5 ms·

Studies always say we need more investigation and always have imperfections that could be improved upon. It's about 1000000x easier to imagine a possible probl

Studies always say we need more investigation and always have imperfections that could be improved upon. It's about 1000000x easier to imagine a possible problem than to devise and carry out a series of experiments (or even simply analyze results) that genuinely assess whether the possible problem is, in fact, a problem. You are doing the former. Scientific consensus reflects the latter.

linuxftw 6y ago
Feel free to actually read what I linked, and then respond with reasons why their conclusions are invalid. When we're talking about safety trials, there's all sorts of interesting ways to invalidate the results. Like, do the efficacy trials (trials showing the antibody response of a given vaccine) utilize the same batch, randomly selected, with the safety trials? What if adjuvants are 10 times higher or lower in one trial than the next? Are there maximum safe doses established for these ingredients? Are doses beyond the safe dose linked to any autoimmune conditions? What percentage of the maximum safe dose is typically present in a given vaccine? Were the adjuvants sourced or created via the same process in the same facility to the same specification in each of the trials? Are those same production facilities being utilized today? Is there any industry oversight into the conformity of vaccines matching their stated ingredients and no other contaminants? These are all really hard questions. I don't believe the regulatory agencies are doing most of that. I believe it's an FAA/Boeing self-certify situation. You probably didn't hear about how HHS hasn't been performing the safety studies mandated by law. We also know that previous vaccines that are no longer in use have been known to cause autoimmune disorders. It's not scientific fantasy. Edit (Since I can't reply to child): Nobody's talking about LD50. We're talking about how much of an ingredient is safe in a vaccine. It's no stretch to conclude that if X amount of some substance causes an increase in an immune response, to say that Y amount would be harmful, up to and including inducing an autoimmune problem. Since we also know there is a causative relationship between vaccines and autoimmune disorders, then it's fair to investigate why. Unfortunately, we're left here to speculate on the internet. No amount of criticism can be levied towards any vaccine or component of a vaccine, because the authorities haven't taken the initiate to actually study any of this information. Most people assume, naively that they have, but unfortunately, they haven't. When called out, like child comment, it's washed away with "Can't prove a negative." Right.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Let me just break down a slice of your thesis. > Are there maximum safe doses established for these ingredients? Yes, there are, like for every material. It's the LD50, and it's in the MSDS. For instance, Aluminum Hydroxide [1]. The LD50 is 2000mg/kg, so you'd have to practically eat your weight in it. Paraffin Oil is here [2], and the LD50 is 5000mg/kg. Do you really think people are YOLO-ing adjuvants? > Are doses beyond the safe dose linked to any autoimmune conditions? You're asking people to prove a negative, which is why you're coming off the way you are. I suggest you find some reason why we should be looking for this, which you should be able to figure out by simply looking at immunized vs non-immunized populations and correlating with publicly available data on disease. Not sure where or if the US publishes this, but Canada has open access to all this on the Stats Canada website. > What percentage of the maximum safe dose is typically present in a given vaccine? Less than the LD50, naturally. Jokes aside, that's something you can easily find out. [1] https://beta-static.fishersci.com/content/dam/fishersci/en_US/documents/programs/education/regulatory-documents/sds/chemicals/chemicals-a/S25147.pdf https://beta-static.fishersci.com/content/dam/fishersci/en_U... [2] https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC124020010&productDescription=PARAFFIN+LIQUID+1LT&vendorId=VN00032119&countryCode=US&language=en https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC124020010&...
- jjoonathan 6y ago
  > Unfortunately, we're left here to speculate on the internet. If we made scientists responsible for hand-holding every crackpot on the internet through the body of research leading to their conclusions, the scientific progress of our civilization would stall. Case in point, this information is readily available to you yet you would rather speculate than get off you ass and hunt it down: > I don't believe the regulatory agencies are doing most of that. I believe it's an FAA/Boeing self-certify situation. Why, you might ask, don't I get off my ass and hunt it down for you? I could. I know where it lives. Through experience, I also know the look of a horse dead-set on not drinking, so why should I waste time leading you to water?
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    Oh, you 'know where to find them' meaning, you don't actually know of their existence at this point, but if you did care to look, you're sure they'd turn up. How convenient for you to just know things exist without any evidence. > If we made scientists responsible for hand-holding every crackpot on the internet through the body of research leading to their conclusions Oh, sure, label people as 'crackpots' when they show you a study that supports their argument while providing none of your own. My position is "These studies should exist, and don't" and your position is, what exactly?

linuxftw 6y ago

Feel free to actually read what I linked, and then respond with reasons why their conclusions are invalid. When we're talking about safety trials, there's all sorts of interesting ways to invalidate the results. Like, do the efficacy trials (trials showing the antibody response of a given vaccine) utilize the same batch, randomly selected, with the safety trials? What if adjuvants are 10 times higher or lower in one trial than the next? Are there maximum safe doses established for these ingredients? Are doses beyond the safe dose linked to any autoimmune conditions? What percentage of the maximum safe dose is typically present in a given vaccine? Were the adjuvants sourced or created via the same process in the same facility to the same specification in each of the trials? Are those same production facilities being utilized today? Is there any industry oversight into the conformity of vaccines matching their stated ingredients and no other contaminants? These are all really hard questions. I don't believe the regulatory agencies are doing most of that. I believe it's an FAA/Boeing self-certify situation. You probably didn't hear about how HHS hasn't been performing the safety studies mandated by law. We also know that previous vaccines that are no longer in use have been known to cause autoimmune disorders. It's not scientific fantasy. Edit (Since I can't reply to child): Nobody's talking about LD50. We're talking about how much of an ingredient is safe in a vaccine. It's no stretch to conclude that if X amount of some substance causes an increase in an immune response, to say that Y amount would be harmful, up to and including inducing an autoimmune problem. Since we also know there is a causative relationship between vaccines and autoimmune disorders, then it's fair to investigate why. Unfortunately, we're left here to speculate on the internet. No amount of criticism can be levied towards any vaccine or component of a vaccine, because the authorities haven't taken the initiate to actually study any of this information. Most people assume, naively that they have, but unfortunately, they haven't. When called out, like child comment, it's washed away with "Can't prove a negative." Right.

arcticbull 6y ago
Let me just break down a slice of your thesis. > Are there maximum safe doses established for these ingredients? Yes, there are, like for every material. It's the LD50, and it's in the MSDS. For instance, Aluminum Hydroxide [1]. The LD50 is 2000mg/kg, so you'd have to practically eat your weight in it. Paraffin Oil is here [2], and the LD50 is 5000mg/kg. Do you really think people are YOLO-ing adjuvants? > Are doses beyond the safe dose linked to any autoimmune conditions? You're asking people to prove a negative, which is why you're coming off the way you are. I suggest you find some reason why we should be looking for this, which you should be able to figure out by simply looking at immunized vs non-immunized populations and correlating with publicly available data on disease. Not sure where or if the US publishes this, but Canada has open access to all this on the Stats Canada website. > What percentage of the maximum safe dose is typically present in a given vaccine? Less than the LD50, naturally. Jokes aside, that's something you can easily find out. [1] https://beta-static.fishersci.com/content/dam/fishersci/en_US/documents/programs/education/regulatory-documents/sds/chemicals/chemicals-a/S25147.pdf https://beta-static.fishersci.com/content/dam/fishersci/en_U... [2] https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC124020010&productDescription=PARAFFIN+LIQUID+1LT&vendorId=VN00032119&countryCode=US&language=en https://www.fishersci.com/store/msds?partNumber=AC124020010&...
jjoonathan 6y ago
> Unfortunately, we're left here to speculate on the internet. If we made scientists responsible for hand-holding every crackpot on the internet through the body of research leading to their conclusions, the scientific progress of our civilization would stall. Case in point, this information is readily available to you yet you would rather speculate than get off you ass and hunt it down: > I don't believe the regulatory agencies are doing most of that. I believe it's an FAA/Boeing self-certify situation. Why, you might ask, don't I get off my ass and hunt it down for you? I could. I know where it lives. Through experience, I also know the look of a horse dead-set on not drinking, so why should I waste time leading you to water?
- linuxftw 6y ago
  Oh, you 'know where to find them' meaning, you don't actually know of their existence at this point, but if you did care to look, you're sure they'd turn up. How convenient for you to just know things exist without any evidence. > If we made scientists responsible for hand-holding every crackpot on the internet through the body of research leading to their conclusions Oh, sure, label people as 'crackpots' when they show you a study that supports their argument while providing none of your own. My position is "These studies should exist, and don't" and your position is, what exactly?