Vaccines: Two centuries of skepticism

Obviously people that lie and deceive others to turn them against vaccines because of their mistaken idea that science and medicine are in a conspiracy against humanity are the most to blame for misleading people into this invalid form of skepticism. But the media shares a part of the responsibility. If notes like this end up full of comments repeating disinformation and defending debunked theories about the dangers of vaccines, what is the message being given to people?

It will not take long for comments to appear denouncing how all vaccines and specially COVID vaccines are worthless if not damaging, and they will remain here even if they have been demonstrated as wrong. Letting this disinformation remain to mislead people that read them is part of the problem. You just have to click on the name of some commenters to see a collection of false information commented on the site.

Why argue with an antivaxxer loser, when you just could wait?..

It might be worthwhile to point out how the covid vaccine works differently from the flu vaccine.

The anti vax movement should be treated like a cult. It is pointless using logic against those that have abandoned it.

Did the side effect only occur in Swedish people, or was that the only country that was careful enough to find it and admit it.

The side effect was present on a small sub-group of people of a certain genotype vaccinated with a lot of vaccine that had not proper purification of the nucleoprotein of the virus, and a much larger group of people of the same genotype that were infected by the actual virus that obviously had absolutely no purification done and produced hugely more of the problematic protein.

The vaccine should have been better purified to eliminate this protein of unknown risk, but even the problematic lot still protected the vaccinated people from the sleep disorder because the natural infection was a much more important source of risk with the uncontrollable production of the nucleoprotein that triggered the autoimmune reaction.

The increase of risk only applies when compared to people vaccinated with other lots, but it is still a lower risk than unvaccinated people that could get infected with the viral strain.

People "should have" been told that they risk a lifelong sleep disorder from the vaccine instead of just being waved off with a "safe and effective" mantra.

Again, being vaccinated, even with the insufficiently purified vaccine version LOWERS the risk of narcolepsy when compared with being left unvaccinated and getting infected (as shown in Taiwan). The problem is that these lower risks are not as low as with a better purified vaccine.

So, you are saying that everybody should be told that they risk a lifelong sleep disorder by NOT being vaccinated?

I will never have faith in vaccines until there is an honest and open debate. The narratives are controlled by a select few.

With the current Covid vaccines, information of vaccine adverse effects is heavily censored and doctors are pressured not to report them.

The way in which the alleged adverse effects of previous vaccines were "debunked" also raises many questions.

well is kind of misleading article as you are comparing of vaccines in use for years or decades/and yes properly tested with known side effects/ and experimental MRNA product.

This is no argument, they are comparing the invalid skepticism the vaccines were subjected at a time where they were not decades old but as recent as the COVID vaccines are now. The invalid skepticism continues even now against vaccines with proven safety and efficacy, which is just another argument to disqualify those opinions as antiscientific. Saying it simple for antivaxxer groups there is no vaccine that has ever been considered safe, effective or positive to use.

I will never have faith in vaccines until there is an honest and open debate

There is, the problem is wanting an "honest" debate that include arguments (based on false and well debunked premises). That is the opposite of what honest means.

For antiscientific "skepticism" no amount of evidence and data will ever be enough to prove their ideas as mistaken, everything that goes against what they want to believe automatically becomes "suspicious" and anything that support those mistaken views is trusted immediately even if it can be proved as false with ease.

I will never have faith in vaccines until there is an honest and open debate. The narratives are controlled by a select few.

What sort of open and honest debate do you want? Fortunately the narrative is still controlled by those who know medicine and not those who think they know medicine because they've read fairytales on the internet. Long may that continue.

No, the top experts are being silenced. Like the creator of the core mRNA vaccine technology (Robert Malone), a top cardiologist (Peter McCullough), a top expert of infectious diseases (Didier Raoult), a top epidemiologist ( John Ioannidis).... I am not talking about silencing nutters like Alex Jones...

The narratives are controlled by a select few.

Your conspiracy theory narratives are controlled by a select few no doubt.

But Raw Beer - These names that you KEEP repeating have been discredited over and over again in a period approaching two years now. I admire your reslience at being able to repeat the same rubbish over and over again. Its the same people, OR you bring up the FLCCC. I've read their 'treatment protocol' - apart from NOT using HCQ as a prophylactic and not having a stock of something I just wouldn't take (Ivermectin), I've been following the rest of it for the last 20 years! (Vit C, D, Zinc) etc) Also, why on earth would they recommend Antibiotics for a virus??? OH - And they recommend masks!

The antibiotics may have 'other' properties? Such as? Surely you have read all the data thoroughly? I thought medics as a whole were trying to steer us away from the over use of Antibiotics- and the Doctors you revere so highly all seem to be anti-mask - but you support AND have promoted the FLCCC 'protocols'. Excuse my mild confusion, but you seem to be confused yourself at some of the advice. Your 'experts' have in your own words MANY times been proven totally correct and their data highly accurate, Yes, suddenly you reply with a post of 'if's, but's and maybe's'

I will never have faith in vaccines until there is an honest and open debate.

I don't have faith in vaccines either. I'm skeptical by nature (and perhaps by age). But I have less faith in individuals who promote ideas that are contradicted by data produced by even more people in the same fields.

So how to decide whether to get vaccinated or not? In the vase of Covid, it was quite simple. A man in my street died of Covid, another friend was hospitalized. Local hospitals were under severe pressure and many were not getting treatments for other conditions (and many are still waiting). Vaccines were made available, and I accepted the opinions of the vast majority of medical professionals. Looking at the numbers, it seems clear that the vaccines have made a big difference.

The antibiotics may have 'other' properties? Such as? Surely you have read all the data thoroughly?

