Are vaccines as safe as can be?

Itchy Boy

Muse
I
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
964
Location
CANADA
I'll start by saying that

I don't oppose vaccines for anyone who wants them for themselves or their children.

and

I have never and would never advise anyone to not vaccinate.

A more accurate moniker than 'anti-vaxxer' would be 'vaccine safety awareness advocate', but I guess that's too much of a mouthful.

'Anti-vaxxer' is an inaccurate term meant to be derogatory and divisive, when in reality, we all want vaccines to be as safe as can be.

I will present evidence that the regulatory agencies responsible for vaccine safety are not properly doing their jobs. Cronyism and conflicts of interest abound.

[ed: But before we get into the cronyism and conflicts of interest...]

A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.

How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?

Here's 7 minutes of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, renown and fiercely pro-vaccine vaccinologist, attempting damage control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3x0rQT_eSw
 
Last edited:
Weasel words, “as safe as can be”.

This is a standard none of us use, uniformly and consistently, in our lives. That includes you, OP.

Would you care to state, as objectively as possible, exactly what those weasel words mean?
 
Itchy Boy said:
...we all want vaccines to be as safe as can be.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what we all want. A better, reasonable approach would be that a proposed remedy should have an overall better outcome than non-remediation. That's how risk-benefit analysis is done in every other context. Cars are not "as safe as can be," because we accept a certain risk in order to have affordable, convenient transportation. Buildings are not "as safe as can be" because we want affordable, aesthetically pleasing structures. Medicine works the same way. Every medical treatment incurs a risk that must be balanced against the individual and collective expectation of benefit. Risk itself does not drive decision-making.

You don't get to beg the question of where to set the goalposts, but that's exactly what you're doing. Let's fix that first, and then we can move on to your conspiracy theories.
 
Odd, the Harvard study [2000]: "The paper, however, focuses on the NVICP, the actual operation of this compensation program, and the program's effects on the compensation and prevention of adverse reactions to mandatory vaccinations."

Can you grasp how the compensation program would only be accessed by a small portion of those with "adverse reactions"? Do you think parents of kids that got a bruise, or rash, or sniffles, would access the compensation program?

Also, perhaps studies in this decade might be more meaningful?
 
This might help.

It's the best part of a decade old, but I think you might have missed it at the time.
 
Itchy Boy said:
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.
Click to expand...


You need to provide citations because you have a history of quote mining.
 
Itchy Boy said:
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.
Click to expand...

This suggests that 99% of reactions are within the range of expected reactions by the general public, and are so minor that the vast majority of people see no need to report them.

I bet 99% of common colds don't get reported, either, and for the same reason: Vaccines and colds are both about as safe as can reasonably be expected.
 
The second link claims MMR vaccine isn't properly tested but only considers the pre-licence testing and not the massive cohort and other studies run since the adoption of MMR. That alone tells you all you need to know about their integrity. "Informed consent" my arse.
 
theprestige said:
This suggests that 99% of reactions are within the range of expected reactions by the general public, and are so minor that the vast majority of people see no need to report them.

I bet 99% of common colds don't get reported, either, and for the same reason: Vaccines and colds are both about as safe as can reasonably be expected.
Click to expand...
My thoughts as well.

The answer to the OP is, "probably not but they are much safer than the alternative."
 
Itchy Boy said:
I'll start by saying that

I don't oppose vaccines for anyone who wants them for themselves or their children.

and

I have never and would never advise anyone to not vaccinate.

A more accurate moniker than 'anti-vaxxer' would be 'vaccine safety awareness advocate', but I guess that's too much of a mouthful.

'Anti-vaxxer' is an inaccurate term meant to be derogatory and divisive, when in reality, we all want vaccines to be as safe as can be.

I will present evidence that the regulatory agencies responsible for vaccine safety are not properly doing their jobs. Cronyism and conflicts of interest abound.
Click to expand...
Citation lacking
[ed: But before we get into the cronyism and conflicts of interest...]

A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.
Click to expand...
Citation lacking
How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?

Here's 7 minutes of Dr. Stanley Plotkin, renown and fiercely pro-vaccine vaccinologist, attempting damage control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3x0rQT_eSw
Click to expand...
 
Itchy Boy said:
<snip>
A study by Harvard estimates that only 1% of vaccine adverse reactions are reported. Even if they're off by a factor of 10, that would still mean 90% of reactions go unreported.

