Originally Posted by teacozy
More like poking craters
Just glancing at the first 15 or so studies, at least two deal with methyl mercury which aren't even in vaccines, one has a sample size of 11 people, at least 3 have nothing to do with either vaccines or autism, one of the studies had only completed half of the experiment.... I could go on but you can look for yourself
First of all, I only saw one study (#11) that mentioned methyl mercury. It ALSO mentioned thimerosal.
Secondly, i think you have a double standard here.
You look at study #11 and say, " Oh, that has nothing to do with vaccines," when there aren't enough adequate studies on ethylmercury.
Ok, fine. But then you shouldn't accept the premise that ethylmercury is safe. There are studies indicating real harm, and other studies indicating...less harm. But not no harm. An increased risk of vocal tics is certainly not "no harm."
The site you quoted isn't holding the studies that claim no link between vaccines and autism to the same standard.
We can poke holes or craters in the studies on BOTH sides from now til the cows come home, and the only possible conclusion we can come to is, the studies on BOTH sides suck.
So then we look at anecdotal evidence, and that sucks, too--on BOTH SIDES.
We have the medical/pharmaceutical community (along with everyone who believes them) claiming that millions of vaccinated people are fine, just fine, therefore, vaccines are safel
Well, that totally ignores the smaller group who had severe reactions to the vaccines.
And we have the injured community claiming adverse reactions to vaccines. And the med/pharm reply is, "just a coincidence."
And I'll buy that some of those reactions may have been coincidence. But it's pretty clear that there IS a pattern of severe adverse effects in a subgroup of people. And the crappy studies that do show harm have not been adequately debunked. They still indicate problems, even if they're not foolproof.
What we're left with is the fact that vaccines WILL ruin some lives. The questions remain: how many is too many?
I say that, even if we accept the CDC numbers as correct (and come on, it's obvious that they are not), the number of adverse reactions is too many, because they are the result of an invasive procedure, and you know darn well that parents have rarely (if ever) been truly informed about even those risks, nor have they been TRULY informed about the risks of the diseases themselves.
50 years ago, if a 4-month-old got measles in the US, nobody even blinked. Ask anyone over 60, and they'll tell you it was not considered to be any more dangerous than any other virus. Common colds can morph into pneumonia; intestinal viruses were actually though to be more unpleasant than measles, though they were usually shorter-lived. Most parents over 60 would tell you that they'd prefer to spend a week with a child with the fever and rash of measles than 24 hours changing vomited-on or diarrhea-ed-on sheets and blankets.
But now it's,"OMG," a 4-month-old got MEASLES! He could have DIED!!!"
You can't possibly think that measles is any more dangerous today, with our advanced nutrition and medical care, than it was 50 years ago. Or do you?
If you think vaccination is so important, I wish you'd join us in demanding that adverse effects be admitted, that safer ones become available, and that unnecessary/useless ones (like the flu shot) be taken off the schedule. And that mandatory vaccination never, EVER be implemented; nobody should ever be FORCED to give their child a vaccine that ruins their life. Or coerced.
If vaccines were so safe and effective, this forum wouldn't exist.