Voices
in
Japan

poll

Are you an anti-vaxxer?

77 Comments
© Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

77 Comments
Login to comment

Can't really believe this is a question. I've only encountered one anti-vaxxer in my entire life. About 8 years ago, I was railing against anit-vaxxers at work when I noticed one of my coworkers getting pretty agitated. I talked to him later and that's when he let me know that he and his wife believe that a healthy diet and exercise would do the trick.

I would've never guessed this guy was anti-vax.

22 ( +25 / -3 )

no. I believe in science.

27 ( +32 / -5 )

I am not, but I would not agree to mandatory vaccines against the flu or any of these new viruses.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

No I am not. I have had the full set of vaccines since birth as have my children. With no negative consequences. It's not surprising that so many anti-vaxxers are also pandemic deniers and include individuals who actually believe what's posted on 8chan and other fringe/kook outlets. Some even believe the 'voice' of 35,000 year old Ramtha channeled by a woman got rich using tax free status. These same people don't believe the majority of scientists and doctors.

10 ( +15 / -5 )

The only anti-vaxxers I have interacted with tend to be keyboard warriors, espousing the dangers of chemicals in our food and that EMF radiation is the cause of all evil/illness . . . . . . all while staring at their laptops, typing on BT keyboards and connected to their home wireless via 2.4/5Ghz.

18 ( +22 / -4 )

It’s just ignorant.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

I've had quite a few vaccinations, and none have had any negative effects so far as I can tell. And if future vaccines are proved to be safe and effective, I'll consider taking them.

But vaccines should never, ever be forced on the public by governments - that's a violation of the non-aggression principle and a crime against a person's ultimate private property: their own body.

And pharmaceutical companies should never receive immunity from product liability; like any other company they have to be responsible for the products they make. If they're faulty and can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to have harmed a recipient, then the maker should be liable for that harm and punished accordingly. The "here's some money, now go away" pot in place for many pharmaceutical products when things go awry flies in the face of ethical behaviour.

-6 ( +11 / -17 )

Nope, vaccinea are one of the greatest inventions. I would only be against a rushed, compulsory vaccine.

21 ( +23 / -2 )

Based on poll results, good to see that most here are well-informed regarding vaccines.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

The problem with this poll is that many people that obviously are anti-vaxxers do not accept being one. They supposedly are only against bad vaccines (and fail to clarify that for them every vaccine is a bad one), or they are just "asking questions" (even if the answers are already perfectly clear), etc.

They will very strongly refuse to accept being anti-vaxxers but at the same time they will defend their right to believe, against all evidence, about a global conspiracy that involves every scientist, doctor and nurse in the world poisoning themselves and their family just so the president of some company can get more money.

Other groups of science deniers at least are proud of being so (like flat-earthers, or anti-evolutionists), so they will tell you clearly about their anti-scientific beliefs, anti-vaxxers frequently will try first to pretend being rational, until you end up catching them using cherry picked, distorted information for the 20th time and they end up telling you that "science don't have all the answers".

11 ( +14 / -3 )

The question is a bid odd. I am not against vaccinations, but I am very skeptical of the current multibillion-dollar vaccine industry.

There is a complete lack of open debate. Any criticism of this industry is silenced, with critics being called anti-science. Critics of the vaccine industry include top scientists, including Nobel laureates. Nothing anti-science about them. One example of being anti-science is to say that vaccines that have not yet undergone clinical trials are "perfectly fine".

The benefits of vaccines have been exaggerated and their serious side-effects have been covered up.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: "For 33 years, I've been working to get mercury out of fish. Nobody as ever called me 'anti-fish' and because I want mercury out of vaccines, I should not be called 'anti-vaccines.'"

They will very strongly refuse to accept being anti-vaxxers but at the same time they will defend their right to believe, against all evidence, about a global conspiracy that involves every scientist, doctor and nurse in the world poisoning themselves and their family just so the president of some company can get more money.

People like Gates and Fauci have a great influence on funding received by researchers (and in the case of Gates also media), and they both have very much to profit from the sales of vaccines. Researchers know that if their results are critical of vaccinations, they will have trouble publishing and getting further funding. Some the criticisms of vaccines have come from senior (retired) researchers that are no longer worried about funding.

-20 ( +6 / -26 )

whops, we got the first one commenting.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Vaccines are the second greatest contribution to human health, after clean water/ functioning sewers.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Vaccines are the second greatest contribution to human health, after clean water/ functioning sewers.

I'm glad you acknowledge the contributions of improved sanitation. I believe much of the alleged contributions of vaccines are in fact due to improved sanitation. For certain diseases, the infection rates were already going down prior to introduction of vaccines. A case could be made that vaccines are in fact a major contribution to human sickness, rather than good health.

This issue will only be resolved when there is an open debate. Until then, many of us will refuse vaccines. Unfortunately, one side is running away from debate.

-25 ( +2 / -27 )

Vaccines are of huge benefit.

Little concerned with the rush to create a vaccine for the Wuhan virus, if it goes through the full regime and is shown to be both safe and effective the I have no problem but the pressure to cut short the process from panicking politicians has me concerned. Without thorough testing it may prove intrinsically harmful and just as bad, ineffective.

Anti-Vaxxers? All I can say is the ignorant are always with us.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

I believe all governments have the obligation to inject its medicine into its citizens. All anti-vaxxers need to shut up and obey.

-16 ( +7 / -23 )

Vaccines are to attempt to stop people either getting a disease or to improve the boy's ability to resist and fight it off if exposed to a disease or virus.

A cure is a medication that fights and or defeats a disease with or without the aid of the body that has already contracted a disease or virus.

Both must go through phases to determine effectiveness and side effects.

A vaccine must complete all phases. A medication to be given to someone who has already contracted a disease and is advised that their status is terminal is slightly different. If you have nothing to lose as your already dying then a cure that has not finished all phases of testing can still be given out as a last resort and may or may not be effective. The risk for a terminal patient being minimal.

Vaccines must be fully tested to determine if it will actually do what it claims to do. If you think your immune after taking a vaccine not fully tested you can be in for a nasty surprise.