How can safety be properly monitored if only a tiny fraction of reactions are reported?
<snip>
Click to expand...
Well, duh!

Apparently, a common adverse reaction - to some vaccine shots anyway - is “sore arm from the shot”. I would be astonished to learn that even 1% of such were reported.

But perhaps, IB, you intended to write something different?

ETA: not saying anything new (already the topic of two posts upthread), just providing an objective, concrete example ...
 
Last edited:
What does "as safe as can be" actually even mean, though? We could, after all, make a vaccine that is nearly perfectly safe simply by putting nothing useful in it and spreading it on your feet, but maybe if we consider "safe as they can be" as meaning that vaccines are as safe as it's practicable to make them without reducing their effectiveness, we should just answer "yes" and end it right there.
 
bruto said:
What does "as safe as can be" actually even mean, though? We could, after all, make a vaccine that is nearly perfectly safe simply by putting nothing useful in it and spreading it on your feet, but maybe if we consider "safe as they can be" as meaning that vaccines are as safe as it's practicable to make them without reducing their effectiveness, we should just answer "yes" and end it right there.
Click to expand...

Maybe you're right. The DHHS, who have the responsibility for vaccine safety, have not filed a single report to Congress as required every 2 years, starting 1989, pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Surely that's because vaccines were made as safe as humanly possible by 1986, and so there was no point in the DHHS fulfilling their mandate to promote new and safer vaccines and to make or assure improvements in manufacturing, testing, labelling, storage, field surveillance, reaction reporting and other aspects of vaccine safety and monitoring.

But, if vaccines were 'safe as can be' by 1986, why should the DHHS be given a mandate to improve safety and to report their accomplishments to Congress every two years?
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
You need to provide citations because you have a history of quote mining.
Click to expand...

I provided a link to Plotkin testifying which proves:
a) the study is genuine
b) the study concluded that an estimated 1% of reactions are reported

If that's not good enough for you, so be it.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to repost that explanation specific to RedRose's #1 and rub it my face again. Any estimate on when you might produce that for me?
 
The Greater Fool said:
Odd, the Harvard study [2000]: "The paper, however, focuses on the NVICP, the actual operation of this compensation program, and the program's effects on the compensation and prevention of adverse reactions to mandatory vaccinations."

Can you grasp how the compensation program would only be accessed by a small portion of those with "adverse reactions"? Do you think parents of kids that got a bruise, or rash, or sniffles, would access the compensation program?

Also, perhaps studies in this decade might be more meaningful?
Click to expand...

We're not talking about how many access the compensation program. We're talking about how many reported reactions. Whether any individual reaction was due to a vaccine must be determined. A report of a reaction does not mean it was vaccine caused.

The upshot and significance of Harvard's finding of 1% reporting is that we have insufficient data on the incidence vaccine injury.
 
Itchy Boy said:
I provided a link to Plotkin testifying which proves:
a) the study is genuine
b) the study concluded that an estimated 1% of reactions are reported

If that's not good enough for you, so be it.

<snip>
Click to expand...
To repeat what was posted in the other thread in this, the SMM&T board of the ISF, your link “proves” nothing. At a minimum, you need to post a link to a paper (published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal) reporting the “Harvard study” and its results.

If you don’t like the standards commonly used here, well, so be it.

If you can’t at least try to meet these standards, please be honest enough to say so explicitly.
 
Itchy Boy said:
Maybe you're right. The DHHS, who have the responsibility for vaccine safety, have not filed a single report to Congress as required every 2 years, starting 1989, pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.

Surely that's because vaccines were made as safe as humanly possible by 1986, and so there was no point in the DHHS fulfilling their mandate to promote new and safer vaccines and to make or assure improvements in manufacturing, testing, labelling, storage, field surveillance, reaction reporting and other aspects of vaccine safety and monitoring.

But, if vaccines were 'safe as can be' by 1986, why should the DHHS be given a mandate to improve safety and to report their accomplishments to Congress every two years?
Click to expand...
This may come as a bit of a shock to you (or not) ... many ISF members do not live in the US. :)
 
I can't imagine going through the trouble of reporting a sore arm. You (OP) say that side effects go unreported, like it's sinister, as opposed to most simply not being a big enough deal for people to bother reporting. What do you think, Big Pharma goons threaten them into silence? They don't report because their lives are barely impacted. "The arm someone jammed a hypodermic needle in yesterday is sore - what the hell, that's crazy. I better call the AMA!" Said practically no one ever.

