The pharmaceutical industry tries to convince us that vaccine research is not subject to finincial conflict of interest: "Vaccine research draws on multiple sources of funding - including pharmaceutical companies and governments but also non-profits and research grants from universities."
They try to convince us that we should trust the result of vaccine clincal trials :"All vaccine clinical trials are double blind."
They try to convince us that our immune systems need to be "taught" how to function by vaccines. "Vaccines work with the immune system - they teach it to recognize germs without being exposed to the disease." No mention of any possibility of AUTOimmune reaction caused by vaccines.
They announce safety/efficacy in pretty much the same way that snake oil salesmen have done throughout history: "Childhood vaccines have high rates of effectiveness and low risks."
They cite industry-funded "studies," and then tell us we have to trust them: "Multiple studies, in multiple countries, examined whether vaccines cause autism. None found a link. At some point you have to accept that the claim was wrong. Vaccines don't cause autism."
The rebuttals, point by point:
"A) The big pharma ties go far and deep that do 'research' for vaccines (and drugs in general). True non-biased research is exceedingly rare.
B) Blind isn't the main issue (although shenanigans there wouldn't surprise me), rather the lack of placebo control and randomization is. Why are vaccines not compared to saline placebo and instead another vaccine? That's like comparing ibuprofin to naproxen and not to a sugar pill but claiming you are (this is fraud from a science stand point). Why are less than ideal kids excluded from studies but then the recommendations hold for everyone? That is another clear bias favoring vaccines.
C) Vaccines do NOT work with the immune system, which is self-evident since their antibodies fade in a few years. True exposure (for viruses at least) results in lifetime immunity. Whatever vaccines do pales in comparison to the real natural process, and there is evidence they disrupt proper immune responses for life.
D) Never shown to be true on either count due to the absence of REAL studies. This one really irks me. Hard science requires proper controls and the history of vaccines fails to comply with such. Vaccines were claimed the reason for pathogen induced illness decline when there were numerous factors in play. Smallpox rates were all over the map despite nearly a century of use. The mortality rates were virtually identical for the vaxed and non-vaxed. Yet the vaccine got the credit? That's lousy science. How do we know smallpox (and other pathogens) didn't just work their way out of the population naturally? Or because sanitation and nutrition improved? It's all speculation because multiple variables were in play (you remember 'confounds' from statistics, yes?)
E) Really? I guess you only check for studies that are linked on the CDC website. My personal opinion is that vaccines do not typically cause autism by themselves, by rather can act as a catalyst in susceptible children (which there are more of than ever because of the general lousy health of our populace thanks do absolutely dead wrong medical and eating advice for decades). Only a fool would discount the thousands of anecdotal events where kids changed immediately following vaccines. If it were just a few, sure, it's chance. But there are enough to establish a pattern and ignoring them because they are not 'science' is head in the sand tactics from folks who refuse to question this sacred cow of vaccination.
Hey, I used to be for vaccines. Then I did some research on my own because I was curious why opponents were so adamant. Well, now I know why. Unfortunately, the level of fanaticism in support of vaccines keeps the public in the dark."
Huge thanks to Evan Eberhardt, who wrote the rebuttals, and gave his permission to repost them here.