A fully developed and tested vaccine that has gone through peer reviews and multiple testing phases can generally be relied upon to do what it claims. There will always be exceptions to any rule but the testing allows a knowledge of what percentage of people may not get the desired effects from any vaccine or medicine and provide a list of any common side effects if any.

To say that vaccine's or medication's do not work and that its all a con job is incorrect and puts peoples live in unnecessary danger. Having said that it remains a business and is sometimes subject to unscrupulous people that can make false or misleading claims. They get found out at some point. Like Apple Iphone updates, it may be best to wait a few months for others to try it before getting it yourself. Apple always has bugs that need correction in its updates. Some worse than others.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Unfortunately, one side is running away from debate.

You can't run away from a debate that doesn't exist. You can try to persuade people who take an irrational position, but that is not a "debate". The science is settled.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

whops, we got the first one commenting.

Not against vaccines but believes not a single vaccine is not poison? check

Supposedly for science but make invalid appeals to authority instead of using data? check

Uses declarations of proven liars famous for their antiscientific fears of vaccines? check

Mercury as an excuse even when almost no vaccine have mercury since a long time ago? check

His only argument are world wide cover up by all scientist involved? check

Believes profit or fame can make everybody poison their own families? check

Think lies have the same value as scientific facts? check.

It is actually rare to have such clear example of science deniers trying so hard to pretend not being one.

Having said that it remains a business and is sometimes subject to unscrupulous people that can make false or misleading claims. They get found out at some point. Like Apple Iphone updates, it may be best to wait a few months for others to try it before getting it yourself. Apple always has bugs that need correction in its updates. Some worse than others.

That is of course perfectly fine, as long as you can understand that not vaccinating also means assuming a risk. Covid19 is a disease that has not been studied either for long term problems, so the risk is not only on one side of the choice but on both. The vaccine at least is tested in extreme detail during the clinical trials, so it is actually less likely to result in unforeseen long term problems, even compared with asymptomatic infection.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Anti-vaxxer is one of those pejoratives thrown around to poison the well, like conspiracy theorist. It's put into an article to elicit an emotional reaction from readers before they get to the details in the hope that the reader will see the view what the so-called anti-vaxxer will say as crazy, extreme or just wrong even if they're presenting facts or raising valid questions. And asking questions isn't necessarily aimed at blowing the lid off some cover-up; the purpose might simply be to improve safety or correct errors. But who cares about that.

The idea, of course, is to discredit opponents using emotion in order to associate questioning of the official narrative, even experts who disagree with certain points in the interests of accurate science, with the looney fringe so that readers won't even bother looking at what they have to say.

Likewise, sophists link questioning the motives of governments and immunity of pharmaceutical companies from liability for faulty or unsafe products to disrespecting scientists, doctors and nurses. They make the leap of claiming that asking questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug somehow implicates anyone involved with developing or administering a drug in some sort of grand conspiracy. The vast majority or scientists, doctors and nurses are highly ethical people for whom patient health is their top priority. But not everyone. For instance, highly addictive psychotherapy drugs don't just develop and prescribe themselves - it takes people to develop, approve, prescribe and administer them, and it takes a lot of care and responsibility to do so properly with the best interests of the patient in mind and consideration of the side-effects. If it's done properly, it can benefit the patient, but if not, the results can be horrific, exacerbating mental illness, suicide and even massacres.

Likewise with vaccines. Is there a need or specific health benefit to giving children multiple vaccines in rapid succession or in one hit, or would it be better to spread them out over a longer period? Or is this done for economic reasons?

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

Likewise with vaccines. Is there a need or specific health benefit to giving children multiple vaccines in rapid succession or in one hit, or would it be better to spread them out over a longer period? Or is this done for economic reasons?

It's because they're is no need not to give them multiple vaccines simultaneously.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

A case could be made that vaccines are in fact a major contribution to human sickness, rather than good health.

Make the case then.

You should include details of why the overwhelming majority of medical professionals don’t share this view.

Alternatively, you could just answer quickly with ‘bought and paid for’ and then there is no place to go.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Anti-vaxxer is one of those pejoratives thrown around to poison the well, like conspiracy theorist. It

There is nothing wrong with using a term that is actually correct, it is a perfectly valid description for someone that rejects science and for whom no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. It seems extreme only because antivaxxers are extreme denialists that will use any trick in the book to misrepresent evidence trying to manipulate people that do not know better. From taking things out of context to use obvious lies.

Asking questions is not wrong, but keep asking them just because they don't like the correct answers is the problem. Health professionals ask questions about vaccines all the time, and they are not qualified as antivaxxers for that, the huge difference is that they can accept objective scientific data as an answer that can reasonably convince them something is actually as safe as possible. An antivaxxer will never reach that point, it will not matter what disease or what vaccine he is asking about, unless the answer is that the vaccine is bad he will never accept it.

They will say that scientist are good people, but on the same sentence they will say that the default result of making a drug or a vaccine is to profit from poisoning people, and a good product would be only an exception (if there is even one, because antivaxxers will not be able to even accept a good vaccine has ever been produced). A few exceptions from good health professionals would never be enough to make bad vaccines the most likely result but the opposite.

Likewise with vaccines. Is there a need or specific health benefit to giving children multiple vaccines in rapid succession or in one hit, or would it be better to spread them out over a longer period? Or is this done for economic reasons?

15 minutes of playing in the dirt will introduce more antigens (both in variety and quantity) to the blood than all the vaccines a person will receive in its life, but you never see antivaxxers protesting that children should be keep on an sterile bubble.

The real reason for the vaccination schedule is that it is perfectly safe to do it (since the immune system is meant for the loads of antigens of playing in the dirt) and it helps reducing the risk of the natural infections, that compared with the vaccine is a hugely more important. There is no appreciable diminution of risk from the vaccine from spacing them, and on the other hand there is an important increase of risk of catching the natural infection, the choice should be obvious. Also, For a pharmaceutical company it is much more profitable to make a fortune from the treatment and hospitalization of even few patients of infectious diseases than from the comparatively dirt cheap vaccines. If economic reasons were the only priority the companies would be behind the antivaxxers, not the pediatricians and immunologists that recommend the vaccines.

