Great resource on vaccine science

[Rrrrrachel]

This is from Australia but relevant and useful for anyone interested in vaccines. It addresses a lot of common concerns and is very well footnoted, so it's a good introduction as well as putting you in a good position to explore more deeply if you wish.

http://www.science.org.au/policy/documents/AAS_Immunisation_FINAL_LR_v3.pdf

[Mirzam]

For those interested in an alternative view, here is Dr Viera Scheibner PhD's excellent rebuttal. It is 52 pages long but well worth reading and I recommend printing it our for your vaccine research files. You can download the pdf, here.

A critique of the 16-page Australian pro-vaccine booklet entitled "The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers"

Quote:

The science of immunisation? 

In November of 2012, there was a document* Published by the Australian Academy of Science, Canberra.  This brochure was so fraught with misinformation and propaganda, that it must be addressed point by point.

Edited by Mirzam - 2/20/13 at 9:57am

[Rrrrrachel]

I tried to read it, but I couldn't get past the way she put vaccine preventable diseases in quotation marks.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I tried to read it, but I couldn't get past the way she put vaccine preventable diseases in quotation marks.

Well, there you have it, you are unable to post a valid opinion because you won't read the rebuttal. As even you have admitted in the many a post, vaccines are not 100% effective and vaccinated individuals do get the diseases for which they are vaccinated.

[Rrrrrachel]

And I got a little further than I admitted. At least to the part where she cited all that cutting edge research from 1901 and 1950. It was pretty apparent to me at that point that I didn't really need to critique it further, people were capable of deciding for themselves.

That's the thing, I don't feel the need to critique every antivax piece out there. They're not threatening to me. It's just annoying not to be able to post one thing without it being called propaganda.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

This forum isn't for rebuttals.

No it is for information which is what I provided. 

Oh and just because the research is old doesn't invalidate it. Has any of that research been reproduced and found to be incorrect? Personally, I take notice of the older research because it tends to be more "pure' and it is less likely to have been corrupted by bias and funding bias. Not all of though, for example, the Eli Lily study on thirmerosal safety, now that was a doozy which still used today by vaccine advocates to prove thirmerosal is safe.

I don't know why you are feeling threatened you seem to be turning this into a debate all by yourself, all I did was post information for people that they can use in their information gathering. Can't we let them decide for themselves. 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Ok, I cleaned up this thread a little. I think a rebuttal related to the article Rrrrachel linked could be helpful to those new to vaccine research. Members wishing to really debate either of these two sources are absolutely welcome to take that topic over to Vaccine Discussion and Debate. You can link the thread here so that new members can follow it over if they're interested.