Vaccines

Dylan

Jedi
This time of year tends to bring out many discussions about vaccine efficacy. Obviously, there are two main camps regarding vaccines. One suggests that they are effective and are necessary to reduce the potential of transmission of the contagious diseases they are purported to provide immunity to. The other suggests vaccines are dangerous to our health, don't provide the immunity they purport to, and are a product largely of profit making corporate malfeasance.

I would begin by stating that I was vaccinated as most children in Canada are, according to the schedules for vaccines which are standard. My children are also vaccinated, and I will continue to do so. Yet, a part of me really wonders about them, I fear an adverse reaction for my kids and note that they always seem down for a couple of days to a week afterwards. On the one hand, social presures as a child matures have restricted my choice, on the other I wonder if vaccines really are protecting my children as they say they are.

I've read tons of information regarding vaccines, listened to both the pro and anti vaxxer camps, and remain cautious. I will not subject myself to the yearly flu shot, which is good because this year in Canada one is actually more likely to get the flu if one gets the vaccine, but I know there would be immense social pressure for me to vaccinate myself if I were to visit with any relatives who are of old age in retirement homes.

I've searched for a definitive work on this forum that as objectively as possible evaluates the pro and contra, but have not found one as thoroughly referenced as some of the other works here. I imagine I'm not alone in my confusion and desire for objective research, so I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

I found the recent sott article to be interesting, but rather rhetorical and certainly not objective. I think the truth seeker would be better informed by a truly scientific analysis, but I need help finding the right materials to research. One that does not begin with a clear opinion on which camp to lie in, but in this wilderness of corrupt science and public relations maybe that is asking too much.

Help!
 

duyunne

Jedi Master
Hi Dylan

You may find these interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25598306 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9756729 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21993250 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10714532 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819810/… - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21350943 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20803069 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21549155 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015705 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015977 -

Cheers
 

JonnyRadar

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi Dylan, for what it's worth, we're going to be covering vaccines in our upcoming episode of the Health & Wellness show on the Sott Radio Network, on BlogTalkRadio... You can tune in here on Monday at 2pm EST -> http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sottradionetwork :)
 

Dylan

Jedi
Thanks, Zin, those are exactly the type of research materials I'm looking for. And I won't be able to listen to the show live as my wife had made plans for us to go watch the circus called the super bowl on Sunday, but I'll catch up with it as soon as I'm able.
 

JonnyRadar

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Dylan said:
Thanks, Zin, those are exactly the type of research materials I'm looking for. And I won't be able to listen to the show live as my wife had made plans for us to go watch the circus called the super bowl on Sunday, but I'll catch up with it as soon as I'm able.
Right on. :) It'll be archived...
 

Odyssey

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Hi Dylan. I understand your confusion. There are a lot of messages out there on vaccines that are very black and white and do not present a middle ground. However, there are some subjects in which there is no middle ground. There are a multitude of things in this world that are objectively good for you and other things that are objectively bad for you. The arguments on both sides of the vaccine debate can be very strident, driven by emotion and appear to be rooted in subjectivity. Taking a non-neutral stance on a subject does not necessarily mean that the research done is invalid or vice versa. Ultimately, the research stands on its own and if it happens to come out on one side vs the other then so be it.

As with everything it is up to the individual to do their own research, observe the world around them and take into account their own experiences and the experiences of people they know and choose accordingly, always retaining the right to change one's mind when more information is presented. From what you wrote, it appears that you are doing this.


Happy researching :)
 

Dylan

Jedi
Personally, I am extremely dubious about the official narrative of vaccine efficacy. On a recent Facebook discussion with pro vaccine friends it is very clear that their (and likely the majority of regular folk) are dogmatic and deluded when it comes to the debate. Most of the articles you'll see on social media are rhetorical and one sided emotionally based pro arguments. But, even the Cdc has publically admitted that the layers measles outbreaks cannot be blamed solely on people who aren't vaccinated.