This may seem like a terribly obvious answer to the question. Every doctor knows it and can give it, but strangely even after explaining it to the antivaxxers they will repeat again the question, because they are unable to accept any other answer except from the one they want.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

15 minutes of playing in the dirt will introduce more antigens (both in variety and quantity) to the blood than all the vaccines a person will receive in its life, but you never see antivaxxers protesting that children should be keep on an sterile bubble. 

The real reason for the vaccination schedule is that it is perfectly safe to do it (since the immune system is meant for the loads of antigens of playing in the dirt) and it helps reducing the risk of the natural infections, that compared with the vaccine is a hugely more important. There is no appreciable diminution of risk from the vaccine from spacing them, and on the other hand there is an important increase of risk of catching the natural infection, the choice should be obvious. Also, For a pharmaceutical company it is much more profitable to make a fortune from the treatment and hospitalization of even few patients of infectious diseases than from the comparatively dirt cheap vaccines. If economic reasons were the only priority the companies would be behind the antivaxxers, not the pediatricians and immunologists that recommend the vaccines.

This may seem like a terribly obvious answer to the question. Every doctor knows it and can give it, but strangely even after explaining it to the antivaxxers they will repeat again the question, because they are unable to accept any other answer except from the one they want.

For the record, that wasn't an accusatory question, and I appreciate the answer. By economic, I wasn't referring to how much money the manufacturers make from the vaccines vs treatment of the disease, simply the economics for patients and doctors of giving the vaccine for multiple diseases together rather than spacing them out individually over a few weeks. Just curious.

But you really do need to understand there's a big difference between the fringe anti-vaxxers who don't trust any vaccines and people who are asking legitimate questions and are suspicious of why one industry gets what's effectively a free ride when it comes to product liability. Liability keeps people on their toes and is designed to ensure manufacturers and service providers in any industry follow the correct procedures to ensure their products are safe. In my line of work I come across the design and clinical trials of medical instruments, so have a pretty good idea of what they go through to reach the market. Their makers are liable for faulty products, so why shouldn't pharma makers be as well, to the same extent?

I think if the liability issue was sorted - ie pharma products were subject to the same level as any other product - a huge proportion of the opposition/skepticism would evaporate because the public would have greater confidence in the process and makers would be extra careful to avoid sloppy work and fudged results (this industry cuts corners, too). Regardless of the industry and profession, humans are fallible in many ways, and liability laws are there to provide a negative incentive to ensure products are safe when they reach the market. If that's too much to ask, well maybe those people are in the wrong line of work.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

But you really do need to understand there's a big difference between the fringe anti-vaxxers who don't trust any vaccines and people who are asking legitimate questions and are suspicious of why one industry gets what's effectively a free ride when it comes to product liability.

That is also a mistaken perspective. Nobody gets a free ride, a pharmaceutical company first need to prove safety and efficacy to several panels of experts working for the government. After that the government will take the responsibility of pushing for the best interests of the community and lower the bar importantly towards the consumers, so they no longer need to prove a causative relationship between a negative event and the vaccine (something that in most cases is impossible to prove above reasonable doubt), claimants only need to prove this relationship is not impossible (something infinitely easier to do) to receive a compensation.

Liability keeps people on their toes and is designed to ensure manufacturers and service providers in any industry follow the correct procedures to ensure their products are safe.

And what makes you think that the government is not continuously following the effects of the vaccine? You are confused between the general public not going to trial against the companies directly and nobody ever making them responsible for any kind of bad product. Companies have to explain again to the expert panels when their product is not what is expected. It should not be difficult to understand that the government has a lot of resources, much more than any particular, to make the developers respond and take responsibility of anything improper going on.

Liability is never out of the question, in Japan for example the National Institute of Infectious diseases is in charge of corroborating the safety and efficacy of every lot of vaccine that is put on the market (called the ワクチン国家検定 "The vaccine national test"), the Japanese government do not trust the companies to do it and just report, they have professionals that lose absolutely nothing if they find a problem to check them constantly, not only with epidemiological data but with actual laboratory work. It even publishes the information of what vaccines, lots are examined and the date of the examination

https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/images/plan/kentei-info/vaccine.pdf

I think if the liability issue was sorted - ie pharma products were subject to the same level as any other product - a huge proportion of the opposition/skepticism would evaporate because the public would have greater confidence in the process and makers would be extra careful to avoid sloppy work and fudged results (this industry cuts corners, too)

That is too naive, there are antivaxxers in every country of the world, including places where there is nothing equivalent to the "National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program", or where people can directly complain and search for compensation from pharmaceutical companies (after all not all vaccines are pushed by the government) By definition antivaxxers are ilogical, irrational people that will never be convinced their religious beliefs may be wrong. If a person is able to be convinced that a vaccine can be safe (even if with some difficulty) then that person is not an antivaxxer.

And again, makers being sloppy is not enough to get a bad product, you still need everybody involved, from the doctors and nurses running the clinical trials to the government experts to be on the conspiracy.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

"Anti-Vaxxer" is a Big Pharma slur which came right out of 'marketing' departments when their highly profitable MMR vaccine was implicated in causing Autism in children subsequent to MMR vaccination. The potential liability here is enormous, even with liability waivers. This is how Corporate destroys its critics, by convincing the ignorant that the accusers are 'CRAZY!'. Read the details. What the Big Pharma marketing departments DON'T point out is that not only can they NOT cure ANY of the many extant autoimmune diseases plaguing Humanity, they cannot even tell you WHY or HOW or CAUSE of ANY of these crippling diseases. And something which may be even more telling and does not require studying our immune function to see: At the very height of Big Pharma's public screaming and whining about "anti-Vaxxers", Scientific American published a report on a recent Dengue vaccination campaign which they entitled "Dengue Debacle" although 'pressure' later forced them to re-title the article online. It describes a large Dengue vaccination program with a terribly flawed vaccine which is killing many people who subsequently contract Dengue outright. BUT, the most important fact for the 'non-immunologist' is that, almost immediately after the publication of this report, the whole "anti-Vaxxer" media attack program on traumatized parents of damaged children ("CRAZY ANTI-VAXXERS") completely vanished from our media except for echoes such as this. Did the 'crazy anti-vaxxers' suddenly fold up their tents and disappear into the night, along with their crippled children? No, Big Pharma and their money did. And the story DID NOT appear at all, ever, in the United States media. Sometimes the silence says so much more than the obfucacious NOISE Corporate generates to hide their lies. As unlikely as it is that 'someone' may want to re-examine their own thinking, I include ref to the article below in a second posting. Follow the money...oh, and look up the likely cause of "Gulf War Syndrome" and how much obfuscation both Big Pharma and our Corporo-Governmental crap-sprayers had to expend to once again deny help to our abused veterans. Ya gotta look UNDER the B.S. and, there, the World Order is all laid out quite clearly... and, we really still don't know much of anything about the immune system other than how to make a person immuno-incompetent so as to protect them against their own immune system.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Scientific American, 01April2019, "Dengue Debacle" (print edition)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-worlds-first-dengue-vaccination-drive-ended-in-disaster/

