I can't believe people in this thread took the obv bait.

You underestimate my capacity for boredom

keep getting ur flu shots chumps

you don't want Glaxosmithkline and Sanofi shareholders to miss out on your contributions 50,000 children to die do you? you're not a monster are you?

The entire vaccine schedule has been studied and studied and studied again. As has all the adjuvants that are in the vaccines. Hell, they even removed some mercury containing adjuvants in response to public opinion despite their being no evidence they were unsafe, just to maintain the public's trust.

Of course I'm worried about the profit motivation in medicine. Why would you think I'm not? But you can't use a profit motivation to dismiss actual science. Some vaccines have rightfully come under scrutiny, such as H1N1 for being a rushed production, and the flu shots for being ineffective some years since it's difficult to determine which flu strains will be prominent the following year. Other vaccines have come under scrutiny due to fraudulent science, such as the pervasive myth that autism is caused by vaccines. So it's not cut and dry, the majority of vaccines are safe and undeniably effective.

the same area of "actual science" where apparently over half the research is at high risk of bias, up to 70% of reported conclusions don't match their data, and where major health organisations are pushing hard for ineffective vaccines and blatantly lying and fear mongering at the behest of the same people who brought you vioxx and paxil for kids? i think that's more than enough reason to start doubting the mainstream narratives surrounding vaccination but that's just me

Just to clarify, you do not think a more rigorous examination of conflict of interest as it relates to the policy and research of other vaccines and vaccine adjuvants/preservatives is a good idea, in light of the sheer amount of bias and misrepresentation of data in influenza vaccine research, and in light of the unconscionable behaviour of the cdc surrounding the influenza vaccine?

This post was edited by Perd_Hapley on Mar 31 2019 12:55pm

Where did I say that?

I say "I would be very interested in seeing these sorts of reviews for the entire vaccine schedule and related adjuvants/preservatives." and you respond dismissively with "The entire vaccine schedule has been studied and studied again. As has all the adjuvants that are in vaccines" and then continue to say "but you can't use a profit motivation to dismiss actual science" when what I am talking about is research to determine the extent to which profit motive and other COIs shape vaccine research and policy. What am I supposed to take from that?

That you should look at the actual science and see where the holes may be.

Influenza vaccine can be reasonably looked at, but the pediatric vaccine schedule has been looked at already and is so sensitive to possible problems that they even removed totally safe ingredients just to maintain public trust.

so again, the "actual science" is what I want to be looked at, through the lense of COIs in a similar way to this bmj review, by statisticians and epidemiologists as far removed from bias as possible

because again, if this bmj review is anything to go by are anything to go by, and if the CDC and the WHO are anything to go by, there are huge problems with bias and conflicts of interest in vaccine research and policy



no lol, thimerosal was removed before before the cdc finished pumping out its thimerosal studies, at a time where Verstraeten's initial research was shaping up to look like thimerosal was a big problem for them and Eli Lilly was still desperately trying to lobby for immunity