Social Despite Overwhelming Evidence Vaccines Safe & Effective, "Hysteresis" Endures

ROFL...

<TrumpWrong1>

He literally expresses the opposite opinion.

I knew you didn't understand what you were reading.
You cherry-picked, I showed that in the actual document.

Now, why are you so scared to paraphrase numbers 19 and 20? I am starting to believe you refuse because you simply can't.

Btw, this just in on another "safe" vaccine:
(CNN)A leading cancer expert, who was described as a "pioneer" in his field by Prince William, has died suddenly after receiving a routine yellow fever vaccination.
 
You cherry-picked, I showed that in the actual document.

Now, why are you so scared to paraphrase numbers 19 and 20? I am starting to believe you refuse because you simply can't.

Btw, this just in on another "safe" vaccine:
(CNN)A leading cancer expert, who was described as a "pioneer" in his field by Prince William, has died suddenly after receiving a routine yellow fever vaccination.
See this is the issue.

No one should be surprised that a certain (and usually tiny) percent of the populace will have a reaction (maybe deadly) to any Vax or Medicine. That is the risk of PReventative Medicines that certain people may get sick or die due to the medicine. But no one should deny that almost more people would die from the Yellow Fever (if traveling to that region) or other things (Flu) that the Vax is protecting you against.

Its kind of like pointing at the Self Driving Car that has an accident and takes one life while ignoring the thousand other lives lost to human error driving.

But that cost and reward needs to be explained better. So for instance for those people who are between ages of something like 5-64 who are at little risk of dying when they get the flu but who will have a few people die as a reaction to the flu shot (as I described the guy above) they have to accept the herd mentality risk that they may die unnecessarily to protect many others who are in the vulnerable age groups (below 5, above 65 or pregnant) to the Flu from dying.

I accept that the cost of living in society is the 'herd protection' but I also will remain skeptical when Big Pharma says 'this is the next and newest Vax or Drug we all need to take because...'.
 
See this is the issue.

No one should be surprised that a certain (and usually tiny) percent of the populace will have a reaction (maybe deadly) to any Vax or Medicine. That is the risk of PReventative Medicines that certain people may get sick or die due to the medicine. But no one should deny that almost more people would die from the Yellow Fever (if traveling to that region) or other things (Flu) that the Vax is protecting you against.

Its kind of like pointing at the Self Driving Car that has an accident and takes one life while ignoring the thousand other lives lost to human error driving.

But that cost and reward needs to be explained better. So for instance for those people who are between ages of something like 5-64 who are at little risk of dying when they get the flu but who will have a few people die as a reaction to the flu shot (as I described the guy above) they have to accept the herd mentality risk that they may die unnecessarily to protect many others who are in the vulnerable age groups (below 5, above 65 or pregnant) to the Flu from dying.

I accept that the cost of living in society is the 'herd protection' but I also will remain skeptical when Big Pharma says 'this is the next and newest Vax or Drug we all need to take because...'.
Accept that all you like, but at the end of the day, we have had parents come forth only to be ridiculed as conspiracy theorists when there children have been severely injured or even killed from the vaccine. And look at all the people who came on this thread, prior to Zimmerman's affidavit being posted, who were sure that vaccines had no relation to autism.
 
I remember a few guys trying to say they were AntiVax before we got deployment vaccines/shots

Military's response: shut up and take your shot
hahahahahaa

I was a very good doctors assistant, when they needed medicines and vaccines to be administered, I was highly effective at getting patients topped up at the job....
 
You cherry-picked, I showed that in the actual document.

Now, why are you so scared to paraphrase numbers 19 and 20? I am starting to believe you refuse because you simply can't.

Btw, this just in on another "safe" vaccine:
(CNN)A leading cancer expert, who was described as a "pioneer" in his field by Prince William, has died suddenly after receiving a routine yellow fever vaccination.
Because it was just established that you didn't understand the contents of #5-#7. You just asserted that these passages indicated the exact opposite of what they conveyed.

31776958367_26b48e5418_c.jpg

He never claimed all autistic children were hat way because of vaccination and what you did is known as cherry-picking.

He said in that one specific case he did not believe that the vaccine was responsible.
No. He makes it clear in this passage that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, and that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. His comments are not restrictive to this one specific case. He is saying that in this specific case the vaccine had no potential to cause autism because she didn't suffer from an "immunodeficiency" (meaning she didn't suffer from a mitochondrial disorder).