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

note: Dengue = "Break Bone Fever", a much more colorful picture of this nasty mosquito-borne killer...

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

"Anti-Vaxxer" is a Big Pharma slur which came right out of 'marketing' departments when their highly profitable MMR vaccine was implicated in causing Autism in children subsequent to MMR vaccination.

Proof? it is much more easily believable that the name come naturally to describe loons that believed the false implication done by a proven crook that falsified data in order to make a completely safe vaccine look bad, just to promote his own version of the vaccine. People that abandon logic and reason to follow a weird cult where every health worker in the world sacrifice their family for no reason.

The potential liability here is enormous, even with liability waivers. This is how Corporate destroys its critics, by convincing the ignorant that the accusers are 'CRAZY!

There is no need to convince anybody, just describing their crazy beliefs contrary to anything reasonable is enough to understand why they actually are.

What the Big Pharma marketing departments DON'T point out is that not only can they NOT cure ANY of the many extant autoimmune diseases plaguing Humanity, they cannot even tell you WHY or HOW or CAUSE of ANY of these crippling diseases.

Well, since a vaccine is used for infectious diseases the non sequitur is quite obvious, and it has been decades where it is perfectly possible to describe the cause of many autoimmune diseases, this argument is nonsense for modern science.

Scientific American published a report on a recent Dengue vaccination campaign which they entitled "Dengue Debacle" although 'pressure' later forced them to re-title the article online. It describes a large Dengue vaccination program with a terribly flawed vaccine which is killing many people who subsequently contract Dengue outright.

One, the problem happened when politicians went against scientific and medical advice and vaccinated a large amount of the population without waiting for results of the vigilance, Two, the vaccine is not terribly flawed and do protect against some of the serotypes of the disease, the problem is that it statistically elevates the probability of treatable complications against one of the serotypes. Three, the natural infection produces a much more high elevation of the risk, and not against one serotype but for to all others, (getting DEN1 makes 2, 3, 4 more likely to be dangerous, getting then DEN2, makes 3 and 4 almost surely so, etc.)

So the "debable" consist on still preventing some of the complications, but not enough to make it as safe as it should be. Still safer than getting the natural dengue, specially in a country with all four serotypes endemic.

BUT, the most important fact for the 'non-immunologist' is that, almost immediately after the publication of this report, the whole "anti-Vaxxer" media attack program on traumatized parents of damaged children ("CRAZY ANTI-VAXXERS") completely vanished from our media except for echoes such as this.

Attacks on crazy people exposing their children to lethal diseases is constant, after all it is a good way to educate people about the mistaken beliefs that can be demonstrated as such. One vaccine that deals with a very special antibody enhancement does not prove that one parent blaming vaccines for completely unrelated problems, like autism, is still wrong and have to be told as such or else he will put other children at risk.

And the story DID NOT appear at all, ever, in the United States media.

Of course it it, at least for the people that actually keep themselves informed instead of in denial of reality like the antivaxxers do. At least it appeared much more than the constant outbreaks of infectious diseases that keep appearing in the world because of lack of vaccination.

and look up the likely cause of "Gulf War Syndrome" and how much obfuscation both Big Pharma and our Corporo-Governmental crap-sprayers had to expend to once again deny help to our abused veterans.

This is a perfectly well known phenomenon without mysteries, and also completely unrelated to vaccines.

Follow the money.

Following the money would mean antivaxxers are funded by "big pharma", after all much more profit is made from having the full epidemics instead of the peanuts made by selling dirt cheap vaccines. Just see what is necessary to treat a single measles case, or one that is complicated.

and, we really still don't know much of anything about the immune system other than how to make a person immuno-incompetent so as to protect them against their own immune system.

This is a mistake, a person can be perfectly immuno competent and have autoimmune disease, and science do know how to solve many causes of immune compromise (as well as how to solve many auto immune diseases, that are not related).

Neither of which has of course anything to do with vaccines, immuno compromised people can be vaccinated depending on the type of vaccine, and actually depend on vaccination of the community to decrease the risk they are exposed.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

MariaAug. 31  09:18 am JST I am not, but I would not agree to mandatory vaccines against the flu or any of these new viruses.

Then yes you are an anti vaxxer.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

No I am not. I have had the full set of vaccines since birth as have my children. With no negative consequences. 

So have I. You haven't had the mandatory corona vaccine yet. I think I'll wait a couple of years after you guys have had it, if you're still kicking then I might consider it.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

MariaAug. 31  09:18 am JST I am not, but I would not agree to mandatory vaccines against the flu or any of these new viruses.

Then yes you are an anti vaxxer.

If being against having something that's just been concocted injected into your body against your will is an "anti-vaxxer," then so be it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

ou haven't had the mandatory corona vaccine yet. 

Is the mandatory vaccine the one that as someone on 8chan wrote would be given at the same time 'they' plant the chip in your brain?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

I cannot fathom why someone would reject something so clearly beneficial to humanity. The bestowing of Darwin awards to these unfortunate individuals seems sadly appropriate. I only wish their children could be protected.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

I also had a lot of vaccines, and never had any bad effects on me.

I started Influenza vaccine in Japan a few years ago, because I got influenza C in Japan and I thought I would die.

It was terrible!

