lol and touche.
Still - would you be willing to rank vaccines?
Actually, I was looking at my records last night and I saw that I had FOUR BCG vaccines. Sure enough there are four scars on my arms. One is rather small, which is why I did not notice it..
To the "prof. scientist" author, I did not mean USA, I meant different country where BCG is still widely used. However, my doctor here in the States repeatedly told me that I should get my daughter vaccinated at one of the Travel Clinic for TB. Because I travel back forth multiple times during the year. She obviously had no clue about the vaccine's efficacy and the fact that here they do not vaccinate kids for it! Not to mention that the vaccine is not protecting from the most common form of TB in my region.
It is a common fact, that in countries with good sanitation and nutrition (Sweden, UK), lung form of TB is not as prevalent as in other countries and regions, where people live in overcrowded conditions and do not get adequate nutrition.
Another disease that is endemic in my region is polio, for which we were vaccinated and re-vaccinated multiple times ands the outbreaks were still happenning. I guess, some of us never developed immunity to polio either.
Millions of children today develop chronic diseases and cancer when they become young adults. How can you be absolutely convinced that vaccines have NOTHING to do with that? I do not think I can. There are just way too many variables, which are impossible to research. I am totally convinced, that BCG has negative long-term effects on people's health but no long term studies (25-30 year studies of the same group of vaccinated) were conducted in my region. Does that mean that this vaccine does not have any long-term negative effects? Probably not.
Few studies funded by WHO and conducted by scientists produced different and conflicting results. Whom should I believe than? Therefore I do not have a blind belief in all scientific reasearch. My friend is an MD and a medical researcher and he once told me that he was "disgusted" with one particular research regarding certain drug that the pharma reps were telling him about. He looked into it and found that the results of the clinical studies were "massaged" in order to make the drug to be more seen more effective that it realy was. Is this an occasion to celebate another scientific break-through? Probably not.
My position is that all drugs (including vaxes) have side effects. There are some vaccines that I think are important to have (where positives outweigh negative side effects), but there are also some (like BCG and Polio) that are practically useless, in my region at least, and perhaps are even harmful.
I believe you are capable of making caveats and speaking in general. The mere accepting of the vaccine schedule means you can think in general. If you were one of those people who cannot accept things "in general", you would never defend the vaccine schedule, as it is in general.
I simply think you and rachel do not want to say anything negative about vaccines (either because you do not believe anything negative about vaccines, or it is contrary to your role of "defenders of vaccines") This is your prerogative - but it does make it hard for me to believe you when you say you can be critical of vaccines.
ETA: I am going to let the topic go. You have answered, and I can accept a no. Given the fact both you and rachel jumped to "no" pretty darn quickly tells me there is not much point in pursuing a thread to see if how we rank things would differ. Too bad - it might have made for a refreshing change to search for commonalities instead of always focusing on differences. Ciao (and OT - but I hope the measles issue in Swansea does not get to close to where you live, as I know it would cause you concern)