Points #19 and #20 were to object to Cedillo being used to blanket against the potential vaccines might lead to autism in children with these very rare mitochondrial disorders because he held a mere suspicion at the time that vaccines might lead to symptoms associated with autism by children with these preexisting mitochondrial diseases (This is why I linked that article in post #61). By the way, 1 in 5,000 people suffer from a genetic mitochondrial disease.

He doesn't clarify in these materials the specific mechanism by which he thinks this causation is linked, such as if one of the incredibly rare injuries we already know is a risk with vaccines, if suffered by one of these 1-in-5,000 kids, leads to the development of the condition. This is evident by the fact that he also acknowledges that many types of inflammation may lead to autism (presumably in this group), as well as fever and infection, and he still believes that vaccines are appropriate for certain rare children suffering from mitochondrial diseases. He also disparages the most prominent anti-vaxxers including Wakefield.

In other words, Zimmerman advocates for vaccines given to 4,999 out of 5,000 kids, because he firmly believes there is no risk of vaccines causing these children autism, and he even advocates for some of the remaining 1 out of 5,000 to still be vaccinated (or be given certain vaccines) because these other factors which may cause autism are more likely to end up triggering the disease in them, anyway, if not prevented by vaccine administration.

@abiG, I'm sorry, but it's clear we have reached your intellectual ceiling. The rest of us will take it from here.
 
Because it was just established that you didn't understand the contents of #5-#7. You just asserted that these passages indicated the exact opposite of what they conveyed.

31776958367_26b48e5418_c.jpg


No. He makes it clear in this passage that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, and that there is no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. His comments are not restrictive to this one specific case. He is saying that in this specific case the vaccine had no potential to cause autism because she didn't suffer from an "immunodeficiency" (meaning she didn't suffer from a mitochondrial disorder).

Points #19 and #20 were to object to Cedillo being used to blanket against the potential vaccines might lead to autism in children with these very rare mitochondrial disorders because he held a mere suspicion at the time that vaccines might lead to symptoms associated with autism by children with these preexisting mitochondrial diseases (This is why I linked that article in post #61). By the way, 1 in 5,000 people suffer from a genetic mitochondrial disease.

He doesn't clarify in these materials the specific mechanism by which he thinks this causation is linked, such as if one of the incredibly rare injuries we already know is a risk with vaccines, if suffered by one of these 1-in-5,000 kids, leads to the development of the condition. This is evident by the fact that he also acknowledges that many types of inflammation may lead to autism (presumably in this group), as well as fever and infection, and he still believes that vaccines are appropriate for certain rare children suffering from mitochondrial diseases. He also disparages the most prominent anti-vaxxers including Wakefield.

In other words, Zimmerman advocates for vaccines given to 4,999 out of 5,000 kids, because he firmly believes there is no risk of vaccines causing these children autism, and he even advocates for some of the remaining 1 out of 5,000 to still be vaccinated (or be given certain vaccines) because these other factors which may cause autism are more likely to end up triggering the disease in them, anyway, if not prevented by vaccine administration.

@abiG, I'm sorry, but it's clear we have reached your intellectual ceiling. The rest of us will take it from here.
Yes, you cherry-picked a case where he claimed vaccines were not responsible. I was clear here.

Now what about 19 and 20? Go ahead, it's OK. Everyone else has read it.
 
Yes, you cherry-picked a case where he claimed vaccines were not responsible. I was clear here.

Now what about 19 and 20? Go ahead, it's OK. Everyone else has read it.
LOL. 4,999/5,000 isn't cherry-picking, Forrest.

Points #19 & #20 were his objection to his opinion about Cedillo being used to misrepresent his position on the 1 out of 5,000 children who suffer those mitochondrial diseases. He makes it clear in points #5-#7 that he firmly believes vaccines don't cause autism in healthy children.

Again, it's clear we have reached your intellectual limit.
 
Last edited:
Points #19 & #20 were his objection to his opinion about Cedillo being used to misrepresent his position...
Just like what you are doing, the irony never ends, keep posting, great stuff.
 
Accept that all you like, but at the end of the day, we have had parents come forth only to be ridiculed as conspiracy theorists when there children have been severely injured or even killed from the vaccine. And look at all the people who came on this thread, prior to Zimmerman's affidavit being posted, who were sure that vaccines had no relation to autism.

When parents come out while spewing forth anti vaxxer nonsense without admitting they themselves don't actually know if it was the vaccine that caused their kid to become x, they are throwing out bullshit.

Remember, all of this anti vax shit is from a pediatrician who wrote about autism and was then stripped of his license because of the misleading and negligent nature of his work.
 
LOL. 4,999/5,000 isn't cherry-picking, Forrest.

Points #19 & #20 were his objection to his opinion about Cedillo being used to misrepresent his position on the 1 out of 5,000 children who suffer those mitochondrial diseases. He makes it clear in points #5-#7 that he firmly believes autism doesn't cause autism in healthy children.

Again, it's clear we have reached your intellectual limit.

Mr. Madmick don't be too tight on him. The push pull method of allowing the entity to initiate it's realization, resistance oscillations is the greatest way for the knowledge to go inside and back out in order to yield the best incubated seeds of truth. This is the only way to getting deep inside your oppositions cortex, too violent of a penetration will only corrode the flesh...
 
See this is the issue.

No one should be surprised that a certain (and usually tiny) percent of the populace will have a reaction (maybe deadly) to any Vax or Medicine. That is the risk of PReventative Medicines that certain people may get sick or die due to the medicine. But no one should deny that almost more people would die from the Yellow Fever (if traveling to that region) or other things (Flu) that the Vax is protecting you against.

You hit the nail on the head. The issue is that we have poor data to support an accurate risk/benefit ratio because we are reliant on clinical trials which are run by the company selling the product. Funding bias is a big enough problem as-is, but for some reason we've given the manufacturers permission to conduct studies without using placebo. Then we have a very poor post-marketing surveillance system (vaers) that is estimated to miss up to 99% of reported adverse events. There are 30,000 adverse events reported per year anyway, now imagine if that is just 1% events.

For example, Physicians for Informed Consent did any analysis of the risk/benefit of the MMR, which calls into question the supposed benefits of the vaccine when considering all variables:

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/

Ultimately, I tend to agree with your position for the most part. There are some folks that should get a vax if they are an at risk group, but wholesale vaxxing makes no sense from a financial or health perspective.
 
Started writing a response to the OP late yesterday evening, and it was about how this thing boils down to Dunning-Kruger. We see it every single time flat earth, evolution or anti-vax is discussed on these forums. Inevitably, a few posters will come forward expressing doubt about virtually all peer-reviewed evidence to date, and after tens of pages of back and forth, it becomes blatantly clear that their knowledge is based on a 3-hour long youtube session. But somehow after that, they're so well versed in a field like astrophysics that they can successfully challenge and dispel basically all currently accepted scientific knowledge on the topic.

It's a combination of several personality traits that seems like they're featured heavily in the mix. First up is what's described in the DK effect, where people of low ability assume they're experts, because they're too ignorant to realize that they're incompetent. Add in a dose of arrogance with that ignorance, and now they believe the experts are all shills who aren't actually smarter and more competent than they are, they're just liars. Now add in a low agreeable personality and a distaste for traditional authority, and all the dots connect: You end up with incompetent individuals who are greatly overestimating their ability, prone to believing the craziest shit simply because it goes against conventional knowledge which they see as being forced on them by people who are liars, because they couldn't possibly be smarter than them, because only very few, if any, people are.

That's to a large extent true. (Red flag - I'm about to take the discussion to other areas of social study and politics.)

However, there is a missing element. That the smarter are not always the wiser, and especially in a society like America where we are supposed to raise people to be responsible and inquisitive. (Traditionally.) Where the romanticized Yeoman Farmer comes from. Enlightenment thinkers creating a system where diligent Puritans could government themselves without a need for much in the way of reeducation, guillotines, or later collectivist (I mean that in the real sense, not as a byword) notions of nationalism, communism, or deriving any meaning from the horde, I mean mob, I mean crushing hand of the authority, whew, no sorry I mean The People.

Smarter people are no more immune to wanting - power over other people's lives, greed, and all new forms of dishonesty.

That goes double or triple in politics. "What's the matter with Kansas?" is largely that a rural and traditional community does not want to be rich and prosperous in the way of Maryland.

At all, and while some of those people are no doubt ignorant or belligerent, most are probably more capable to determine their own lives than a "smarter" man with a different culture, background, life experience, expertise, and value system.

Climate Change is where we see a lot of direct conflict here. Do most serious people agree that it exists? Yes. Do most serious people have different ideas on what to do to correct the problem? Yes, or they should, otherwise the orthodoxy of the "knowledgeable" runs for a Dunning-Kruger effect in the opposite direction.

Imagine there was a brilliant economist, and from that brilliance, he wrote on politics, society, and the human condition... and yet, outside of the true believers his insights were rather awful. (This fictional character has a striking resemblance to Paul Krugman!)

When that is strip-mined out of Americans, humility and live and let live attitudes are also replaced with that clumsy paternalism from the top and this kind of empty rabble rousing from the bottom.

This is all a serious problem that is a bit above my weight class to handle, at least at this time, but in summary - all levels of society are suffering from delusions of grandeur - the bottom rungs call it "common sense," while suppose intellectuals call it "common science," when no such thing applies to complications of people's lives, in order to understand that? Well, wisdom has set her table, she is always waiting for those who want to come and listen.
 
You hit the nail on the head. The issue is that we have poor data to support an accurate risk/benefit ratio because we are reliant on clinical trials which are run by the company selling the product. Funding bias is a big enough problem as-is, but for some reason we've given the manufacturers permission to conduct studies without using placebo. Then we have a very poor post-marketing surveillance system (vaers) that is estimated to miss up to 99% of reported adverse events. There are 30,000 adverse events reported per year anyway, now imagine if that is just 1% events.

For example, Physicians for Informed Consent did any analysis of the risk/benefit of the MMR, which calls into question the supposed benefits of the vaccine when considering all variables:

https://physiciansforinformedconsent.org/measles/dis/

Ultimately, I tend to agree with your position for the most part. There are some folks that should get a vax if they are an at risk group, but wholesale vaxxing makes no sense from a financial or health perspective.
unfortunately the at risk group will remain at risk if the entire herd does not get the Vax. You cannot have everyone 5-64 getting the Flu and just Vax those under 5 and 65 and over getting the shot and think they will not be at risk.
 
unfortunately the at risk group will remain at risk if the entire herd does not get the Vax. You cannot have everyone 5-64 getting the Flu and just Vax those under 5 and 65 and over getting the shot and think they will not be at risk.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. The vax protects the vulnerable, and the rest manage their risk in ways that make sense for them (including vax if they choose). Are you saying we need to vaccinate 80% of people to protect 20%?

Also, you didn't respond to the problems existing in our vax program or the MMR info (obviously this is important if we're to decide risk/benefit, no?) I'm actually very curious to hear your take on these issues because I've seem your posts to be typically thoughtful and well-reasoned. Most of the time, nobody will touch these issues and I'd appreciate somebody challenging this information if possible.
 
Last edited:
haha. I hope you see that is a silly meme in reaction to what I said.

Plus I could point out the cost of that guy I mentioned going into a Coma for almost 4 months and hospitalized for over a year from his reaction to the Flu shot was much higher than the cost of the flu shot or him getting the flu. And that does not count that he has still not got back to regular work almost 2 years later.

But that also would not be the point.

Anyway the point that Meme misses is that just because some things require a Vax and preventative medicine does not mean everything requires a vax or preventative medicine. And you better believe Big Pharma wants to find rationales to get you on as many Vax and preventative Med's as possible to drive their profits. Unless you are duped into thinking they don't care about profits and just care about health.

Yeah, if my argument could have been both summarized and refuted by a cat meme, I'd probably be embarassed too...
 
LOL. 4,999/5,000 isn't cherry-picking, Forrest.

Points #19 & #20 were his objection to his opinion about Cedillo being used to misrepresent his position on the 1 out of 5,000 children who suffer those mitochondrial diseases. He makes it clear in points #5-#7 that he firmly believes autism doesn't cause autism in healthy children.

Again, it's clear we have reached your intellectual limit.

tenor.gif
 
I'm sorry, I don't follow. The vax protects the vulnerable, and the rest manage their risk in ways that make sense for them (including vax if they choose). Are you saying we need to vaccinate 80% of people to protect 20%?

Also, you didn't respond to the problems existing in our vax program or the MMR info (obviously this is important if we're to decide risk/benefit, no?) I'm actually very curious to hear your take on these issues because I've seem your posts to be typically thoughtful and well-reasoned. Most of the time, nobody will touch these issues and I'd appreciate somebody challenging this information if possible.
Yes that is what the science say. Vax is a herd protection. The whole idea of the vaccines is to try and prevent the Flu (or other) grabbing hold within a herd and thus the individuals exposure to that Flu will be minimized and they will be protected.

So for example if you child is the only one who gets the Flu Vax and every other single kid in his class has a terrible flu and is coughing, hacking and wiping their germ filled snot everywhere your kid FLu vax will not be enough to protect them. The idea of the Vax is to prevent or minimize that initial exposure.
 
Back
Top