Yes, I described the ability of one antibiotic to reduce the SARSCoV2 viral load; that was a published result by a highly respected scientist. Unfortunately, that post was deleted, perhaps because I also wrote that during the Spanish flu, most deaths were caused by bacteria. Maybe the mod felt that was some outrageous misinformation, but it is also described here:

"Bacterial Pneumonia Caused Most Deaths in 1918 Influenza Pandemic"

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/bacterial-pneumonia-caused-most-deaths-1918-influenza-pandemic

"The weight of evidence we examined from both historical and modern analyses of the 1918 influenza pandemic favors a scenario in which viral damage followed by bacterial pneumonia led to the vast majority of deaths," says co-author NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "In essence, the virus landed the first blow while bacteria delivered the knockout punch."

But I am sure you'll continue to repeat that it does not make any sense to include antibiotics in the treatment...

No, the top experts are being silenced.

In every single institution of science and medicine all over the world, and based on hte only argument that you say so? sorry but that is not even remotely believable, the reality is that the experts coincide in calling the ideas you like mistaken and wrong. Being unable to accept this and instead believing in an impossible conspiracy that includes everybody in the world is just being in denial. This is specially true when you end up considering "trustworhty" specially people with well documented unethical publications with falsified or fabricated data made for personal profit. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel with disgraced people that repeatedly lie (accused by their own collaborators) clearly proves your interest is not about being correct.

 I described the ability of one antibiotic to reduce the SARSCoV2 viral load;

So does chlorine or ethanol, which has absolutely no importance if this effect is not present in physiological concentrations. Many compounds "work" reducing viral titers by simple cytotoxicity, making the cells die before they can unload as much viruses as if they were alive. Since this effect is indiscriminate it is obvious it has zero usefulness as a treatment, becaue it would kill the host before it kills the virus.

But I am sure you'll continue to repeat that it does not make any sense to include antibiotics in the treatment

Contrary to what you seem to think it is extremely easy to identify bacterial complications of COVID, which would then require antibiotics, for the vast majority of the cases this is not an indication. It is the same way if the infection causes a glycemic unbalance then it can be justified to include glucose to remediate this complication, but that is not part of the treatment for the infection itself.

@Raw Beer: Of those who have been hospitalized over the last two years do you have any data on how many people have contracted bacterial pneumonia as a direct result of contracting Covid19? If you don't, then what happened 103 years ago in this case is totally irrelevant and you really are grasping at straws. AZ is dirt cheap and years and years out of patent and available on any street corner pharmacy in SE Asia. Don't you think if it was of some benefit like the also dirt cheap Dexamethasone or would be in general use as a therapy? Or in the case of Covid, as useless as HCQ and IVM?

The article mentions that variolation against smallpox was introduced to England from Turkey in the 18th century.

Variolation against smallpox was invented in China in the 11th century, and may be the very first example of a vaccination. It was recorded that the Chinese emperor had his grandson immunized that way. It is also possible that the method called variolation, and of inhaling dried smallpox pus up the nose, traveled the Silk Road to Turkey from China, and from there to England.

The terms “scientific” and “anti-scientific” are smugly bandied about people who somehow think that “the science” is whatever Fauci and CNN say it is…I have been vaccinated, as has (reluctantly) been my wife. We are both old…All but one of our middle-aged children have been vaccinated. Our unvaccinated daughter is not, “TokyoLiving,” a “loser.” She has her own antibodies, having already been infected….One does not have to be a conspiracy-theory adherent see to that the control freaks are using the pandemic for political purposes.

No, the top experts are being silenced. Like the creator of the core mRNA vaccine technology (Robert Malone), a top cardiologist (Peter McCullough), a top expert of infectious diseases (Didier Raoult), a top epidemiologist ( John Ioannidis)

Not surprising that the silencing of such experts results in scepticism!

Or in the case of Covid, as useless as HCQ and IVM?

Oh, many studies have shown them to be safe and effective. Actually, Kowa announce yesterday that Ivermectin shows antiviral activity against Omicron.

https://www.kowa.co.jp/news/2022/press220131.pdf

Not surprising that the silencing of such experts results in scepticism!

Silencing people that shamelessly repeat false information is not negative, on the contrary progress can only happen when falsehoods are not given a place to hinder it.

Oh, many studies have shown them to be safe and effective.

No, that is false, the scientific consensus is that the best available science proved that ivermectin and HCQ have not shown any benefit against the disease, only deeply antiscientific people keep trying to push this based always in lousy, invalid "evidence" without any actual clinical importance.

Like your reference that brings no new clinical evidence at all, only the same invalid "efficacy" that is never reflected in actual medical conditions improving.

@Raw Beer. A greasy bacon sandwich and a sugary cup of tea show anti hangover activity against against a heavy night. too, but it doesn't mean they ACTUALLY work.

After two years of this you need something a bit more concrete that another 'could' study and a far larger sample group.

You also fail to answer my question about AZ, Which I really am most interested in.

This shows no matter what, some are always in a state of paranoia!

Wariness and outright hostility to vaccines did not start with COVID-19 but date back to the 18th century when the first shots were given.

Right off the bat, this article goes into the fake narrative that being sceptical of mandated mass vaccination with the "operation warp speed" mRNA shots means being "anti-vaccination". Which is a baseless generalization meant to smear dissenters and stop discussion. Sadly, no surprise.

virusrex

Silencing people that shamelessly repeat false information is not negative, on the contrary progress can only happen when falsehoods are not given a place to hinder it.

It absolutely is, as there is no ultimate authority (especially not governments and their instutitions) that has a monopoly on truth. A Ministry of Truth is the end of democracy.

Science and democray both need open discussion. If an "authority" decides what people are allowed to hear and not, we are back to religionism and the middle ages. Blasphemy laws anyone?

Khuniri: Spot on!