I take the influenza vaccine now every year,  and since then I didn't catch Influenza. Just 1 time, but very low symptoms.

I guess for the Covid 19 vaccine, it would be similar like Influenza vaccine . Probably I have to take it every year.

But as soon as a vaccine for Covid 19 is available, I will take it.

And to take out a little bit the science topic from this discussion, I will take the vaccine that I can go back to Girls Bars!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

But as soon as a vaccine for Covid 19 is available, I will take it.

I'll take sunlight, healthy food and exercise, thank you very much.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

@Serrano

I'll take sunlight, healthy food and exercise, thank you very much.

Good luck with that.

It didn't protect me to got this terrible influenza some years ago.

But a vaccine does!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

If being against having something that's just been concocted injected into your body against your will is an "anti-vaxxer," then so be it.

It is, yeah. You're an anti-vaxxer, aka an anti-science nut.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

But you really do need to understand there's a big difference between the fringe anti-vaxxers who don't trust any vaccines and people who are asking legitimate questions...

Indeed, and just as crazy as those fringe anti-vaxxers who don't trust any vaccines are those who believe all vaccines are completely safe and effective and can do no harm. Crazier yet are those who would consider vaccines as "perfectly fine" even when they haven't undergone clinical trials.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

11% of respondents are irresponsible people, just looking for conspiracy content in every aspect of life based on nothing. Contrails, 5G, Antifa... they always need some kind of boogeyman. Sad.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

I think if the liability issue was sorted - ie pharma products were subject to the same level as any other product - a huge proportion of the opposition/skepticism would evaporate because the public would have greater confidence in the process and makers would be extra careful to avoid sloppy work and fudged results (this industry cuts corners, too)

-----------------------------------------------------------

That is too naive, there are antivaxxers in every country of the world, including places where there is nothing equivalent to the "National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program", or where people can directly complain and search for compensation from pharmaceutical companies (after all not all vaccines are pushed by the government) By definition antivaxxers are ilogical, irrational people that will never be convinced their religious beliefs may be wrong. If a person is able to be convinced that a vaccine can be safe (even if with some difficulty) then that person is not an antivaxxer.

Not necessarily naive. Plenty of people are on the fence. Of course there are people all over the world who won't take vaccines or the like, and won't be swayed to the contrary. But they're not in the majority, and in any case are responsible for their own health and that of their children. Some of them may have legitimate reasons for distrusting the pharmaceutical/medical industry because of malpractice or side-effects. Heck, in Japan I've had doctors prescribe me pills when all I needed was a medical certificate for work for a heavy cold that some rest would cure, and another try to prescribe anti-anxiety medication when all I wanted was to get a bit of stress off my chest. He was pushing the pills hard, but I refused and never went back. That said, the doctor I have now is a good, trustworthy one who doesn't prescribe meds unless they're absolutely necessary. Same one who told me a few weeks ago that the danger to the vast majority of people from COVID-19 is being blown out of proportion.

Interestingly as an aside, in addition to the people who won't take vaccines for religious reasons are anti-vaxxers who are fervent believers in climate change. This isn't uncommon in the trendy Green-voting areas in Australia's inner cities and Byron Bay and surrounds. In a sense, they flip their lid when someone questions the narrative of climate change, but are equally fervent in the other direction when it comes to wholesale rejecting vaccines and allopathic medicine. Go figure. It seems that trusting the science is good enough for them for one thing, but not for another.

A big part of the problem is when the media and politicians in particular, possibly but not necessarily doing the bidding of PR pros, as William said above, throw around the anti-vaxxer slur to manipulate people into acting, if not thinking, the way they want. After all, you wouldn't want to be thought of as one of them, would you?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

All these anti-vaxxers just want to kill grandma, little kids, and those with immunodeficiencies.

Hey, if you can say it about masks, it certainly works for anti-vaxxers as well.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If one wants to get a good idea of the potential dangers of vaccines, here is a good interview of Kennedy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLi6ZrFp6vQ

...if you want a shorter version of the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LobL5k316kk

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I'm glad you acknowledge the contributions of improved sanitation. I believe much of the alleged contributions of vaccines are in fact due to improved sanitation. For certain diseases, the infection rates were already going down prior to introduction of vaccines. A case could be made that vaccines are in fact a major contribution to human sickness, rather than good health.

Yes, for many diseases improved sanitation over the course of the last hundred years explain the improved outcomes.

For others though vaccines have been key. Polio outbreaks were still killing thousands of people, many children, a year in developed countries well after modern sanitation systems had been implemented. Its eradication in most countries was only possible with an effective vaccine, to name one significant example.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If one wants to get a good idea of the potential dangers of vaccines, here is a good interview of Kennedy:

Thinks videos, not scientific studies, are primary sources? check! bingo!

To be fair, if the only resource you have are terribly obvious lies you will avoid using any kind of text (that can easily be copy pasted to check on google if it is true or not) and instead depend exclusively on videos where lies can keep coming continuously and hope the sheer amount of nonsense will let a couple of them slip as if they were true. Unfortunately Kennedy is one of the worst antivaxxers ever (in the sense that he believe in so many contradicting conspiracies he has ended up saying that some of his own declarations are lies). So much that in some antivaxxer forums he is even considered a "Big pharma shill" that makes ridiculous statements on purpose to make the "movement" look like a bunch of crazy people.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

All these anti-vaxxers just want to kill grandma, little kids, and those with immunodeficiencies.

They may not want to, but that is the end result of their actions, yes.

Hey, if you can say it about masks, it certainly works for anti-vaxxers as well.

Yeah. Anti-vaxxers are as dumb and short-sighted as those who don't want to wear masks, and it will result in preventable sickness and death. You're correct.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Reading the above posts, I realized that few people have any idea who these "anti-vaxxers" are. That is why I linked to the videos.

Thinks videos, not scientific studies, are primary sources?

In the interview, whenever Kennedy makes a claim, the study he is talking about is usually shown on the screen. (He's not like some pompous idiots who pull numbers out thin air, do some basic calculations and then criticize the math skills of anyone asking where those initial numbers come from...)

Oh, BTW, here is another good interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX95m5kXMBU

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

In the interview, whenever Kennedy makes a claim, the study he is talking about is usually shown on the screen. 

And if the claim were true it would be so easy to put it here with the reference to prove it. But since it is not that is taboo for the antivaxxers. In a video instead a proven liar can say whatever he wants, even if the article he is mentioning says exactly the opposite and people would not notice, because the next lie is already being told. Like an onslaught of falsehoods and misrepresentations trying to pretend very hard (but failing nevertheless) to be primary sources, when in reality they are the opposite.

So yes, antivaxxers are always so scared to be proven wrong almost instantly when they try to provide primary sources they don't even understand that they have no other option but to put videos of other people lying.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I am not, but I would not agree to mandatory vaccines against the flu or any of these new viruses.

Why would you be against mandatory vaccines? To protect the wider population everyone should be vaccinated...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In the interview, whenever Kennedy makes a claim, the study he is talking about is usually shown on the screen. 

And if the claim were true it would be so easy to put it here with the reference to prove it.

Oh, I see. You didn't even bother watching the video. Either that, or you actually believe that the studies shown in the video (the actual front pages of a scientific publications) were photoshopped.

Seeing the insults thrown at Kennedy and the "anti-vaxxers", it really does seem you are terrified of people learning about the dangers of vaccine industry.

I am sure all those who have suffered from vaccines wish someone would have honestly informed them of their dangers.

So yes, antivaxxers are always so scared to be proven wrong almost instantly when they try to provide primary sources they don't even understand that they have no other option but to put videos of other people lying.

What! So it's the "anti-vaxxers" who are afraid of debate?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Oh, I see. You didn't even bother watching the video. Either that, or you actually believe that the studies shown in the video (the actual front pages of a scientific publications) were photoshopped.

There is no need, pants on fire irrational antivaxxer Kennedy can simply lie about the whole study hoping that nobody can take track of all the lies he spews. It is part of the typical tools of him, misrepresent studies, present retracted studies as if they were valid, present non peer reviewed ones as if they were real ones, take "reviews" where only bad studies are included while high quality ones are ignored invalidly and present them as if they were the "consesus", or simply lie and say the conclusions are different than what is written, take your pick, any kind of research misconduct is never too low for him.

Of course you could put here one claim and the source to prove me wrong taking no more than one or two lines, but since antivaxxers are terrified of doing that (because expose them to being clearly refuted) it is obvious that will not happen.

Seeing the insults thrown at Kennedy and the "anti-vaxxers", it really does seem you are terrified of people learning about the dangers of vaccine industry.

Because one person that lie, accept he lied but later repeats that lie? that is illogical, specially because the worst insults to him come from the antivaxxers that think he is being too ridiculous on purpose to make them look bad. In a sense Kennedy is one of the best tools to expose the falls of antivaxxers, people on the fence can still recognize the crazy when it is presented so thick.

I am sure all those who have suffered from vaccines wish someone would have honestly informed them of their dangers.

Like doctors do during vaccination, with true data instead of proven lies as he likes so much to do.

What! So it's the "anti-vaxxers" who are afraid of debate?

Any rational people is afraid of just losing his time by "debating" against someone that when proven wrong thinks he can become right by repeating the mistake again and again without even trying to defend them. The real ones afraid of debating (as in using logic and reason) are the antivaxxers that disqualify themselves by default by lying.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Anti-vaxxer...Anti-Masker....Anti-Hand Washer...Anti-Distance Keeper...not my cup of tea. I'll take my chances on Science.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Why would you be against mandatory vaccines? To protect the wider population everyone should be vaccinated...

The original post mentioned flu vaccines. Where I live, these are generally focused on the elderly and those such as medical staff who are a possible vector or at higher risk of exposure. For whatever reason, it seems the risk to the wider population is not seen as a major factor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think all vaccines offer protection to the wider community, or at least not the same degree of protection. This is where I get a little frustrated in these discussions - there seems a tendency to treat all vaccines in the same way. But, for example, where I live, the chicken pox vaccine is not part of the routine childhood vaccination program. It is recommended only for certain people. I understand it carries a risk of slightly increasing the chance of getting shingles when older. I thinking making such a vaccine mandatory would be questionable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

This question is essentially already asking that.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Let me pose this question. I assume most of the posters on this board are of an age that have already been vaccinated, and if so, please tell us what adverse effects it had on you. And if you weren't vaccinated, how do you explain the millions upon millions of children who were vaccinated and have grown up healthy? Legitimate questions, I think.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In the interview, whenever Kennedy makes a claim, the study he is talking about is usually shown on the screen. 

Any knobhead can show something on a screen. It's meaningless. It's there to impress the easily impressed.

Kennedy couldn't care less whether anyone goes to actually check it, by that point, he's farted out another thousand lies in another dozen venues. It's about being in the moment and serving up to a gullible audience what they want to hear. He's a showman and a huckster, the screen "reference" is a little thing they do in conjuring known as misdirection. It's also the favoured tactic of con artists, because it works.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If morons don't want to get vaccination shots, fine, so be it, but if they then contract a certain disease they should be isolated and have to pay 100% of the costs for treatment. And when it comes to their children or people in their care, if they refuse vaccination for them the parents/caregivers should be locked up. If they catch something as a result of refusing vaccination and spread it to others, they should be held criminally responsible, and in the event of the deaths of those people the anti-vaxxers who spread it should be charged with manslaughter.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I assume most of the posters on this board are of an age that have already been vaccinated, and if so, please tell us what adverse effects it had on you. And if you weren't vaccinated, how do you explain the millions upon millions of children who were vaccinated and have grown up healthy? Legitimate questions, I think.

It is a legitimate question. I and my family have had no adverse reactions from all the recommended vaccines that we have had. I would encourage everyone to take recommended vaccines.

But I know another person who is the probable victim of an adverse reaction to a vaccination. Wheelchair bound for over 50 years and with some learning difficulties (she might argue about the latter). I say "probable" because it's almost impossible to accurately assign cause to her condition, but she fits the pattern of higher-than-average pattern of symptoms following a vaccination program.

Her condition is why I would like to be given clearer information about the effectiveness versus the serious side-effects of vaccines. One million saved versus 1 person sacrificed? Perhaps OK. What about 1000 saved versus 1 person sacrificed? And should we take account of what they are saved from? Polio, measles, influenza, rubella, etc.?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not anti bad, just anti coercion-by-hysterics.

Eg. I don’t have flu vaccine, but do gay pneumonia vaccine at own expense.

Why? Flu (and COVID) are viruses - vaccination works with antibodies from bacteria. Anyway, these viruses mutate rapidly making any vaccination (if there actually were any really possible) useless after, say, 3 months.

So, basically I don’t like idiots telling me what to do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'll take sunlight, healthy food and exercise, thank you very much.

Now I understand why You like Trump..

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I believe in science, I'm not a fool..

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Most ot them are dead.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

never met an anti-vaxxer in person but I'd be interesting to have a discussion with one. I grew up as a sickly kid and vaccines have saved by bacon several times and I probably wouldn't have survived today if it weren't for them. I agree that some vaccines are defective and still depends on the body's natural antibodies but it's better than nothing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If morons don't want to get vaccination shots, fine, so be it, but if they then contract a certain disease they should be isolated and have to pay 100% of the costs for treatment. 

That's not fair. If a moron gets a vaccination that disables them, they will be compensated by the government.

Let me pose this question. I assume most of the posters on this board are of an age that have already been vaccinated, and if so, please tell us what adverse effects it had on you.

Nobody is saying that all vaccines make everyone detectably sick.

how do you explain the millions upon millions of children who were vaccinated and have grown up healthy?

How do you explain the hundreds of girls who died and thousands who were rendered disabled from the HPV vaccine? And how do you explain the massive rise in autism?

Legitimate questions, I think.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How do you explain the hundreds of girls who died and thousands who were rendered disabled from the HPV vaccine? And how do you explain the massive rise in autism?

Something that isn't true doesn't require explanation. The HPV vaccine has not killed hundreds of girls, but people like you have simply asserted that it has. It's just more crap put out by the antivax movement, who are as prolific as they are ill-informed and dishonest.

Autism didn't even have a name until 1943. As such, it really could only have experienced a steady rise over the last 70 years, because prior to that, by definition, no one was diagnosed as autistic, even though many people had developmental disorders. The first person to receive the diagnosis is still alive today; that's how relatively recent it is as a recognized and named condition. Autism was increasingly recognized from the 1960s onward, because physicians know more about it, kindergartens and schools also look for signs of developmental disorders in children, and because parents are far more aware of it than they used to be.

We come to a second point, the so-called "massive rise" in autism. This needs to be generally accepted in the medical world before a cause can be reliably identified. It first has to be understood that increased diagnosis, particularly in the way that autism is diagnosed, does not in itself mean that autism is increasing in the general population. Because we know for a fact that in previous decades, autism has gone unrecognized or undiagnosed; we know for a fact that Asperger's syndrome was once viewed separately but is now, at least in some countries, considered to be a form of autism, and reassigning people with Asperger's to autism will increase the autism figures; and we know for a fact that more people will seek the diagnosis when they understand that it can significantly help their child and themselves.

How would you get to "vaccines are probably causing autism" from there? It's multiple steps away. Here's a question that does have an easy explanation though: How did Dr. Andrew Wakefield demonstrate a link between the MMR vaccine and autism?

The answer is that he committed scientific fraud, among other serious breaches. So your choice is simple enough. You embrace Wakefield, or you accept that his cheating was exposed and that he is, was, and always will be a cheat. Which leaves you to try and dig up some more respectable figurehead for the vaccine-autism cause. If Robert F. Kennedy Jr is the best you can manage, you must be desperate.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

How do you explain the hundreds of girls who died and thousands who were rendered disabled from the HPV vaccine? And how do you explain the massive rise in autism?

Legitimate questions, I think.

They would be legitimate questions if they provided some information to back up the claims. As they stand, they are just nonsense. How can we explain something that we don't see?

@wipeout, thanks for your comment, especially about the autism and Asperger's diagnosis history.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

maria:

I am not, but I would not agree to mandatory vaccines against the flu or any of these new viruses.

Absolutely. As someone who chose NO (I believe in doctors more than I do in children residing in the white house), I sure as hell would feel very uneasy about taking a vaccine that was rushed and made ready for 1 November. Two or so days before the US election? What a coincidence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I’m living in the 21 century

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'd like to say I'm not, but aren't we all 'anti-vaxxers' to some extent? How many of us will be lining up to take a Russian or Chinese vaccine? Not many I'm guessing.

Ultimately it's not really about whether you trust the science, it's whether you trust specific scientists and specific regulatory agencies. We all have our own blacklists of sources, companies, or entire countries that we deem too risky and untrustworthy regardless of our belief in the science. What sets most 'anti-vaxxers' apart is simply that they've added all western pharmaceutical companies and regulators to their blacklist. We can quibble about that choice or laugh at their extremism, but we should also recognise that we're operating on similar principles of trust even if we've reach different conclusions.

Even for a Nobel Prize winning virologist, it's not about trusting the science. When they take a vaccine developed by another scientist, there's no easy way to verify that the clinical trial results have been reported accurately or that regulators have done their due diligence properly. It's ultimately about a general trust in the source of the vaccine and the system, not trust in the science itself.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I cannot answer. Super pro-vaxxers will say I am anti, and super pro-anti will say I am pro. Fact is I approve of some vaccines and not others. I recommend some vaccines and find others unnecessary or not worth the risk. Anyone not taking each individual vaccine and its situation individually is just a starry eyed fool putting more faith in some person or some group than any person or group is warranted. The words "I trust science" is just as dopey as "I trust Alex Jones". I am not saying they are equal. I am just saying that even science has been proven wrong thousands of times. All science truly has to say for itself is that it accepted being wrong and keeps correcting itself. But I don't want to be on the receiving end of a scientific mistake anymore than one from Alex Jones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The HPV vaccine has not killed hundreds of girls, but people like you have simply asserted that it has.

Then YOU tell us how many died exactly or even ball park. But you didn't even try.

Accurate compiled data for vaccines is difficult to acquire. And that is not some accident. Its just not being given to us. So all I have, admittedly, is crap for sources and so will you if you try.

But this source says 100 girls died in the U.S. alone from Guardasil, and that's just one of two HPV vaccines I am aware of. It also says Guardasil has been given to 50 million people in 130 countries. And lets not forget about disabilities by focusing only on deaths. THAT'S a damn lot of data to compile. But lots of luck getting enough of it to say for sure.

Now, of course Merck is going to claim it was anything BUT their vaccine that killed teen girls. For example they will say that medical staff ignored contra-indications. But guess what? If your teen girl dies over an HPV vaccine, whether it was the fault of a nurse or Merck, she is just as dead. And she is dead over some fool attempt to prevent an operable cancer she pretty much could only get in her 50s but might not have gotten at all. THAT'S JUST PLAIN STUPID! And THAT is why many of us don't trust big pharma and their for-profit ways.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gardasil-linked-to-deaths-and-disabilities-after-young-girls-vaccinated-tor

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then YOU tell us how many died exactly or even ball park. But you didn't even try.

That's right. But then, it's not me throwing out unfounded claims about the HPV vaccine killing "hundreds of girls and rendering thousands disabled", so I'm not obliged to put a figure on "how many died exactly". If you believe people have died from it, you could show your evidence. It'll be lousy of course, because that's all there is.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But then, it's not me throwing out unfounded claims about the HPV vaccine killing "hundreds of girls and rendering thousands disabled"

It might have been unsourced but that is not the same as "unfounded". You claimed a claim was false by making your own unsourced claim, which I will tell you is also not unfounded, because we have all been fed incomplete and suspicious information. You are literally in the same boat as the one you accused making an unsourced but not unfounded claim. You haven't a leg to stand on to act as though you are different from the person you accused, except that the person you accused began the vital discussion of how many girls have been killed or injured by HPV vaccines, a subject we are being kept in the dark about. Once again I find for the defendant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

 the person you accused began the vital discussion of how many girls have been killed or injured by HPV vaccines, a subject we are being kept in the dark about.

Actually he brought up the subject by presenting as established fact, which it isn't, that hundreds of girls have been killed and thousands rendered disabled by the HPV vaccine, then requested an explanation of this unproven "fact".

A simple explanation, and a good one, is that it's a blatant lie. It is a very common tactic of conspiracy theorists - and they are blatant liars - to present a question which presupposes the veracity of an unproven fact - it's a useful way to advance a lie, and force the other side to engage with something worthless.

This is one of those, and you're 'we're being kept in the dark' is just another favourite conspiracy theory assertion, effectively meaningless and unprovable.

Of course if you have any credible evidence, there's nothing to prevent you providing it. You'll need to do better than Robert F. Kennedy though, he's definitely the opposite of credible.

The CDC discusses claims of HPV vaccine related death (within the US) here:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/hpv/hpv-safety-faqs.html#:~:text=CDC%20and%20FDA%20investigate%20all%20reports%20of%20death%20following%20vaccination.&text=From%20December%201%2C%202014%20through,received%207%20reports%20of%20death.

Briefly, of the claimed deaths, a minority were confirmed to have actually occurred. Gardasil 9: Dec. 2014 to Dec. 2017, 2 deaths out of 7 were verified to have occurred. Note that this means it is known that a specific person died, and that they received an HPV vaccination. For all of the remainder, it is not even known whether such a person died.

For both Gardasil 9 and Gardasil, there was no time pattern established between vaccination and death, and no causal link established.

Antivaxers are still stuck in the starting blocks on this one: the usual attempts to juxtapose two events and insist that one caused the other. Without some scientific and logical input, that can barely be considered better than superstition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Additional figure from the CDC page, to which the above comment ("For both Gardasil 9 and Gardasil, there was no time pattern established between vaccination and death, and no causal link established.") also applies.

Gardasil (2006 to Dec 2017), 187 deaths reported, 67 verified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is one of those, and you're 'we're being kept in the dark' is just another favourite conspiracy theory assertion, effectively meaningless and unprovable.

And that's the usual sort of counter gaslighting we have all learned to expect from people who act like time and again there are no conspiracies or corporate corruption until yet another suspected incident is proven despite media blackouts and then they go silent. Its like Minamata, Union Carbide, PRISM, secret biowarfare tests on U.S. citizens, Dengvaxia or the Cutter incident never happened. Right now there is a Cervarix scandal in India and who are at the top of search lists for reporting on that? The Daily Mail and the Telegraph! Naturally I view those two with suspicion but I note that they have not been sued in the ground so....

For both Gardasil 9 and Gardasil, there was no time pattern established between vaccination and death, and no causal link established.

There NEVER is. Little and teen girls they just drop dead all the time! Could not be any relation to the jab they got!

Gardasil (2006 to Dec 2017), 187 deaths reported, 67 verified.

Well thank you for that. I mean really and on the level. That said, I don't put all my faith in the CDC either. But consider those deaths are only in America and both Guardasil and Cervarix have been used in India and many other places. Even I was incredulous about Raw Beer's assertion at first. I am not now. I had to go back and give a like because of it. It seems his numbers may have actually been somewhat conservative!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There NEVER is. Little and teen girls they just drop dead all the time! Could not be any relation to the jab they got!

There's certainly no persuasive reason to suppose that it even might be because of the jab. The best argument for that would be to show a pattern, and as the CDC link I provided states, they were unable to show a pattern of death related either to time or dosage.

Yes people of all ages do die, and in some cases, the death is so sudden and unexpected that it more or less amounts to what you call "dropping dead". This doesn't bring us any closer to showing that a recently administered vaccine is the cause: if you take all sudden deaths of girls/young women between say 13 and 19, you could certainly find that some of those deaths occurred fairly soon after a vaccine was given. Again, this proves nothing.

Unless a pattern can be shown - and certainly antivaxers are the last people on earth with the knowledge or capability to do so - then there is no reliable evidence of vaccine causing death. On the other hand, if vaccines do cause death, it is almost inevitable that, especially as more people are vaccinated, a pattern both exists in the figures and can be identified.

I appreciate that you can shout as loud as the best antivaxer, but that kind of bluster just washes over me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites