4 ms·

Do you mind helping us interpret this? I'm not picking up from this what you probably intend.

_red 8y ago
Now this is just one vaccine, and its not wise to extrapolate wholesale. However, this one clearly states: there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza from using this product. Note: Its curious I'm being downvoted for actually posted an actual insert, which has real scientific information. You would think all the "science lovers" would applaud that. Ho hum, I guess I should've posted a Merck marketing ad instead.
- mateo1 8y ago
  don't expect them to enjoy facts. They just want their cult to prevail. They'd love to delete your "anti-vaccination" comment. Facts that go against their desires are evil propaganda and should be deleted too.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Well I'm not downvoting you since 1) I can't, you responded to me; and 2) you're not being offtopic. And you're at least defending your position without memeing even if I disagree with it. That being said, I'm glad you clarified because I figured the implication you were getting at is these are harmful vaccines. Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful?
  - AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
    > Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful? Part of the second picture that the user has highlighted basically says that said vaccine contains a mercury derivative and that it has not been tested for "carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility". So I would say that this is also part of his issue.
  - _red 8y ago
    To be clear: The best vaccines have about 85% efficacy rating. Most have a 35-60% efficacy rating. Some (like pictured insert) are basically unknown. The idea we should be compelled by law to forcibly take vaccines, and moreover that we shouldn't even be able discuss their efficacy is so anti-science I'm not sure how to respond.
    - matt4077 8y ago
      I'm flagging this for spreading misinformation. WHO: "[..] measles, which we know to be about 98% effective" "Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients" https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/index2.html https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immu...
      - _red 8y ago
        You seem to think that the efficacy post-inoculation remains static throughout a persons 80 year lifespan. That's a very unscientific assumption. Vaccines regularly lose efficacy, which is why 85% for the 'best' is reasonable.
- Throw22276 8y ago
  Have you read the insert? The first highlighted point may seem odd out of context, but the context is right in front of the highlighted section. It's not saying the vaccine is ineffective, it's saying it is for immunisation in people who currently do not have the flu. The lack of studies mentioned is in relation to its effectiveness in people who take the vaccine whilst already being infected with the flu. Highlighting the lack of proven effectiveness in children is odd too, since the very same insert states it is not for use in under 18s. It makes perfect sense it hasn't been tested on children. The Mercury part doesn't even say anything negative, simply that it is an ingredient. There are many things that we know are poisonous in some contexts/quantities, whilst being harmless in others. Im not sure if you're being disengenious on purpose, or if you simply lack the reading comprehension.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  As far as I know, no one is trying to force the flu vaccine. You have to get it every year and it is widely known to be potentially ineffective. Measles vaccines on the other hand are considered about 97% effective.
  - _red 8y ago
    >As far as I know, no one is trying to force the flu vaccine. Yet. What do you thinks going to happen once they get the precedent set? Give it another 5 years or so.

_red 8y ago

Now this is just one vaccine, and its not wise to extrapolate wholesale. However, this one clearly states: there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza from using this product. Note: Its curious I'm being downvoted for actually posted an actual insert, which has real scientific information. You would think all the "science lovers" would applaud that. Ho hum, I guess I should've posted a Merck marketing ad instead.

mateo1 8y ago
don't expect them to enjoy facts. They just want their cult to prevail. They'd love to delete your "anti-vaccination" comment. Facts that go against their desires are evil propaganda and should be deleted too.
throwawaymath 8y ago
Well I'm not downvoting you since 1) I can't, you responded to me; and 2) you're not being offtopic. And you're at least defending your position without memeing even if I disagree with it. That being said, I'm glad you clarified because I figured the implication you were getting at is these are harmful vaccines. Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful?
- AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
  > Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful? Part of the second picture that the user has highlighted basically says that said vaccine contains a mercury derivative and that it has not been tested for "carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility". So I would say that this is also part of his issue.
- _red 8y ago
  To be clear: The best vaccines have about 85% efficacy rating. Most have a 35-60% efficacy rating. Some (like pictured insert) are basically unknown. The idea we should be compelled by law to forcibly take vaccines, and moreover that we shouldn't even be able discuss their efficacy is so anti-science I'm not sure how to respond.
  - matt4077 8y ago
    I'm flagging this for spreading misinformation. WHO: "[..] measles, which we know to be about 98% effective" "Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients" https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/index2.html https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immu...
    - _red 8y ago
      You seem to think that the efficacy post-inoculation remains static throughout a persons 80 year lifespan. That's a very unscientific assumption. Vaccines regularly lose efficacy, which is why 85% for the 'best' is reasonable.
Throw22276 8y ago
Have you read the insert? The first highlighted point may seem odd out of context, but the context is right in front of the highlighted section. It's not saying the vaccine is ineffective, it's saying it is for immunisation in people who currently do not have the flu. The lack of studies mentioned is in relation to its effectiveness in people who take the vaccine whilst already being infected with the flu. Highlighting the lack of proven effectiveness in children is odd too, since the very same insert states it is not for use in under 18s. It makes perfect sense it hasn't been tested on children. The Mercury part doesn't even say anything negative, simply that it is an ingredient. There are many things that we know are poisonous in some contexts/quantities, whilst being harmless in others. Im not sure if you're being disengenious on purpose, or if you simply lack the reading comprehension.
jjeaff 8y ago
As far as I know, no one is trying to force the flu vaccine. You have to get it every year and it is widely known to be potentially ineffective. Measles vaccines on the other hand are considered about 97% effective.
- _red 8y ago
  >As far as I know, no one is trying to force the flu vaccine. Yet. What do you thinks going to happen once they get the precedent set? Give it another 5 years or so.