I'm tired of the perfection standards demanded of vaccines by their dedicated "skeptics." Nothing is "as safe as it can be," but no one cares except when it's time to howl about vaccines. I'd be surprised if half the people who espouse this junk own carbon monoxide detectors, eat rigidly healthy diets, always wear bike helmets, would never dream of ignoring a problem light that comes on in their cars, etc. That stuff isn't anywhere near as political, so cognitive dissonance reigns supreme. It's irritating.

I (fairly recently) was almost dragged into an argument with a vaccine "skeptic" at a friend's cookout. The dude was SMOKING A CIGARETTE while he ranted about questionable vaccine safety and public health. Blowing the smoke in my ******* face, too, just completely oblivious to the fireworks display of exploding irony meters happening in my bored countenance.
 
Itchy Boy said:
Maybe you're right. The DHHS, who have the responsibility for vaccine safety, have not filed a single report to Congress as required every 2 years, starting 1989, pursuant to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Click to expand...

Citation? As far as I can tell this isn't true.

JoeMorgue said:
Meaningless loaded question from an admitted anti-vaxer.
Click to expand...


And Politifact says it isn't true:

https://www.politifact.com/facebook...lth-and-human-services-didnt-say-it-failed-m/
 
Itchy Boy said:
We're not talking about how many access the compensation program. We're talking about how many reported reactions. Whether any individual reaction was due to a vaccine must be determined. A report of a reaction does not mean it was vaccine caused.

The upshot and significance of Harvard's finding of 1% reporting is that we have insufficient data on the incidence vaccine injury.
Click to expand...
(my hilite)

Time to move the goalposts, eh?

Used to be “adverse reactions”; now it’s “vaccine injury”.

Another, to some really annoying, feature of this part of the ISF is an almost pedantic insistence on precision and accuracy ... so far, in this thread, your batting average is, um, not great.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
No, that's not what we all want. A better, reasonable approach would be that a proposed remedy should have an overall better outcome than non-remediation.
Click to expand...

Hence the importance of doing a proper, large study to compare health outcomes of the fully vaccinated to the unvaccinated. The only reason I've heard any expert give is that it would be 'difficult'. Not impossible, just difficult.

The CDC now recommends over 70+ doses of vaccine in 40+ injections by age 18. Do you know of any studies that have looked at the cumulative effect of so many doses?

Look at all the marvellous human accomplishments. Haven't we proven ourselves to be very good at 'difficult'?

Considering the health of the human population is at stake, shouldn't the study be done, despite it being difficult?
 
Itchy Boy said:
I provided a link to Plotkin testifying which proves:
a) the study is genuine
b) the study concluded that an estimated 1% of reactions are reported
Click to expand...

Good God. I'd suggest people watch the video you supplied, at least the last minute, just to understand the level of misrepresentation and outright stupidity you are promoting here.

In the first place, it's seven minutes of an anti-vax lawyer cherry picking (one of your favorite forms of lying) from the report, without any coverage of the other side of the case. Finally the lawyer tries to suggest that the 1% unreported figure means that the reported deaths need to be multiplied by 100! Plotkin then laughs at the guy and properly points out that DEATHS are not likely to be the unreported adverse affects. DEATH tends to get noticed.
 
Last edited:
Itchy Boy said:
Hence the importance of doing a proper, large study to compare health outcomes of the fully vaccinated to the unvaccinated. The only reason I've heard any expert give is that it would be 'difficult'. Not impossible, just difficult.
Click to expand...
That’s it?

Nothing about cost? That it would couldn’t attain its goals unless all (new) vaccines were suspended for the duration of the study?

And, since you made the claim here, in this board, please list ALL the “experts” you have heard from (and all the peer-reviewed papers, by those experts, that you have read).

The CDC now recommends over 70+ doses of vaccine in 40+ injections by age 18. Do you know of any studies that have looked at the cumulative effect of so many doses?
Click to expand...
How, may I be so bold to ask, is this relevant? To what you wrote in the OP?

Look at all the marvellous human accomplishments. Haven't we proven ourselves to be very good at 'difficult'?

Considering the health of the human population is at stake, shouldn't the study be done, despite it being difficult?
Click to expand...
??? :confused: In what way is “the health of the human population [...] at stake”?
 
Vaccines are incredibly safe, exactly because they are used so much; this provides the most accurate data set of side-effects we can get.
 
JeanTate said:
(my hilite)

Time to move the goalposts, eh?

Used to be “adverse reactions “; now it’s “vaccine injury”.

Another, to some really annoying, feature of this part of the ISF is an almost pedantic insistence on precision and accuracy ... so far, in this thread, your batting average is, um, not great.
Click to expand...

OK, make it 'adverse reactions' or the phrase of your choice.
Whatever phrase you prefer that simply conveys the idea of an unwanted phenomenon that is caused by or thought to be caused by the vaccine.

If I refer to injuries like Guilliam-Barre, then I say 'serious injury'.

But I'll try to be more circumspect in my language for you.

There was no intent to move goalposts.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
Good God. I'd suggest people watch the video you supplied, at least the last minute, just to understand the level of misrepresentation and outright stupidity you are promoting here.

In the first place, it's seven minutes of an anti-vax lawyer cherry picking (one of your favorite forms of lying) from the report, without any coverage of the other side of the case. Finally the lawyer tries to suggest that the 1% unreported figure means that the reported deaths need to be multiplied by 100! Plotkin then laughs at the guy and properly points out that DEATHS are not likely to be the unreported adverse affects. DEATH tends to get noticed.
Click to expand...

Show me the explanation for #1 or be man enough to admit it doesn't exist.
Then we'll talk.
 
Itchy Boy said:
I'll start by saying that

I don't oppose vaccines for anyone who wants them for themselves or their children.

and

I have never and would never advise anyone to not vaccinate.

A more accurate moniker than 'anti-vaxxer' would be 'vaccine safety awareness advocate'...
Click to expand...


Having looked at your posting history, I don’t think so.
 
Itchy Boy said:
OK, make it 'adverse reactions' or the phrase of your choice.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry to have to tell you, but that’s not how it works.

You wrote the OP, not me.

Whatever phrase you prefer that simply conveys the idea of an unwanted phenomenon that is caused by or thought to be caused by the vaccine.
Click to expand...
Again, it’s up to you, not me.

If I refer to injuries like Guilliam-Barre, then I say 'serious injury'.

But I'll try to be more circumspect in my language for you.
Click to expand...
Again, it’s the commonly used standard of this ISF board.


There was no intent to move goalposts.
Click to expand...
Good to read that.

I’ve asked you several other questions, directly pertinent to your OP; may I expect a response from you some time?
 
JeanTate said:
That’s it?

Nothing about cost? That it would couldn’t attain its goals unless all (new) vaccines were suspended for the duration of the study?

And, since you made the claim here, in this board, please list ALL the “experts” you have heard from (and all the peer-reviewed papers, by those experts, that you have read).


How, may I be so bold to ask, is this relevant? To what you wrote in the OP?


??? :confused: In what way is “the health of the human population [...] at stake”?
Click to expand...

Why would all new vaccines have to be suspended? People taking new vaccines could simply be excluded from the study. I heard Plotkin and a top health official (forgot the name) claim 'difficulty' as the reason. I can't fulfill your request for Unobtainium but if you have an authoritative source that explains why the study would be impossible, I'd appreciate a link.

The 70+ doses or 40+ shots is relevant because that adds up to a lot of toxins injected into a body. The health of the human population is at stake because vaccine uptake is being heavily promoted and pretty soon there will be no more control group available.

The only way to know if the health outcomes of the fully vaccinated are as good or better than the fully unvaccinated is to do that study.
 
IB: I'm not saying X isn't safe, I'm just saying we need mores study.
Me: So what level of study will satisfy you?
IB: Some impossible level of study far beyond what could practically ever actually be done.

This on the level of crashing every car on the planet before mandating seatbelts because "they need more study."
 
JeanTate said:
I’m sorry to have to tell you, but that’s not how it works.

You wrote the OP, not me.

Again, it’s up to you, not me.

Again, it’s the commonly used standard of this ISF board.

Good to read that.

I’ve asked you several other questions, directly pertinent to your OP; may I expect a response from you some time?
Click to expand...

I can't answer every post and question. So pick one question and after we've dealt with it as best we can, we can move on to your next question. Fair enough?
 
Itchy Boy said:
I can't answer every post and question. So pick one question and after we've dealt with it as best we can, we can move on to your next question. Fair enough?
Click to expand...

Oh the "Befuddled old man who can't keep up with all these questions." persona.

You literally have no idea how much that won't work. Trust me dude we've played that game with someone who can play it better then you'll ever hope to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom