3 ms·

eloisius, I applaud you for your efforts. You certainly appear to have done it sincerely. ( I had a cursory glance at the doc you put) But there is a fundament

eloisius, I applaud you for your efforts. You certainly appear to have done it sincerely. ( I had a cursory glance at the doc you put) But there is a fundamental problem, you are looking at numbers gleaned from 'studies' and IMHO mostly they revel nothing unless the study was done carefully, intelligently and with integrity. All these traits are missing at large in the scientific community. A broken clock is correct twice a day. Also factor in politics, something which I did not early on, most of us with a technical bent of mind are naively un-aware of this. Regarding autism + vaccines, I never looked into it. But I have looked at (and mostly listened to people who I think are credible have dug up numbers from the CDC website) and my conclusion is that for most part they are generally useless, perhaps 1 or 2 vaccines out of the 30 or so are truly effective. There are also instances of clear harm where populations what were vaccinated fell ill and the ones that we not vaccinated did not fall ill. Finally anecdotally, the people who most certainly get the flu are the ones that were vaccinated. Ofcourse people will dismiss that by saying anecdotes are not data. Where ever a vaccine did appear to have succeeded, there were other factors in play. A clear case of (well-intentioned) people who drink their own kool-aid believe that their efforts are paid off.

eloisius 6y ago
I reread what you posted a couple of times, and I still have no idea what your point is. Vaccines are or are not harmful? If they are harmful, would you assert any specific claims and provide evidence please?
- dennis_jeeves 6y ago
  Well, the burden is proof is on the vaccine to show that is near completely safe and that it is clearly providing a benefit, isn't it? ( not the other way round where the burden of proof is put on someone to prove that it not harmful). The point that I'm trying to make is this - to the extent I have looked I see no clear benefit, and in some cases there appears to be a clear harm. So why bother taking it? >Vaccines are or are not harmful? My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful. These are ball park figures based on fair amount of reading/listening, I could be wrong. But it begs the question, why should it be so hard to see clear benefits? One has only so much time to investigate these things, I did it years back and have moved on. My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer. ( it used to be the other way round) Also don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide and Vioxx - should give you a glimpse of the how murky the industry is. These are IMO not isolated incidents. That should at least tip you off in the right direction. Last, but not the least - if a vaccine has clear benefits ( based on broader set of parameters that I would consider) , I would take it, who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?
  - jariel 6y ago
    " to the extent I have looked I see no clear benefit" The elimination/near elmination of polio? rubella? measles? Soon COVID? Etc.. " the burden is proof is on the vaccine to show that is near completely safe" They do. "My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong." Yes, completely wrong. "don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide ..." There are thousands upon thousands of drugs. Some are going to fail, many will be misrepresented. Like everything in life. It doesn't mean they don't work. "My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer." This is irrationally conspiratorial, indicative of a broader problem. "who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?" The above statements are not so 'right of mind' unfortunately. There are no Lizard People trying to control us, and most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level. There are some systematic failures (i.e. Walmart over-subscribing oxycontin) but most of us are not surprised when that happens. Approved vaccines are overwhelmingly more effective than they are detrimental, i.e. the 'balance of outcomes' is monumentally positive.
    - dennis_jeeves 6y ago
      >The elimination/near elimination of polio? rubella? measles? Soon COVID? Etc.. All of them have alternative explanations not found in mainstream media. ( and no I won't put forth the material for you. You will have to look for it) >>"My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong." >Yes, completely wrong. So I presume you looked/read at many of these vaccines closely, way beyond what is found is mainstream media? >most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level. This is where I have changed my mind over the years. People may be sincere but not competent.
      - meowface 6y ago
        Out of curiosity, do you believe in anything publicly considered a "conspiracy theory"? (For example, "9/11 was an inside job", "Holocaust wasn't real/deaths were unintentional due to disease", "Sandy Hook shooting wasn't real", " COVID-19 isn't real/isn't nearly as dangerous as reported", "US politicians rape and murder children in Satanic rituals".)

eloisius 6y ago

I reread what you posted a couple of times, and I still have no idea what your point is. Vaccines are or are not harmful? If they are harmful, would you assert any specific claims and provide evidence please?

dennis_jeeves 6y ago
Well, the burden is proof is on the vaccine to show that is near completely safe and that it is clearly providing a benefit, isn't it? ( not the other way round where the burden of proof is put on someone to prove that it not harmful). The point that I'm trying to make is this - to the extent I have looked I see no clear benefit, and in some cases there appears to be a clear harm. So why bother taking it? >Vaccines are or are not harmful? My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful. These are ball park figures based on fair amount of reading/listening, I could be wrong. But it begs the question, why should it be so hard to see clear benefits? One has only so much time to investigate these things, I did it years back and have moved on. My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer. ( it used to be the other way round) Also don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide and Vioxx - should give you a glimpse of the how murky the industry is. These are IMO not isolated incidents. That should at least tip you off in the right direction. Last, but not the least - if a vaccine has clear benefits ( based on broader set of parameters that I would consider) , I would take it, who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?
- jariel 6y ago
  " to the extent I have looked I see no clear benefit" The elimination/near elmination of polio? rubella? measles? Soon COVID? Etc.. " the burden is proof is on the vaccine to show that is near completely safe" They do. "My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong." Yes, completely wrong. "don't forget to look at the drugs Thalidomide ..." There are thousands upon thousands of drugs. Some are going to fail, many will be misrepresented. Like everything in life. It doesn't mean they don't work. "My default today is to mistrust anything that medicine has to offer." This is irrationally conspiratorial, indicative of a broader problem. "who in their right mind does not want to protect their health?" The above statements are not so 'right of mind' unfortunately. There are no Lizard People trying to control us, and most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level. There are some systematic failures (i.e. Walmart over-subscribing oxycontin) but most of us are not surprised when that happens. Approved vaccines are overwhelmingly more effective than they are detrimental, i.e. the 'balance of outcomes' is monumentally positive.
  - dennis_jeeves 6y ago
    >The elimination/near elimination of polio? rubella? measles? Soon COVID? Etc.. All of them have alternative explanations not found in mainstream media. ( and no I won't put forth the material for you. You will have to look for it) >>"My guess - only one 1 or 2 are effective, rest are either useless or harmful ... I could be wrong." >Yes, completely wrong. So I presume you looked/read at many of these vaccines closely, way beyond what is found is mainstream media? >most of the people in non-political power are doing their jobs reasonably on some level. This is where I have changed my mind over the years. People may be sincere but not competent.
    - meowface 6y ago
      Out of curiosity, do you believe in anything publicly considered a "conspiracy theory"? (For example, "9/11 was an inside job", "Holocaust wasn't real/deaths were unintentional due to disease", "Sandy Hook shooting wasn't real", " COVID-19 isn't real/isn't nearly as dangerous as reported", "US politicians rape and murder children in Satanic rituals".)