,” said many on social media. After investigation, they deemed the death from natural causes. Of course, “How convenient,” was the popular comment on social when the news after a 2 month investigation broke. But it’s not a cover up, it’s just statistics. Over 1b COVID shots were given as of that investigation. 150,000 people die on average every day worldwide. That means it is to be expected that 22,500,000 people would have died during that time. There is going to be, with 100% certainty, overlap. Some people that get the vaccine are going to die after getting it from other causes, especially early on when it was older folk getting it. To create a link is to ignore basic bitch math.
- There is a common misconception that if you’re young and healthy, you don’t need to get the vaccine (https://youtu.be/kG2H_0gRvoc). Not shockingly, this is a ridiculously selfish attitude from young people who are, through lack of experience, inherently selfish to begin with. Watch the linked video for more understanding as to why someone who is young and healthy should get the vaccine if the basic understanding of community doesn’t quite resonate.
Somehow, we can’t at all agree on these points, even though opinions don’t matter. Facts do, and the facts are incredibly clear!
Truth be told, when you release any type of medicine into the general populous there will be harm and fatalities. That doesn’t mean that the medicine is bad but rather there are some sensitive individuals given that no 2 humans are genetically exact.
This will ALWAYS be the case, and this is the point both sides often refuse to admit. I believe this is because our humanity in us believes that there is a way around the concept of a few dying for the many.
Truth: all progress involves sacrifice; fair or otherwise.
It’s a cold stance on a hot topic. I don’t want to think of myself as expendable and neither do you, and to be clear, we’re not. But we are in a war against viruses, diseases, and unique cellular formations of nature that want to kill us. Just like in a traditionally thought of war, there will be casualties to achieve a goal that benefits the whole.
So, people will die, although proper studies suggest that the death rate amongst vaccinated individuals, including children who have COD as SIDS is not any higher than the normal death rate. I can leave a little room for the AVC (Anti-Vaxx Community) here purely based on the fact that no two humans are built the same.
Studies and an examination of history also show that the vast majority of vaccine related injuries and deaths are because of improper administration and unknown allergies or conditions.
I explore this with a virologist on this episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak2SfbP7Ubc
I’m not trying to minimize the impact of a vaccine injury or death in one’s life, nor am I saying we should all be perfectly fine when it happens but, there are logical and rational explanations.
The only way to talk about science and medicine is to remove emotion while maintaining a definition of humanity that benefits the whole.
The Most Popular Mainstream Sources for the Anti-Vaccine Movement
Let’s Start at the Beginning; The Lancet
I, of course, started with Wakefield’s article in The Lancet. Here we find the first real mainstream link between vaccines and autism on a mass scale that affected public opinion.
Apparently, the original article was connecting cancer to vaccines, but that was just a little too out there for editors. I’m not 100% sure on this point as it sounds more like an urban myth in virology circles, but we can find at least one alleged link between contaminated vaccines and cancer here.
The Wakefield article has been debunked, but the allegation is that big Pharma used their corrupt connections to force The Lancet’s retraction. This is a widely held belief in the anti-vaxxer community, so to make things easier let’s say both sides cancel each other out on this one. They have not proved the connection except in the extremely biased study done to support this original article in a test group of 12, and there is no way to disprove the big pharma connection; another boogeyman concept.
Any good research should be able to be duplicated and this research cannot be. Also, any good research should be easier to duplicate than the study before as you now have a roadmap.
Keep this in mind, because simply saying, big pharma paid for this is a tactic amongst anti-vaxxers who cannot prove their point.
I believe the retraction to have merit because there is no actual science confirming a connection between autism and vaccines despite a lot of money and time being dumped into the discussion by the scientific community.
In fact, any studies cited that show a clear connection between mercury and autism can’t connect vaccines because the dosage isn’t high enough in the totality of vaccines administered. Even the studies that apparently linked mercury and aluminum breaking the blood/brain barrier in children and causing autism are skewed for headlines. I discussed this with a guest Immunologist on my podcast, Shit People Post.
Trusting The Lancet article as a source for valid information—at this point—would be like trusting a doctor from the 1920s administering you a radium drink for energy.
Everyone’s Favourite Nurse, Jenny McCarthy
Here we have Jenny McCarthy, who re-energized the vaccine debate in 2007. She declared her son autistic because of vaccines, but they probably misdiagnosed him.
She claims her son was cured through alternative and controversial unproven treatments in 2010, but if that is the case, then she has one of the only claims of a cure in history. Plus, she has zero proof of these claims. Zero!
Why is it that scientific consensus must have the burden of 100% infallible proof (which doesn’t exist), yet anti-vaxxers simply need to say something for it to be true?
There is quite the double standard at play.
She has been asked point blank to show the evidence, and she has simply not answered back. She’s walked back her comments only to re-load her insanity and double down as recently as 2017.
In fact, in 2020 she provided a counter-narrative again. Cocaine must really be a hell of a drug.
I spent years in PR, and either she has experienced a genuine miracle or the misdiagnosis would have been quite embarrassing, so some PR guy cooked up the cure story. I would say the latter is more likely but she clearly has no idea how to drive the narrative.
In Jenny McCarthy’s own words, “I’m not anti-vaccine, but pro-safe vaccine.”
She’s (at best) a hostile witness given that she said in 2007 her son had autism, then not in 2010, then did in 2013, then they cured it in 2017, now it’s not in 2020. Would you believe any friend or family member offering you this narrative?
Vaxxed, A Film with Bite
Of the four most popular mainstream resources for the anti-vaccination movement, we have the cinematic exploration that is Vaxxed, which is arguably the most powerful.
Wakefield’s article started the movement, Jenny threw fuel on the fire, and Vaxxed made people cry.
Wakefield is a key figure in the film, but we’ve already voided him and his article because of the absolute junk science that could not be reproduced despite efforts to try on both sides of the debate.
In fact, his mere involvement in this film should raise red flags immediately. To simplify what he did; Wakefield performed invasive tests on children while being paid by lawyers to skew data. I’d punch him in the nuts right now, if I could.
Whether you believe in vaccinations or not, you can’t ignore the many holes in Vaxxed.
William Thompson (another dominant figure in the film) has already stated that his conversations in the film were taken wildly out of context, and that he and his research partners did not find a provable link to that which is suggested in the film.
What we have here are wannabe producers and directors looking to be taken seriously as filmmakers after their careers flamed out.
Even Robert DeNiro, [AKA Fuck Trump, AKA Hot Head, AKA I’ll have my friend stab you with a pen, AKA Vaccines Suck] pulled his submission of Vaxxed from Trifecta after cutting through the noise and getting past the hype of the film.
There is a lot of anecdotal evidence in the film that does tug on the heartstrings, but when you remove emotion and actually research the claims, you can’t find any scientific backing outside of the questionable characters used to drive the narrative.
I could spend days writing about the blatant Trumpism style lies in this film, but Jeff Holiday does a pretty decent job of breaking it down in his YouTube series, “Inoculating Against Vaxxed”. I highly recommend you stop reading now and go watch the videos. But be sure to return because there is a lot more ground to cover.
Just to beat a dead horse with a dead horse, a study published in March 2019 AGAIN found zero link between vaccines and any long-term illness.
A Kennedy Named Robert!
I can almost guarantee that you’ve come to learn about Robert F Kennedy Jr in the last couple of years. He was a lawyer … a brilliant lawyer doing great things for the world.
Then … as seems to happen with all male Kennedy’s, a single subject tarnished his legacy. For JFK it was a woman in a white dress. For JFK Jr: he hoped to stay out of politics (and who could blame him) and that decision made it so he would never reach his full potential. For Bobby Kennedy, it was his FBI investigation of MLK that leaves a poor taste in people’s mouths. RFK Jr has vaccines.
RFKJ has a history of lies by omission when talking about vaccines. He completely ignored an Institute of Medicine immunization safety review on thimerosal published the previous year to his paper. He also ignored the nine studies funded or conducted by the CDC that have taken place since 2003, pretending like they just didn’t exist, so that he could spout his brand of BS and get famous.
In “The Panic Virus”, which was pulled, RFKJ wrote about the fact that he became involved in the anti-vaccine movement because of hearing parents absolutely convinced that vaccines caused autism in their kids, and that this continues to be the case. Go science!
Kennedy quoted SafeMinds’ Mark Blaxill, whom he identified as the vice president of “a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicine.” Blaxill accused the CDC of “incompetence and gross negligence” and claimed that the damage from vaccines was “bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you’ve ever seen.”
In the article’s final paragraph, Kennedy warned his readers of the scandal’s likely effects on the future: “It’s hard to calculate the damage to our country — and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases — if Third World nations come to believe that America’s most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It’s easy to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by American’s enemies abroad.” In fact, he wrote, he was certain that the failure of a generation of “scientists and researchers … to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world’s poorest populations.”
In order for what Kennedy was claiming to be true, scientists and officials in governmental agencies, nonprofit organizations, and publicly held companies around the world would need to be part of a coordinated multi-decade scheme to prop up “the vaccine industry’s bottom line” by masking the dangers of thimerosal. Yep, seems totally realistic. You’d also have to ignore some pretty important points like dosage, timing, peer reviewed science, and most importantly … the periodic table.
Kennedy has relied on the 286-page transcript of the Simpsonwood meeting to corroborate his allegations — and wherever the transcript diverged from the story he wanted to tell, he simply cut and pasted until things came out right. Again and again, he used participants’ warnings about the reckless manipulation of scientific data by people with ulterior motives to do the very thing they were afraid would happen. He hacked up the transcript so much it looked like a ransom letter from a 90s movie.
Yes, this is the great RFKJ that many anti-vaxxers hold up as a hero amongst men. My head hurts just talking about him, so let’s move on.
Links to Articles & Studies
Now, let’s get out of the mainstream and look at the less popular studies on the subject.
I have read all the linked articles, as well as the articles these link to. I didn’t glance at or quickly read through these either. Front to back, line for line; I sat there and took it all in.
I have read far more, but this is a good sampling:
- https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-official-anti-vaxxers-are-probably-to-blame-for-the-rise-in-measles (I love the headline on this one. It’s official … kinda. *facepalm*)
Having spent the past several years in anti-vaccine Facebook groups supporting the end of vaccinations or at very least waiting until after the age of 3 to start, I can say that 99% of what is shared on these community pages is from questionable media sources, skewed perspectives, or comes from the almighty meme.
When credible articles to support vaccines are shared in these groups, they are dismissed without real analysis (mostly). Parents jump in with anecdotal evidence that their kids cry more now, so that must mean the vaccines hurt them or similar stories that have a sample size of one.
Of course, when an article to support vaccines is shared, it’s often called fake news citing those same questionable sources. I actually gave up looking back through these groups because just a little research showed charts, quotes, and other pieces of content to be completely false.
It’s downright frustrating when the scientific community at large presents study-after-study to rebuke conspiracies then some guy on YouTube with 10-minutes of research is shared as an equal counter-point.
SPOILER ALERT: You and I are not equals to career scientists when discussing vaccines. Us researching vaccines is like an ant trying to figure out how to use a computer. Sure, they’re kinda smart but they’ll just end up destroying the computer and electrocuting half of their peers.
The Evil Thimerosal
We cannot talk about vaccines without bringing up thimerosal.
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing organic compound. Since the 1930s, it has been widely used as a preservative in several biological and drug products, including many vaccines, to help prevent potentially life-threatening contamination with harmful microbes.
Many debate this explanation and believe that thimerosal has more nefarious uses.
No matter what side of the fence you live on regarding what thimerosal actually is, after this “dangerous” substance was removed from many of the top vaccines, autism and harm rates did not drop.
In fact, autism rates continued to rise after thimerosal was removed (which we’ll get to). How can the main crux of the argument be dealt with, but the rates not drop?
I believe most people who are a part of the AVC are conspiratorial. They look at an official story and question the holes, which is a great thought experiment, but these people cannot accept that all stories have holes in authentic life because no one plans to write them until after. Think about great biopics like Catch Me if You Can and Bohemian Rhapsody. They’re based on real-life events, but holes are filled and they dramatize the story to make it more interesting. This is exactly what the AVC do with any news out of the credible fields of virology and epidemiology.
With thimerosal, we see that removing it had no effect, and thus the debate should have been largely silenced. But the cause raged on with other demons such as age being the factor or the number of shots.
I liken this to a number of prophecies about the end of the world.
In the 21st century alone there have been 21 largely followed apocalyptic theories. Since the beginning of recorded history, there have been thousands. 2012 anyone?
When each date for the apocalypse comes and goes, the “leaders” of the charge find a new date and interpretation. After all, it’s better to look philosophically wrong than factually wrong. Keep this in mind as you continue to read.
MMR & Breaking the Chain
In the groups that I followed on Facebook about the vaccine debate, one common thread that I saw was the denial of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) outbreaks amongst population centres that didn’t vaccinate.
It is often said the rates are far too low to be taken seriously as a connective tissue between the 2 discussions.
I guess what I have to ask is how low of a number is too low? If 2.24% of kids are contracting a disease that was dormant just years ago at the same time as a movement is happening against the very thing that made the disease dormant in the first place, is that relevant? Maybe, maybe not.
Tip for Later: Keep that number in your head and understand the number is much higher for those who contracted measles and mumps.
Of course, this debate about MMR and vaccines is very emotional for parents. Those who believe in scientific consensus say those who don’t are putting their kids at risk. That’s where the now classic line, “Well if your kids are vaccinated why would mine not being vaccinated put yours at risk,” comes from.
To that, there is an obvious answer. Viruses and diseases that have been stopped in their tracks die off while allowing them to show up again, opens the door for them to mutate … thus rendering the vaccines all but obsolete.
Many viruses and diseases become dormant when they can’t find enough hosts to mutate and continue; hence vaccines. These are classified as metabolically inert.
Again, how small does a number have to be before it is taken seriously?
Japan and several locations throughout Europe have seen a rise in once dormant diseases, while MMR cases have been reported in Canada and the US. This rise has grown since the anti-vaccine movement has become popular.
In fact, in a recent study, 70% of kids that had measles were unvaccinated, and there is evidence to suggest that those in the 30% came in contact with unvaccinated children.
Let’s make this ultra-simple to understand. Nature creates viruses and disease. Humans are required as carriers for most of them to mutate and gain strength.
So, if there are 5 people in the world and all 5 have their vaccines then the diseases they were vaccinated for will die off, or at least be weakened to the point of Rhinovirus. However, if just one of those people doesn’t vaccinate and interacts with environmental conditions that create circumstances that allow for mutation, then once the disease has latched onto that person, it is given a chance to mutate further and take out all five people because their vaccines are now useless against the new strain.
Does that make sense? I hope so, because I have no better way of explaining how the science works.
Actually, here’s a crude diagram:
As you can see, without mass vaccination we are left with a virus or disease that mutates and sneaks in under the body’s defences to kill everyone … including all the kids you were pretending your Google search was saving.
The better news here is that not everyone needs to be vaccinated. It’s the sure-fire way to deal with the problem, but if we can achieve herd immunity through vaccines, then there still won’t be enough hosts to let the virus overtake the population. Herd immunity ranges for the various viruses, but a good median point is 70% without a mutation and 85% with mutations.
Many people will say, then why don’t we just achieve herd immunity naturally? Well, because we’d all be dead. Without introducing a vaccine, most viruses will just continue to mutate and reach new hosts. Imagine a house party with unlimited invites. Suddenly, other viruses are showing up and hanging from the chandeliers, puking on the carpet, and breaking headboards. Finally, the house burns down and everyone inside dies. That’s not a party I want to go to.
Of course, some viruses won’t, but most will. Herd immunity is a bit of a fallback argument because it seems nice and shiny on the surface but ultimately, at some point, natural herd immunity will wither and die, especially in a virus as transmissible and advanced as SARS-CoV-2.
No Deaths from Measles, 100 from MMR Vaccine
When you present the above evidence, many will point to an article by Health Impact News that stated in the last ten years no one has died of measles in the U.S., but over 100 people have died because of the MMR vaccine.
These numbers are false, and the article has been completely discredited (no Snopes isn’t the only link, but the best one to check out because of how the information is prepared in a simple manner).
There had been reported deaths at the time the HIN article was written, and the 100 people that “died because of the MMR vaccine” were submitted to VAERS, which does not actually track the scientific reasons for death. They simply hypothesize the possibility and accumulate data with very little, if any, proof.
To put that more simply, deaths are submitted with information from the people involved and a human being decides how the anecdotal evidence should be interpreted. Most times, no doctor’s notes are given. Also, keep in mind that a VAERS case is simply a reported case. This is pre-investigation, pre-deliberation, pre-circumstances. I rarely link to media sources, but this article by the NY Times about VAERS is very well written.
Autism by the Numbers
Now keep in mind I am non-biased and non-alarmist. I’m neither red nor blue, I believe in the legalization of marijuana but also carry a firm belief against illegal immigration. I am pro-choice and pro-gun. I go with what seems rational in the current climate.
What’s happening right now is anti-vaccine advocates are fighting a losing battle. With only 2.24% of children having autism, you’ll have a hard time getting funding for a study on a topic already considered closed.
Remember, another study (linked earlier) on over 100,000 kids was done recently and there were zero indicators that vaccines cause autism. It’s considered to be a non-issue because when the claims of the link were originally suggested they based it on pseudoscience and despite that, real scientists all over the globe did research time-and-time-again to ease concerns.
The overwhelming evidence is that in a mass number of cases there is no link. Now, is there a thin possibility that getting a vaccine simply speeds up the presentation of autism that already exists within a child? Yes. Likely? Not even close.
Yes, there has been a spike in the diagnosis of autism, but that’s likely caused by education about the condition, improved medical facilities around the globe, and a change in the way we ask the questions that form a diagnosis.
It will be interesting to see if the spike continues, though. That’s where you can probably win some battles in the AVC and get a study that will still show no link.
But, if—in the next ten years—that number goes to say, 8%, then science will have no choice but to take notice and approach the topic from a different standpoint. This is because it would disprove the theory behind why the spike occurred.
Nevertheless, if autism rates continue to climb, it is most likely that we will find another cause outside of vaccines. In fact, finding a link between vaccines and autism is so unlikely that it would alter our understanding of microbiology so greatly that basic principles would be called into question.
Now, my article has received some criticism for harping on autism too much. Realizing this is a losing battle, many in the AVC have disassociated themselves with the autism-vaccine link, even though it was the very belief they built their pedestal on just a few years ago.
So, let’s talk about other issues such as bodily harm.
Do vaccines cause bodily harm? Yes, 100%
In a minority of cases, people that get vaccines become sick, symptomatic, present with physical ailments and (although I can’t find an actual report exclusively linking death to vaccines that isn’t allergy related) death can occur. Those who feel cold or flu-like symptoms after getting a vaccine should actually rejoice, as that means the immune system has recognized the vaccine’s substances and is engaged. An immune response is actually an indicator that your body is performing properly to some degree.
Just a few years ago, some vaccines had dairy and nut based properties to them. This caused most issues. Now, you might say to yourself … “Jay, c’mon! How could they have been so short-sighted as to put those properties in vaccines? Don’t they know how risky that is?”
Sure, in hindsight, I can see you taking that position. However, when I was in school, there was no mention of nut or dairy allergies. Now, when I visit schools for speaking engagements, I see signs with warnings everywhere. You have to remember that history cannot be framed by the issues of today.
What about Allergies and Learning Disabilities?
As an aside, there are definitely more kids with allergies and mental disabilities today than every before. Is this caused by vaccines? Well, the quick and dirty answer is no.
The long answer is this; science isn’t 100% clear, but the likely culprit of these conditions is several fold. There are a lot fewer cases of autism and these disabilities in rural areas where food is sourced more organically with fewer preservatives; where traffic is less dense and thusly so is air pollution.
It is more likely, given that data, that vaccines are not the culprit but rather the industrial revolution is. We can find the earliest references to allergies in ancient Chinese texts (written as anomalies because they were so rare and there was no understanding of what an allergy actually was), and today allergies are a huge issue.
There has not been a viable link to vaccines, but there is absolutely a link when talking about environmental and food related issues. You probably don’t think about it, but if you walk downtown in New York City for 15-minutes, you are taking in more air pollution today than a person would have their entire lives in the 1950s. How could that not have an impact?
The problem of food contamination and pollution only continues to get worse, while vaccines continue to improve. Use your logical brain for a second, tuck away emotion and your investment in this fight; now what seems to be the most plausible problem?
Allergies are a problem, but only as they relate to the compound in vaccines. If your child has an allergy to eggs and there is egg protein in a vaccine, of course, that child will have a reaction. However, if the doctor, you, and your child did not know about the allergy, you can’t blame the vaccine … you have to blame yourself and the doctor for not ensuring proper allergy tests are done. And no, an allergy test on a baby is not child abuse.
The Standard & The Needs
The real problem with vaccines being a force for evil is the standard set in the debate, which leads me to my conclusion. If you live and die on the cross of either side, you lose in the mind of a neutral thinker when the pervasive science shows consensus. Here’s what we know:
There is no definitive link to autism.
No matter what side you fall on, you cannot argue that there is no definitive medical study by a credible source that gives you the answer, “Yes, vaccines cause autism”.
Check your sources, because memes, who.it, Medical Medium, and sites like vaXism aren’t credible. They offer skewed narratives with no accountability. These studies come for a vacuum with like-minded people sitting in the lunchroom feeding each other a bunch of nonsense.
Proper clinical study must include:
- 3 layers to trials
- A control group
- Blind controls or double-blind randomization
- The study repeated having the same or statistically similar results
As Dr David Baltimore, biologist and Nobel laureate in Physiology and Medicine said, “If I could find a link [between autism and vaccines] I would let the world know online immediately! No one wants children to die, and no governing body could stop me from spreading my findings. I’d die before I let that happen.”
His quote is actually quite important. For the anti-vaxx movement to be truthfully, millions of people would have to be in on a massive conspiracy at this point. Not one of those people collected evidence and released it on Reddit yet? Not one? Man, my friends can’t even keep a secret when I plan something awesome for my girlfriend.
Science truly must have found the most evil and secretive people to ever live. OR, the millions of scientific studies into the subject of vaccines are valid and the AVC are mentally ill, gas lit, and in need of help.
We’re all different.
Some children will get sick from a vaccine, as I’ve mentioned. It’s rare but possible; a genetic soup (that’s us) mixing with a vaccine could make harm a possibility. In the vast majority of children, this will not be the case. Of the problems that may occur, 70–80% will be revealed within 24 hours and then one-week. So, when your child gets a vaccine, you should monitor them to ensure that they are okay. If an adverse reaction (immune response) takes place, it’s time for a trip to the hospital.
As mentioned earlier, in modern vaccination there has never been a reaction after 6-weeks. The only time a reaction occurred outside of this bracket of time was when scientists used live attenuated viruses, which was the best science at the time. We’re light-years away from those days, though.
Anti-vaccine advocates need to stop arguing whether vaccines are good or bad because you’ll never convince the mass public they are indeed evil. They stop disease! Know your audience. What needs to be the focus are studies about what possible genetic markers can raise the risk, and how to deal with such evidence.
Let anti-vaccine doctors run the studies with those that back vaccines. But to be clear, educated, intelligent, experienced researchers have to conduct the study … not Aunty Karen or creepy Uncle Chad on Facebook.
Keep in mind, I’ve now spent six years researching the shit out of this topic and many of you have spent as much as a decade looking into the harm vaccines can cause.
However, NONE OF US hold a candle to those that dedicate their lives to the subject; going to school for endless classes, sinking themselves into debt to study, doing rounds as a medical graduate, and then implementing what they have learned in a hospital, lab, or research facility.
We’re morons next to these people and the point of all that studying and practice is to get professionals into a place where they can give us expert answers to the problems we don’t have the time or the education to understand fully.
I have a cleaner come to my house regularly; not because I can’t clean but because she has done her research as to what should be used, has the experience to get the job done faster, and will always do a better job than me. I’m not sitting there telling her she doesn’t know what she’s doing because I am not an expert.
There is nothing in this world that can’t kill someone.
The medical community needs to stop pushing against people with skewed studies to prove a point, and so must the AVC.
Meet in the middle and study claims, but use science to help the public understand instead of shutting it down. Facebook Live the years of research without interruption if you have to. The point of science is to address questions. Here’s a question by millions that needs to be solved once and for all.
However, we must fight science with science and not the questionable claims of questionable people. What are the concerns of the millions not getting vaccines? Let’s research each.
The AVC feel dismissed and rightfully so. Many in the AVC are dismissed by science because the argument they’re presenting doesn’t stand up to any scientific process. We’re supposed to waste expert’s time by using science to debunk claims that the vaccine contains exploding nanobots? C’mon, that’s just stupid.
Even with thimerosal, they found it to have no root causes of health concerns, but they removed it from almost all vaccines because they wanted to meet the AVC in the middle and found a way to do so.
We need more of that.
We don’t know what causes autism.
That is 100% truth; not a single soul on earth has the answer, so for you to pretend you do is just ignorant and dangerous.
Further research needs to be done though, and here’s why.
Yes, the vast majority of studies show there is no link, but there is a margin for error amongst a small group of kids. To figure out if vaccines cause autism for those children, the parents who claim the case need to allow that non-biased group of scientists to study their children humanely in a way that doesn’t rob them of their childhood.
If you’re going to engage in passionate scientific debate, then you need to be willing to go all the way, or STFU.
The CDC needs to clean up their act and button up procedures.
We shouldn’t be able to question an organization like the CDC because they should always publish whatever they know. Bias has no place in the conversation. Just like politicians and everyday people, the scientific and medical community along with the CDC have engaged in dishonest practices.
This shouldn’t discredit the community as a whole, but there are lessons here for them to learn from.
When evidence is presented, we must move on.
This is key. Jenny, Andrew, and most all sources of the information the AVC believes in have been debunked in lab settings without big pharma money. Maybe you think the organizations that debunked them are corrupt … fine.
But there have been plenty of studies on the matter, and not one person has backed up these claims. Anti-vaccination “proof” falls somewhere between flat earth and religious text-fable.
Continually arguing the same topic after they have extensively researched it is like talking to your partner about something they did wrong, them apologizing, and you continuing to browbeat them. That’s not productive, that’s abuse. Yes, I’m saying that there are people out there in the AVC that are perfectly okay with abusing scientists and researchers.
What if They’re Right?
I was once stumped when someone would say this to me because I thought that I would never be completely certain that vaccines are fine outside of outlier cases of immune responses or misuse, but I was wrong.
If they’re right about vaccines right now then it would be the first time they’ve been right. I don’t mean there isn’t evidence of vaccine damage, there is. There’s also evidence of alcohol poisoning, meth overdoses, those who went holistic while being begged to go allopathic with cancer treatments, people falling off of ledges to get selfies, eating themselves into an early grave, road rage, and a plethora of other situations that cause damage; people do dumb shit.
I mean, their “theories” have never been correct … not once!
Let History Prove Them Wrong
Vaccines and the “mark of the beast” come from old Christian stories. It was a mark on the forehead which evolved over time into vaccines. Yes, we’re off to a smashing start with this history lesson.
The first big collective and tribal anti-vaxx movement on record though, is England in 1949 when the polio vaccine debuted. Religious leaders freaked out, the “freedom fighters” lost their minds, and there were a fringe number of doctors/scientists who believed the vaccine for polio would kill everyone that took it amongst other conspiracies.
The first smaller movement in the US was when small pox was at its peak. Once again, the same people were up in arms over the vaccine and conspiracies; they can melt people from the inside to aliens invented the ingredients, all the way down to it’s poison that will kill anyone who takes it within the decade.
Despite that, every time a new vaccine debuted, more and more people fed off of each other and the anti-vaxx movement grew. Things only got worse as communication became easier. The nut bars that were living in mom’s basement talking to 3 people their whole lives had a voice online and could enchant regular every day folks by telling stories and exaggerating at every turn.
Time-after-time, vaccines were poisoning everyone and all recipients would die within a set amount of time. Never happened so why do you think you’re one of a very few set of geniuses that have got it right this time?
Another spoiler alert: You’re not a genius. You’re just some person that gets laid, gets paid, and lives to die another day.
With each vaccine, came conspiracies that there was an easier way to eradicate or stifle the virus through other medicine. With COVID-19, we’re seen everything from a dewormer to cow urine suggested as a “cure”.
Not even once has alternative medicine been able to “cure” a virus or disease.
Each time a new virus presents the AVC say all you have to do is be clean to fight it. That didn’t work out for 3,987,155 people who have died so far of COVID-19. You have to assume at least half of the people that died from C19 took showers and took care of themselves.
With every new virus, the AVC say the numbers of people dying are inflated or blatant lies. It’s funny how those claims have been investigated time-and-time again be public and private entities, and there has never been any proof of said tampering.
You’re not a freedom fighter if you don’t believe in C19 or if you refuse to get vaccinated. You’re not smarter than the average scientist. You’re not a renegade. You’re a simp in a long line of simps that made all the same mistakes as you. Oh, insanity at its finest.
I might sound like I’m strongly in support of vaccines … and that’s because I am. I wasn’t before this, though.
I could have gone either way because I thought both sides had plausible evidence to back their claims. They just don’t.
I do, however, believe that there is a chance some people could get sick from vaccines (which science agrees with) and that we need to study that side of the argument more.
This debate was a perfect storm! The rise of information technology, celebrity endorsement, lies, and preying on the minds of those who aren’t in the fields of research, science, and medicine made for a disaster.
If you look at social media, many will put the findings of a 20-year medical researcher on the same level as a 20-minute YouTube watcher. To give you some perspective, I consider myself pretty well versed in this subject and just 8-minutes into my course they showed me endless research I didn’t even know existed. That evidence continues to strengthen my resolve.
We don’t get this information in the media because facts and figures are boring, and viewership drops through the floor. Weighty text and dry, constipated numbers are just not headline worthy.
If there is a link that is ever found it is likely to be in a very few number of cases and as cold as this sounds … that’s okay because we’ll never be perfect with anything but vaccines have saved billions of lives.
But, if that’s not convincing enough for you, look at it this way. If there is a mass conspiracy, and the government knows of an actual link, would they be getting the vaccines along with you? Nope.
Guess what? They do! They also agree with this kid, who went against his mom to get his vaccines. The entire debate seems as rational as the claims against 5G. Yes, Karen, because RF is selective in its effects and doesn’t at all affect the rich. *hard eye roll*
So I guess I should put a bow on this.
I have interviewed anti-vaxxers:
I have gone deep into the anti-vaxx movement. I’ve talked to, gone on dates, and spent considerable time with anti-vaxxers. I gave them a chance …
Still, to this day no one has found a link between actual harm and properly administered vaccines to those fully aware of their medical condition outside of anomalies which are so statistically rare they often make up a thousandth of a percentage point. Not one scientist, researcher, or doctor can state that they know vaccines cause any diseases or viruses whatsoever.
There have been billions of dollars poured into the research, and not one claim can be substantiated.
We have become a society of experts; absolutely sure that Building 7 was blown up by controlled demo because we are engineers, absolutely certain that someone is guilty of a crime because of a video freeze frame that shows it in their eyes, and absolutely correct that vaccines cause mass harm.
We just don’t seem to understand that the internet doesn’t make us experts; education and experience do. This is an absolutely vital consideration in the field of vaccine study. We MUST listen to the experts because it’s not a hobby for them.
After the hype of COVID-19 is over and you go back to spying on your neighbours, scientists and medical professionals will still be spending all of their time trying to save us. While you’re spending 50 hours a week working your butt of for a retirement plan, scientists and medical professionals will still be spending all of their time trying to save us. While you’re at the movies or go on a vacation, scientists and medical professionals will still be spending all of their time trying to save us. You get the point.
But hey—like I said before, if science can be refuted by arm chair bloggers and Karens then just send me the address of your job I know very little about, I’ll come belittle you and tell you that your experience and education don’t matter because I watched a YouTube video. You’d be totally cool with that, right?
Simply, humans have lost their ability to register and compute information. No, your cousin Jeb isn’t as valid a source as Dr. Z. No, YouTube does not vet their videos against a collection of peers like a scientific journal does. No, you haven’t had a breakthrough because you’re not educated enough to even understand what you’re reading in some cases, just as I’m not, although I feel slightly more qualified than many because I’m actually trying to understand the data the AVC won’t read.
I hope you see that I’ve tried to look at this from both sides and give a bit on the possibilities but in the end we as individuals have to stop pretending like we know everything because we’re not just talking about your kids when you don’t want to vaccinate, we’re talking about the world’s population. The vaccine schedule should be agreed upon between the parents and doctors involved intimately in the child’s care. Also, doctors need to stop rolling their eyes and dismissing parent’s concerns. Meaningful conversations with simple explanations need to be had.
And if those meaningful conversations are had and parents still want to believe some random on the internet with shotty evidence then a conversation needs to be had about the safety of that child. Where there’s smoke there’s fire … where there is an anti-vaxxer there is a mental condition.
I don’t care about what religion you raise your kids to believe in, or what principals you instil, as long as what you teach doesn’t affect the whole. Not vaccinating based on the current “evidence” could prove to be reckless. Then again, I’m just some guy on the internet.
But Wait …
I must admit that I used this article as a bit of a troll when I first wrote it. You see, I wanted to get the perceived proof out of the AVC (Anti-Vaccines Community) and scrolling through their groups just wasn’t enough. At times the feeds read like socio-political hate groups. So, I posted a slightly incomplete blog in hopes that they would put me on blast. I’ve also posted the blog elsewhere to get feedback.
Here’s what people had to say and what the mountains of printed information and bookmarked scientific sites say in response.
Warning: This gets really long.
Once you get double jabbed with a COVID-19 vaccine you will never be able to achieve full natural immunity.
I had a friend send me this one. She pointed to pages 23 & 24 of the UK Health Security Agency weekly vaccine surveillance report (Week 42).
The claims from a Facebook group she’s in are as follows:
- N-Antibody levels APPEAR to be lower in people who acquire infection following 2 doses of vaccination.
- The antibody drop is BASICALLY permanent.
- The vaccines do not stop infection or transmission and that now, the vaccinated are being infected at much higher rates.
- The vaccine interferes with the body’s ability after infection to produce antibodies against the spike protein and other pieces of the virus.
- The vaccine prevents people from producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein (the shell) which is a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people.
- LONG-TERM, people who take the vaccine will be far more vulnerable to any mutations in the spike protein that MIGHT come along.
- The unvaccinated will procure long lasting, IF NOT PERMANENT immunity to all strains of the alleged virus after being infected just once.
I’ve taken a new approach to quoting these antivaxx groups. The first thing I do is capitalize any words that have no business being in a scientific analysis. Basically? If not permanent? Language is important and that language is scapegoat terminology.
But, we’re not here to pick on how anti-vaxxers use language to skew the point. We’re here to analyze the point itself. So, let’s do it.
Essentially, what you’re observing is confirmation bias. Pages 23 and 24 of this report do show an expected drop in antibody levels but they do not show the drop to be basically permanent, nor do they show any positive data regarding the unvaccinated and their antibody levels.
Here is the most crucial portion of the data in this section, “Almost all tested S-antibody negative during December. In the 3 oldest age groups, the impact of first vaccine dose, then second vaccine dose, can be seen from December through June, as the profile of population antibody levels increases. Then from June through September the profile of antibody levels in these cohorts gradually decreases, consistent with waning. During October there is a small increase in percentage of donors with high antibody levels of 1000+ AU/ml for the 70 to 84 age group only, following the initiation of the booster programme. The higher profile of antibody levels in the youngest age group, is likely a result of a combination of factors including stronger immune response.”
Translation: The OP clearly hasn’t spent much time in science. Waning is an expected and decidedly predictable element of vaccination and immune response, whether natural or not. All this paper is saying is that there is no measurable difference between the expected waning and the tested waning scale.
This is often the problem with non-scientific individuals reading scientific papers. They see a term like waning and apply non-clinical understanding with a negative standpoint. I’d be willing to bet the OP hasn’t taken any scientific courses since high school and has probably forget most of what he or she learned back then.
This analysis of the report also completely discounts memory B cells, which are the long-term protectors against infection. It has been shown that the memory B cells generated by natural immunity can be, in some cases, more adept at producing higher potent antibodies. This is why vaccines have had boosters for decades. We already know this is the case with some viruses, and as such act accordingly. This is not news to anyone with a background in microbiology.
However, you need to contract full blown COVID-19 to achieve these potentially higher functioning memory B cells, and the risk definitely outweighs the benefit.
To remind you of the risks of COVID-19; severe disease, death, long-COVID which is destroying lives and will be a many billions strain on healthcare for years to come.
With the vaccine, risk of severe COVID and death drop precipitously and the risk of long-COVID is almost non-existent. You literally only need to read this entire paper and any journal to see the evidence of this.
Basically, if you’re young and healthy, chances are you’ll come through COVID fine, but we don’t get vaccinated for ourselves. We do it for our community. Vaccinated COVID vs unvaccinated COVID is almost always the difference between a cold and pneumonia. Colds develop and unravel quickly, while pneumonia can have long-lasting effects and damage the body permanently.
Let’s also throw in another reference that I’ve made several times. ALL peer reviewed studies have shown that vaccination produces greater amounts of circulating antibodies than natural infection.
So here’s the thing, the contextual fallacy presented in the assessment of the UK HSA analysis, which actually presents very strong data throughout in support of vaccination, is a bait and switch. Much like all of the information I’ve seen analyzed out of the AVC, the person presenting the information simply doesn’t understand what they’re reading.
Great scientific documents present both sides of an argument. It’s when they acknowledge the other side’s claims that the AVC gets all hot and bothered like a dog hearing the bag of treats being grabbed out of the pantry. Oops, turns out it’s a bag of human food and they can’t have any.
This document does speak of the potential benefits of natural infection but there is no data to suggest the vaccine destroys N-Antibody levels BASICALLY permanently, the analysis ignores the all important memory B cell allocation, and it completely ignores the risk to community without vaccination. Remember the estimation that 42m people would die from COVID-19? That was with no action. Most took action and the scientific community rallied to save us. This isn’t a coincidence; when the vaccines became prevalent, the severe cases dipped in those ares where the uptick was highest.
As far as the claim that the vaccine interferes with the body’s ability after infection to produce antibodies against the spike protein and other pieces of the virus; that’s false.
The same is true for the claim that the vaccine prevents people from producing antibodies to the nucleocapsid protein (the shell) which is a crucial part of the response in unvaccinated people. There have been some outlier cases but those case numbers are less than 1 in 100,000. In stark contrast, your chance of long-COVID and ICU admittance in the unvaccinated is much higher.
Where they do get it right is that natural immunity MAY stave off more mutations better than vaccination. That is true, BUT, so far, the unvaccinated have led to at least 2 mutations and we’ve needed one booster which addresses this (as we have with vaccines since forever and a day). There is also absolutely no guarantee that natural infection would stave off future mutations. If we were to go unvaccinated we would have a 100% chance of stronger mutations. With the vaccine, we have a great shot at staving off future mutations.
It’s all a self-fulfilling prophecy, as I’ve said. To go unvaccinated is to open yourself and your community (which likely consists of older and IMC individuals) up to worse infections, more death, crippled ICUs, more mutations, and a longer road back.
This is also an important time to remind you of a few key metrics as more people get vaccinated:
- Given that the majority of the population in many areas have been vaccinated, the case numbers by percentage will be larger for those who are vaccinated. However, the number of severe cases is as high as 6000x greater in the unvaccinated. The CDC now reports unvaccinated vs vaccinated cases here. From there, you can go down the rabbit hole.
- Case counts are no longer the metric to follow. It’s all about ICU admissions, deaths, and long-COVID. Of these metrics, all outcomes are worse in the unvaccinated.
- Hospitalization rates are calculated by the number of residents of a defined area who are hospitalized with a positive SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test divided by the total population within that defined area. This does not mean the patient is admitted with serious symptoms or account for the length of stay.
As this study says on the first page of the summary, “Several studies of vaccine effectiveness have been conducted in the UK which indicate that 2 doses of vaccine are between 65 and 95% effective at preventing symptomatic disease with COVID-19 with the Delta variant, with higher levels of protection against severe disease including hospitalization and death. There is some evidence of waning of protection against infection and symptomatic disease over time, though protection against severe disease remains high in most groups at least 5 months after the second dose.”
If you read the whole report, you’ll see it is a realistic analysis with positive support for vaccination as well as boosters when needed. I encourage you to read it … but read it all! The UK HSA publishes weekly papers that are fascinating!
To put a pin in this, let’s check out Dr Z and Dr. Monica Gandhi talking about natural vs vaccinated immunity. This is a seriously wonderful conversation and hits on many other points as well.
What about the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Aren’t you concerned?
In short, nope. mRNA vaccines are backed by 30+ years of science and 10+ years of research into Coronavirus mRNA vaccines. It wasn’t rushed! In fact, it wasn’t even the fastest vaccine to move from stage one to distribution—the Zika vaccine was deployed in 7 months. Claims about sterilization are just a bunch of arm chair bloggers spouting off while not understanding how science works. To top it off, at the time of writing this there have been dozens of injuries that have been treated and easily dealt with from the vaccines administered, but someone dies every 30 seconds or so from COVID-19. Don’t know if you guys bet the odds but odds say, get the damn vaccine. As far as cases of serious injury like Shawn Skelton, we’re still waiting for proof the vaccines caused those injuries. Weird, how we never seem to get proof from people on the anti-vaxx side, huh?
What about the doctors and the nurses that are being censored who agree with the AVC?
Look, there are shitty doctors just like there are shitty people in every profession and walk of life. Whether that shittiness stems from greed, hate, bitterness, jealousy, laziness, insecurities, a lack of acceptance, or any other of the many reasons we as people act like jerks.
Scientific consensus means the majority of science has studied and properly tested a theory and similar results are continually found that support the hypothesis. If someone presents differing data the burden is on them to prove the consensus wrong. When you’re the naysayer, you must prove your position. It’s not up to the majority to do so. This isn’t censorship, this is burden to proof.
Not only must they prove their position, they must do it within the scientific process which is where all AVC theory fails. And please, don’t argue that the AVC doesn’t have the funds to conduct proper studies. They do. It’s a multi-billion dollar industry (holistic and anti-allopathic).
Now, if you or your child have an adverse reaction to a vaccine and the doctor shrugs it off, that’s not all doctors polarizing you. That’s one shitty doctor.
What about aluminum?
There’s this girl; she’s amazing. I’ve gotten to know her and have come to realize we’re very similar except on this subject largely. She brought up aluminum and I honestly had very little to say back because I just wasn’t in that mode.
But, here’s why the aluminum in vaccines isn’t comparable to an aluminum can. The reason I draw that comparison is when you think of aluminum, what do you think of? An ornate object usually. Aluminum is actually all around us. It’s in the soil, plants, air, and water. In fact, we ingest aluminum every day and babies have it in their bodies due to the aluminum in a mother’s blood.
An aluminum can has high concentrated aluminum mixed with other chemicals. Aluminum in vaccines and soil is low in concentration and doesn’t contain the chemicals that make it a bad idea to eat a can.
In the first 6-months of breast feeding, an infant will ingest roughly 7 milligrams of aluminum. The standard vaccines administered over 6 months contain about 4.4 milligrams of aluminum that is tit-for-tat exactly the same chemical composition.
Aluminum has been used for over 30 years in vaccines and since the beginning of time in nature.
You’re overlooking the fact that there is no vaccinated vs 100% unvaccinated studies. How can one say vaccines don’t cause autism if both control and experimental groups are vaccinated?
First, I never say vaccines don’t cause autism. Read again. I never say it. Just like I bungee jump but never say there’s zero chance I won’t die, or when I eat meat I also don’t say there is a zero percent chance that I will contract Salmonella. To further put a point on this I’m also agnostic because your God might exist; it’s unlikely but possible.
Now, as for the first part of the post. I asked for a credible source and was given this. Down the rabbit hole I went. Here is the part of the study that both raises concern and clears up some misconception:
This was a “case-control” study: women who had a miscarriage were compared with a control group of pregnant women who did not.
Researchers compared 485 women aged 18–44 who miscarried (cases) to 485 pregnant women aged 18–44 who did not miscarry (controls) to determine if the women who had miscarriages were more or less likely to have received the 2010–11 or 2011–12 flu vaccine 1 to 28 days before their date of miscarriage.
This study used vaccine safety data collected through the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD).
The health information includes demographic characteristics, vaccinations, and medical outcomes.
The study has some limitations. These include:
Cases and controls both had pregnancies confirmed by the medical record. Cases had a miscarriage confirmed by medical record review. Cases were compared with controls from the same age group (less than 30 years or 30 or more years), had nearly the same date of last menstrual period, and were enrolled in the same health care plan.
VSD is a collaboration between CDC’s Immunization Safety Office (ISO) and several integrated healthcare organizations across the United States. The VSD uses electronic health information from more than 9 million people, approximately 3% of the US population.
The study examined data from a small number of women in a subgroup who received H1N1-containing vaccines in consecutive years. The small numbers in the study could have led to imprecise results.
It is possible that women who have an increased risk for miscarriage might also be more likely to have received influenza vaccine. These conditions could have made the women more likely to miscarry.
Many miscarriages occur early in pregnancy and may not come to medical attention. The impact on the study findings of miscarriages that were not identified is unknown.
This study was a case-control study that estimated an odds ratio of vaccination among women who had a miscarriage compared to those who did not. The study did not estimate risk of miscarriage after influenza vaccination.
Therefore, the findings cannot be used to estimate the probability of miscarriages for pregnant women who received an H1N1-containing flu vaccinations two years in a row. Finally, it is not known how many women in the study were aware they were pregnant at the time of vaccination.
Flu vaccinations could have been incompletely recorded because some women could have received flu shots in another setting. The possible impact of unidentified vaccinations is unknown.
However, this effect cannot account for the observed association if unidentified vaccinations occurred with similar frequency in cases and controls. A review of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) (Moro et al, 2011) found no unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting for pregnancy complications or adverse fetal outcomes among pregnant women and flu shots.
A large study using VSD data (Kharbanda et al, 2013) found no increased risk for adverse obstetric events (like chorioamnionitis, pre-eclampsia, or gestational hypertension) for pregnant women who received the flu vaccine from 2002 to 2009 when compared to pregnant woman who were not vaccinated.
A VSD study (Nordin et al, 2014) compared pregnant women who received the flu shot with an equal number of pregnant women who did not receive the flu shot during the 2004–05 and 2008–09 flu seasons. The study found no differences between the two groups in the rates of premature delivery or small for gestational age infants.
A large August 2017 study using VSD data found that the babies of women who received the flu shot during their first trimester had no increased risk of having children with major birth defects.
Now, regarding no studies into whether vaccines cause autism because there are no direct correlation studies. One needs to simply study the numbers in the general populous that have received vaccines vs the number of cases of autism.
On average there is 80% coverage in countries like Canada and the US. The number of children with autism in the US (where vaccines are the most controversial) is 1 in 59. Now, we have to be careful with these numbers because they are flawed but the only way they can be reported:
This number does not mean that 1 in 59 children who received vaccines was diagnosed with autism. This is a general overview of diagnosed cases. Keep “diagnosed” in mind as you continue to read.
There is a higher rate amongst financially challenged families giving credence to the opinion that fast food, sugars, and other dangerous diets could be linked to autism. Studies pending.
I feel for anyone who has had a kid and can’t afford to give healthy options. It’s sad and looking at this as the issue can make one feel completely helpless so it’s best to tackle the information presented by the tribal mentality than the fringe.
The first cases of “autism” were found in 1908 amongst what were once believed to be schizophrenic patients. In 1944 Asperger’s Syndrome was added as a milder form of autism unofficially. Autism rates increase as a result.
- In 1980, Infantile autism is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) for the first time; the condition is also officially separated from childhood schizophrenia. Rates of autism again rise.
- In 1987, Infantile autism as a term is replaced with what we now call the spectrum. Rates of reported cases skyrocket under the new definition.
- In 1994, Asperger’s Syndrome is officially added to the spectrum, once again causing a spike in the numbers.
- In 2000, science bends and fucks up their entire narrative. Thimerosal is removed from the MMR vaccine despite no evidence that it causes autism or has any ill effects conclusively. This is the first major incident where science bends to public fear in modern times and fueled the debate. Despite this public outcry, science wavering, and thimerosal being removed it does no good (in that illness and autism rates don’t decline) because … you know, science and shit.
- 2009, the CDC releases numbers showing a huge jump in autism cases. This is largely shown as proof in the AVC that vaccines cause autism and other diseases because at this time the number of vaccines required had been increasing. However, (again) science just improved. Diagnostic measures are strengthened and the recognition of the spectrum, as well as populations with increased access to medical resources and doctors who understand the disease, can easily explain the increase. The same research can be found with certain cancers.
- In 2013 we officially find the creation of ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) which encompasses impaired social communication and/or interaction, and restricted and/or repetitive behaviours. Shockingly (sarcasm) the rate of autistic diagnosis increases greatly.
You see, with each information release people panic, especially parents. I’m not holding that against anyone. I get undying love for your child. However, if a new study comes out that states a “new form” of autism is out there then more parents are going to flock to their doctors, leading to an increase.
Merging variants in autism cases causes science to shoot themselves in the foot. Then again, who can have predicted that millions of people would get into pseudo-science once the “information” age took hold?
The CDC and DSM, amongst many other agencies, do not disagree with the notion that vaccines can cause some harm, with very rare cases of severe complications. Nothing in this world is perfect.
Vaccines are not either good or bad.
They are largely good with some bad like everything because humans are far too variable for blanket solutions. However:
Eradicated diseases because of vaccines:
- Smallpox (300m people died in the 20th century)
- Rinderpest (Millions died, stock wiped out in certain areas)
Diseases with global eradication underway:
- Poliomyelitis or Polio (Millions died)
- Dracunculiasis (Few deaths but effects are brutal)
- Yaws (Few deaths but effects are brutal)
- Malaria (About 1m deaths/year, mostly where there are no vaccines)
Regional elimination established or underway:
- Hookworm (It’s killed a lot of puppies)
- Lymphatic filariasis (Few deaths but effects are brutal)
- Measles (400 to 500 deaths per year down from 1879)
- Rubella (400 to 500 deaths per year)
- Onchocerciasis (Few deaths, but disfigurement and blindness)
- Bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE (100′s of deaths)
- Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or vCJD (Fatal within 24 months in 99% of cases)
- Syphilis (Untreated 8% to 58% of people die)
So, what are we to do? Just let diseases kill us all because of a small risk? Keep in mind that smallpox almost killed the entire population of the US in the 20th century alone. So here are your case studies regarding vaccines vs no-vaccines:
- The numbers of kids getting vaccines vs the number of serious cases of illness or autism are not at all proportionate. That is why science says there is no correlation.
- A study of the timeline reveals reasons for the increase.
- The number of deaths and severe effects by diseases vaccines treat greatly outweigh the number of children that have “reportedly” contracted any serious condition from vaccines.
- The only conclusion any sane or rational person can draw is that there are negative effects, and in some cases, there are some extremely negative effects, but vaccines by and large in over 98% of cases prevent disease and stave off the complete and total eradication of the human species.
Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy? Has anyone here EVER cited them as sources?
No, you’re right. No one has. There’s absolutely no reason to think that Wakefield and McCarthy have led to the panic. Well, except for the fact that they are both poster children for the movement. Have you heard of Google? We now have Kat Von D reigniting the debate.
You only mention the MMR which is a clear sign of a rookie. You’ve left out: 1. The effect of vaccine-induced Th2 dominance that suppresses SYMPTOMS but not disease, thereby affecting diagnosis. Unvaccinated are more likely to have a balanced (Th1 and Th2) response and seek treatment. (Also, they’re more likely to stay home and NOT spread illnesses, but that’s a story for another day) This is very important to consider. 2. There is no mention of maternal immune activation. Vaccines most certainly activate the immune system, though they aren’t the loan cause. 3. No mention of cytokine storms 4. No mention of aluminum 5. No specific mention of factors that may predispose susceptible individuals to vaccine injury (including autism) 6. Genetic factors (and how they come to be) 7. Healthy user bias 8. Decline of diseases for which no vaccine was widely distributed or included in the current schedule 9. You’ve conveniently left out the CDC incidence stats commonly shared in this group showing that disease incidence is increased with subsequent booster shots
How many moving targets are we supposed to hit? Regarding Th2 dominance, pretty sure you’re cherry picking your information or you’re one of those people that believe all large organizations are evil. Case in point.
There is evidence this is true, but again it’s cherry-picked information because the immune response is only compromised and not depleted and the number of cases of death or illness associated with this impairment are so low that statistical analysis can only identify it as an anomaly. Once again, the risk vs reward is clear.
Now regarding point 2 and 3, I can of course debate with the 3 main points of contention (it cannot be assumed that MIA is the same as causing immune activation in the fetus or in an infant receiving vaccines, there is no evidence that an infant can be similarly injured by immune activation, and the immune activation experiments do not use vaccines) but then you’ll tell me there is growing science to suggest otherwise.
I must admit that on this point more research is needed to come to a clear consensus but it is a point like this in a debate that drives people to completely disregard something because of risk that really grinds my gears. We are an infantile species and learning more each day.
Yes, there will be risks found and addressed. This is yet another. But, if this is why you’re not getting vaccines then you are doing a disservice to the entire population of the world. The numbers don’t lie. Vaccines have overwhelmingly prevented the eradication of our species.
I have not said once that I don’t believe there are negative effects from vaccines. We’re going to learn as we go here since we are doing something for the first time.
Yes, there will be complications.
Man once built mud huts that couldn’t handle rain and would collapse and then kill the family inside. We now live in skyscrapers that move with an earthquake.
If your demand is that science and medicine be perfect then you are an unrealistic asshat. When’s the last time you dealt with a problem for the first time and handled everything perfectly? Get a life.
You can’t hold any other human to a standard you can’t meet as well. Think about a grocery store; the more you go the better you navigate the aisles. It sounds trite, but this is absolutely true in medicine. The research will always evolve scientific theory because that’s kinda the point.
You do have a point here though, that I did make above. Scientists and the global medical community need to stop saying there is no risk or no correlation between risk and vaccines. There clearly is, but like we debate politics we debate medicine; everyone has to go to extremes. There are responsible scientists who say there is risk, but for those that state vaccines are 100% safe, they need to get their shit together.
I’m not going to debate aluminum because it’s a stupid fucking debate and has been blown out of proportion. It can be equated to the debate over whether anti-freeze is in some food. No, an active ingredient is shared, but it has been shown to have zero effects in humans. More cherry picking.
Regarding points 5, 6 and 7, I clearly mention this, that from the research I believe there are genetic and dietary causes that link with vaccines driving illness or disease. I specifically say that. Thanks for reading the whole thing.
To point 8, what are you new? No one is stating that vaccines are the lone solution to disease, but the numbers are clear that vaccines do drastically reduce, if not eliminate some of the most dangerous diseases known to mankind.
So what’s your solution here? We just get rid of vaccines because of some risks that don’t present in the majority of cases? No, we drive science forward. We look at the risks that present and solve them.
Regarding point 9, I didn’t conveniently leave it out; but rather purposefully did. You’re looking at numbers skewed to make your point. The funny thing about all of these debates is that you can’t even see I’m not an anti-vaccine hater.
I’m simply presenting what I have learned and in some cases, science and medicine drive me nuts, but again it doesn’t ultimately discount the fact that vaccines provide large risk vs reward benefit over the issues that present. And, it’s not like the issues that come up are being ignored. With all issues that present, science and medicine evolve.
Their PR departments suck though.
Most of us parents have sorted through that amount of research in DAYS! The years we have spent researching and our first hand experiences as PARENTS are way more valuable than this blog entry. I’ll search through groups of caring parents for info and help before I take any word of some group stalker. Bye boy
Yeah, that’s not anecdotal and driven by emotion at all. You’re so cute and funny the way you listen to the tom-toms beating in the streets over trained professionals in a complex field. Being PARENTS make you an expert? Jesus, I had no idea.
Okay, I’ll stop being condescending now.
First, if you went through every reference in this article and every reference those articles list in days then you are a god damn Wonder Woman. Seriously! I figure there are roughly about 10,000,000 words in the above articles and links, along with the other data I’ve looked at. Based on average reading time, that’s about 1,282 hours or 53 days if you were to read straight. So, wow, good for you, defying human potential! Okay, that was a little condescending.
I get that the herd mentality does often present as proof. It’s simply disguised though. Experiential evidence has its place but in this case, it’s going against empirical evidence so it’s not nearly as valid.
Being a parent doesn’t make you an expert in anything to do with medical matters, science, or psychology. In fact, emotion is the degradation of critical thought, and when a parent it talking about their child, emotion is the fuel they run on.
Now, I get it. In this age of SJWs and cancel culture, you believe that because someone is emotionally they should be allowed to win. But anyone with half a rational mind knows, emotions ruin progress when speaking about intellectual topics.
Get off your high horse. Gone girl.
So…someone who says they “researched” vaccines … but conducted that “research” using social media? Lol. It’s also very obvious that the author has no background knowledge in medicine, physiology, or microbiology. For someone who has been “researching” for 2 years? I would expect to see a list of sources and a better understanding of the issues. CNN, Fox News, and Fakebook are not credible sources of research material. This needs a huge epic fail stamp
Well, I did link to sources, and I didn’t use social media. I also linked largely to journals and peer reviewed studies. Thanks for the assumptions though.
Your post really reveals how valid you are in the debate … not at all.
While you’re right, I do not have any formal medical training, neither do you (based on your social media) or the vast majority of people leading this movement.
That’s a really funny statement coming from you and all. I do however have a highly developed research skill and subscribe to all kinds of credible journals. I don’t sleep all that much so I spend all night developing my own sense of the world, too.
I did ace biology and other sciences though, which helped me understand my MIT course. So, maybe I’m a bit more credible than you will allow yourself to believe?
Oh, and this same person said that I’m too scared to debate an anti-vaxxer with credible credentials. Well …
When you say look at who is behind the studies, are you considering who is behind the so-called debunking of the studies that you referenced in your article? Have you looked at the conflicts of interest that reach the conclusions that your article States?
Yes. I am satisfied that the sources I have found are far more credible than an earlier source that you came up with in the group; abcnews.com.co.
Read this. It will change your mind and make you realize it’s all a monopolistic gain… http://urhealthinfo.com/.../how-rockefeller-founded-bi.../
Umm … no, it won’t. Unsourced hyperbole with a scary picture. It’s also on a publication that published an article about someone being cured of breast cancer with cannabis oil. While cannabis oil can help, it is not alone a cure and is often misrepresented by sites without oversight.
EDIT: The article has since been deleted because it was completely disbunked and the author apologized.
If you have been in this group and doing research for 2 years, then you know that autism is not the biggest concern for those who choose not to vaccinate.
She continues … Death and damage are. There is risk in either choice, but the facts don’t lie. Vaccines cause more death and damage than the natural diseases. For example, measles. And this is my personal work. I did this for every disease. I am a scientist. I love science and math. I question everything. I do the research. Because a decision made out of fear will not be as good as a decision made from facts.
For example: chance of contracting and dying from the measles in the 5 years prior to the vaccine (1958–1962).
According to National Vaccine Information Center:
503,282 cases reported per year with 432 death
Chance of getting measles: 503,282 cases of measles/186.5 million (US population)=.00270 or .270%
Chance of death IF you contract measles: 432 deaths per year/ 503,282 total cases of measles= .000858 or .0858%
Chance of contracting and dying from measles (figured 2 different ways): .000858× .00270=.0000023166 432 deaths/186.5 million=.0000023166 or .00023166% chance of death from measles BEFORE vaccine introduced
Chance of severe reaction to MMR vaccine according to vaccine insert: CDC states 10,000,000 doses per year: High Fever: 5–15% (500,000–1.5 million) Seizure: 1 in 3,000 (or 3,333) Thrombocytopenia: 1 in 30,000–40,000 Allergic reaction: 35–100 per year Encephalitis: 1 per million (or 10) Serious Neurological Disease: 1 in 365,000 (or 27.4)
Chance reaction to MMR vaccine according to insert using averages for data with a range ( also not including fevers): 3,333+285+65+10+27.4/10 million doses= .000372 or .0372%
Other severe reactions are rare, but are reported to VAERS as such: (I am calculating separate to ensure no overlap in data of insert and VAERS report) Severe adverse reaction documented 7692 cases from 1990–2016 and of these 397 resulted in death 7692 reactions/26 years=295.84* per year 397 deaths/26 years=15.3* per year *According to the American Medical Association this number is only 1–10% of all cases reported. Meaning actual number could be anywhere from: 2,958.4–29,584 adverse reactions per year. from MMR 153–1,527 deaths per year from MMR Chance of reaction from MMR using the lower end of the range (VAERS): 2958.4/10 million doses= .000296 .0372% chance severe rxn (MMR insert) .029% chance adverse rxn (VAERS) .00023166% chance natural death 1962
Whoa right? When you first look at this you have to be impressed. I mean first, she’s a scientist. Second, she did her own math! Third … no, wait. This is just copied and pasted from various sites. Also, the data is interpreted to fit a narrative.
Damn it, there was so much possibility in this response. I was really excited to be proved wrong.
If you really want to cut through the bullshit, just go here. Now, if you’re one of those people that don’t believe in big government then I guess you can say, they’re lying. I do, and it’s my article so 😝.
Here’s a PDF of my research with credible sources: https://www.docdroid.net/LyJoYpZ/vaccine-file.pdf#page=2
Thank you for the PDF. It was quite enlightening; but not the way you think. Of the “credible sources” I found many that just aren’t. Immunize is slanted at best, and several are just weak unsourced articles. Of those that are credible, I didn’t find anything that disputes the conclusion I have come to. See below.
I‘m no one’s lab rat!
You’re right, you’re not. No one that gets vaccinated is a lab rat. That’s because vaccines were tested on lab rats long before humans and this continues to be the case. So go get your vaccines because all of those lab rats and the billions of lives saved would really appreciate it.
I vaccinate but not on a schedule.
Okay, that’s a luxury you have now. It’s good to see you’re vaccinating at some point, but if the trend of pretending you know better than the medical community continues that luxury won’t be around much longer. You’ll be lined up like the millions in Japan that took the same approach previously. I hope you have a full iPhone battery because you’re going to be there awhile; so long you might just die of the disease in line.
You’re an idiot for linking climate change to disease.
Well, clearly you’re just not listening. As the ice melts and the planet changes, old diseases will be released in the environment. Those that don’t vaccinate are at serious risk, putting the entire planet in jeopardy.
Focus on adult immunizations instead of kids.
Fuck, no. What are you insane? The 2 groups most at risk to disease due to a lack of vaccinations are seniors and children. So why would we focus our efforts on the strongest group? Many child immunizations last through adulthood anyway. Healthy adults have a nil chance of contracting any disease compared to kids. I know — build the immune system then get the shots. The problem is that if everyone thinks that way there will be no immune system to build because all the kids will be dead or seriously sick. That’s not an alarmist statement; but rather a statement based in fact. Look, it’s a good idea to keep on top of your vaccines as an adult but that’s not a viable starting point unless you don’t like children and seniors.
What about all these articles that are peer reviewed and get removed or retracted?
Those articles absolutely exist. But here’s the thing, none of what I have written relies on one study. If you read carefully, I talk about how I documented the common links in the studies I have read and then looked for ways to discredit them.
No one is saying science and medicine is 100% right. But that’s the point. The information evolves and consensus on this subject is rampant.
The rest of the posts were pretty hilarious. There were some cool little graphs, a lot of people talking about how they witnessed it first hand or with other’s kids, how parents know best, on and on.
3 people actually told me that we just need to get rid of vaccines and wash our hands more because we’re more hygienic now and that’s what brings the disease rates down.
Love the optimism and while that does play a role, not enough. Not nearly enough.
It was also brought up that we don’t group those who are sick together in the same room basically on top of each other anymore. Correct, and that’s awesome progress, but again, not enough to stop the plague if it comes back, as we’ve seen with COVID-19.
My conclusion, worded differently is this:
People also assumed I have no first-hand experience, which living in Canada; is next to impossible. I went to several schools, got all my shots, as did my friends, and while the bus they delivered the shots in was scary, and the process was weird … we’re all okay (of those I speak to or remember anyway).
I have friends with autistic children who vax and don’t. My best friend growing up had autism. Many around me have strong viewpoints. My cousin can’t get her measles shot due to an allergy. Not to mention, I’m not a Nationalist because I’m not ignorant. I share this planet with everyone and I am concerned we are giving birth to the greatest period of illness in generations.
This is all very real for me.
The interesting thing is that I scoured 4 groups (with over 5m members) for weeks and couldn’t find anyone with any death related first-hand experiences. I found many that said their kids had gotten sick, but that’s to be expected. It happens, and no one is disputing that. Isn’t that odd? 5m members, and not one could point to a first-hand death or even a serious complication? Things that make you go hmmmmm …
There are risks in vaccinating, and no credible person on either side of the debate is disputing that. However, with science, there is an evolution of understanding. When risks present they are researched and dealt with. That’s how it works.
So maybe tomorrow they will find out that vaccines cause babies to cry more.
Once they have found the link they will work on the solution. I never stated once that I believe vaccines are 100% safe because nothing is.
However, if we stop vaccinating we will all (including the parents and their precious babies) die from diseases that were killed off long ago.
Back in the early 20th century, we didn’t have to worry about outbreaks spreading as fast because people didn’t get around the globe as freely. Now, if a major disease that is contagious breaks out in NYC for example, we’re fucked without vaccines (PS: that was written pre-COVID). It’s that simple.
These are my opinions. You’re not going to change my mind unless new research that comes out stating one of the following:
- A clear link between autism or any disease and vaccines. CLEAR!
- A side effect so bad and rampant that it outweighs the number of deaths staved off by vaccines.
- A vetted list of those killed by vaccines that far out numbers those helped by them.
Oh, the irony of writing this on the medium that inflates the problem. What a time.
In the end, I find that ALL anti-vaxx conversations start because of these few reasons:
- Lack of understanding regarding chemical compounds and the immune system.
- Lack of understanding regarding dosage.
- Illusory Pattern Perception.
- Lack of understanding regarding what makes for a clinically acceptable study.
- Hawking crap like crystals and treatments that make one feel better but not curing anything.
- Not understanding that not all information is created equal and that not all websites stand up against others.
- Complete lack of trust in government or experts.
- Being a moron.
Thank you for reading. It’s a long blog, and I know you probably have a lot to do. I also know I don’t bring a lot of heart to the debate, which might make you think I’m an asshole but in science there can’t be heart … it has to be all brain.
Cheers to a world where we can all debate, admit our mistakes and work together behind the experts that do the heavy lifting.