Well my comments probably do not come across as well as I intended, my issues with government and big pharma on this subject are not all encompassing, they are more minor and simply relate to this 100% bias and any inability at all for people to admit there can be issues with vaccines. Of course it all about public relations, admitting issues just opens the flood gates for fear and antivaxxers to say I told you so, it is hysteria on both sides. All I want is totally accountable science, but getting this from industry any time soon is a pipe dream, if you think the drug industry is accountable and this is hysteria you just have your head in the sand.

Here is a nice example of big pharma at play, and relating to vaccines,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/merck-senior-management-tried-to-pay-off-its-own-vaccine-scientists-to-remain-silent-about-scientific-fraud/5430364

Again I still believe for the most part vaccines are fine, it is all the politicking, profiteering, cherry picking of data and unaccountability that clearly goes on I take issue with.

Btw my doctor practises integrative medicine, endlessly continues to study, unlike most GP's, and thinks for herself; very unlikely she takes the industry standard view on this, but I need to ask her sometime.

And how about the nanny state issue? Most do not want to address this, a majority of people do not want it, at least when it suits them; hypocrites everywhere.

And no, no one has said anything about mandatory flu vaccines, but I was just making a point; make some mandatory and where does it stop. And all this because just over 100 people got the measles, amongst millions? Give me a break.

This post was edited by Psychonautica on Feb 14 2015 09:59pm

Well, vaccination suits well for a paranoia vs paranoia debates. That is precisely why i don't support mandatory, it just feeds the paranoia.

I am just going to copy and paste this comment here from a biochemist, it sums up the issue I believe and is more straight forward with the points I was trying to make,

"To anyone who studies the science, its not about are vaccines safe. Its about do they lead to better health outcomes than non-vaccination? Its also about populations, not individuals. Individuals who react badly are, I think, outside the 95% mark in the bell curve. So from a population perspective they are anomalous outliers. Yet if you are one of those you would want to think twice about future vaccination.

Vaccinations are not safe. Neither are the diseases people get vaccinated for. Its about relative risk. We definitely do not want to trust any drug company funded study as this introduces bias.

For those who tolerate vaccines well there are grounds for considering the cost benefit ratio to be good. However this does not allow for adverse effects that are due to a new vaccine or individual variation.

So the social good is there, is measurable, but if you are one of those who are harmed .... good luck trying to get compensation, that is if you have enough competence left to even try. Sure there are vaccine courts... in the US. Even then you are not guaranteed. Does anyone know what the success rate is for such court cases? In part the problem is that the medical tools necessary to prove to a high degree of certainty that the vaccines caused the issue are not even in existence. I suspect it becomes this doc said, that doc said."

"A biochemist" means jack shit and this comment is idiotic

Nice purely pointless and nothing response, to anything I have pointed out. It is someone's opinion with experience in medicine who I personally know and has spent years endlessly researching different areas of medicine due to their own long term health issues.

Guess it is always easy and convenient to just dismiss any form of doubt, or unpredictability because it does not suit some unrealistically ideal view point on an issue like this.

This post was edited by Psychonautica on Feb 24 2015 04:18am

How would you address the issue of diseases returning that were once considered eliminated then?

Herd immunity is important for those diseases, even if at the same time flu vaccines have never shown to be successful in any way. Vaccines for the more dangerous diseases definitely aren't perfect, but companies understand they can lose thousands and millions of dollars from lawsuits so they do their best to minimize the risk.

If he's spent years studying it and doesn't know there have been payouts for harms deemed caused by vaccination he must not be studying vaccine history. Oh, they don't pay out every frivolous claim? Cry me a river for having to give proof...

He also needs to study the definition of safe because vaccines are safe and anybody who says otherwise is ignorant, stupid, or evil.

Wrong. No scientist would ever use the word safe because it is impossible to prove a negative. Instead, risk levels would be assigned from less risky to more risky. All vaccines come with risk, it's just that the level of risk is within the statistically acceptable range. There are plenty of outliers.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on Feb 24 2015 06:29pm

I would rather not all this is going to lead to is super bugs because of more ppl not using meds properly.

Vaccines are not free from risks if you have a hard time dealing with different meanings of the word "safe"