If we also use the cdc statistics that only 10% of adverse reactions from vaccines are reported, and some 200 million dollars were paid out by the us federal governments in their specialty courts last year, one could infer that the actual damage caused by vaccines yearly could be in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars for the periods for which these suits represent. Not to mention, as explicated in the recent global research article, that that info graphic the CFR put out last year unwittingly demonstrates that the areas in the world in which outbreaks of contagious disease which are supposed to be prevented by vaccines occurred in the highest per capita percentage of vaccinated people of the developed nations.

Really, I think they are likely more damaging than doing good for people, but try to tell that to my wife or any others in my family. I literally know of only one person other than myself in my circle of friends that has a skeptical enough viewpoint, and he has chosen not to vaccinate his children. I wouldn't get away with that, due to the social pressures my wife and family levy on this worldview. Which means I basically eat my liver when my children go for their scheduled vaccines. I would hate to ever be in a position to say I told you so, but what do you do?
 

shijing

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi Dylan,

Dylan said:
I've searched for a definitive work on this forum that as objectively as possible evaluates the pro and contra, but have not found one as thoroughly referenced as some of the other works here. I imagine I'm not alone in my confusion and desire for objective research, so I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction.

I found the recent sott article to be interesting, but rather rhetorical and certainly not objective. I think the truth seeker would be better informed by a truly scientific analysis, but I need help finding the right materials to research. One that does not begin with a clear opinion on which camp to lie in, but in this wilderness of corrupt science and public relations maybe that is asking too much.
Another site which has been publishing recent articles on vaccines is GreenMedInfo.com -- you can search the site directly, or go to their Facebook page since you happen to have an account there. There are also a number of SOTT articles on vaccines -- if you do a search on the site, you should come up with several hits. Not all of them may not be as "objective" as you'd like, but some of them will be linked out to other sources that you might find helpful. I agree with what Odyssey says above regarding the lack of a middle ground, and that sometimes it just takes time to really get to the point where you feel you're able to discern objective reality from propaganda; I'm glad zin was able to get you started with the articles he shared. I think the best thing you can do is just keep researching and following the trail from one source to another.

Dylan said:
Really, I think they are likely more damaging than doing good for people, but try to tell that to my wife or any others in my family. I literally know of only one person other than myself in my circle of friends that has a skeptical enough viewpoint, and he has chosen not to vaccinate his children. I wouldn't get away with that, due to the social pressures my wife and family levy on this worldview. Which means I basically eat my liver when my children go for their scheduled vaccines. I would hate to ever be in a position to say I told you so, but what do you do?
It's a difficult situation, because with what I know now, having children vaccinated at any age would make me extremely nervous. At this point, perhaps you can just ask her to look into the material you're collecting in an externally considerate way -- i.e. respectfully, and without trying to push too much too hard. Being able to stop the vaccinations down the road will still be good for your kids, even if you're not able to do so immediately. You have also started setting a good example by choosing against the flu vaccine for yourself, and that's certainly worth something.
 

Dylan

Jedi
Vaccines are truly a sacred cow in my sphere. I've read a few books, and articles and tried to show my wife, but there really is no room in her brain for critical thought regarding the discussion. When I mentioned that last year, according to the cdc's own statistics, over 80% of the reported measles cases in the us were in vaccinated people, she immediately rebutted by suggesting it was likely a rash or German measles. She is firmly in the pro vaxxer camp, and any attempt at rational discussion quickly degrades into emotional rhetorical argument style. Which is typical of cognitive dissonance, and though I've done my best to espouse the principles of external consideration in the conversations, and been able to steer away and attempt to keep the emotion out of the debates, it always ends up with some hypothetical situation which mirrors the type of misinformation which is presented in social media regarding outbreaks of contagious disease like the Disneyland situation.

Trust me, I understand my wife's mind well, there is little capacity for critical thought. A preference for safe and comfortable perspectives and complete unwillingness to listen to uncomfortable evidence which contradicts preconceived notions. I've tried, it's not worth my energy. It's like living in two different worlds, but that seems the fate of any who would question the official narrative and avoid conpartmentalizing thought in order to take as much information into account to establish a clearer 'big picture.'
 

meta-agnostic

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
I'm guessing there has been some big pro-vaccine or anti-anti-vaccine push in the MSM recently. I saw at least half a dozen different people taking jabs at anti-vaxers today on twitter, mostly from the left. Has anyone seen anything in a major news outlet with some particularly pernicious spin? If it's all from the measles outbreak, they certainly don't seem to be reporting that most of the cases are occurring with vaccinated people.
 

Dylan

Jedi
This is true, that the recent measles outbreak is occuring in people with a history of being vaccinated. And it's happened before in history, but social media rolls out a barrage of misinformation puff pieces by people claiming to be doctors, immunologists and Roald Dahl of all people, who provide a fine emotional bit of rhetoric but conspicuously leave out any supporting data. The msm doesn't need to cover what is already staunchly believed in and defended on social media, but I'd keep my eyes out for a piece de resistance coming soon.

It's alarming, when people refuse to look into the research and prefer puff pieces to a factual representation of vaccine efficacy. But, we should not be surprised.

All this social media is priming people with ready made arguments and it is surreal when people present these as their own.
 

meta-agnostic

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
This appears to be where all the recent hubub is coming from. Typical case of having one party mention it and the other side goes berserk raving about how stupid they are, even though the article does mention opposition comes from both "sides" of the political spectrum. Still don't see any mention of last year's CDC whistleblower though. Or of the number of measles cases among those already vaccinated.

(sorry if the copy/paste job is poor. the article formatting was not very conducive to it)
_http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/chris-christie-remarks-show-vaccines-potency-in-political-debate/2015/02/02/f1c49a6e-aaff-11e4-abe8-e1ef60ca26de_story.html
Vaccination debate flares in GOP presidential race, alarming medical experts


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his wife Mary Pat Christie visit a MedImmune laboratory in Cambridge on Monday. (Neil Hall/Reuters)
By Philip Rucker and Rosalind S. Helderman February 2 at 7:47 PM

CAMBRIDGE, England — Medical experts reacted with alarm Monday as two top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination appeared to question whether child vaccinations should be mandatory — injecting politics into an emotional issue that has taken on new resonance with a recent outbreak of measles in the United States.

First, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, while visiting a vaccine laboratory here, called for “some measure of choice” on whether shots guarding against measles and other diseases should be required for children.

Then, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), an ophthalmologist who is also readying a 2016 campaign, said in two U.S. television interviews that he thinks most vaccines should be voluntary, citing “many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”

“The state doesn’t own your children,” Paul said on CNBC, praising vaccines for their health benefits but insisting that the government should not mandate their use in most cases. “Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom and public health.”

The vigorous outcry in response to the remarks underscored the sensitivity surrounding the vaccination debate, particularly given a widening multistate measles outbreak linked to a California theme park. Both Christie and Paul are leading GOP candidates who are likely to exercise significant influence over the direction of the 2016 primary race.
CDC: Get vaccinated for measles(0:55)
The CDC is urging people to get vaccinated for measles amid an outbreak that began at Disneyland and has now spread to other states, including Utah, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

The comments also illustrated persistent strains of skepticism within both parties over vaccination requirements, fueled in part by discredited claims of a connection between childhood shots and autism. Scientists have blamed a small but influential anti-vaccine movement for helping spark a new epidemic of measles, which was once virtually eliminated.

On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that more than 100 cases of the highly infectious disease were diagnosed in January. Most of the cases appear linked to victims who became ill after visiting Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., in mid-December.

“When you see educated people or elected officials giving credence to things that have been completely debunked, an idea that’s been shown to be responsible for multiple measles and pertussis outbreaks in recent years, it’s very concerning,” said Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease physician at the Center for Health Security at the University of Pittsburgh. He called the comments from Paul particularly troubling because Paul is a doctor.

Christie’s aides quickly tried to clarify his remarks, insisting in a statement that the Republican governor believes vaccines are “an important public health protection.”

After visiting a MedImmune vaccine laboratory in Cambridge, Christie was asked to weigh in on the debate in the United States over the measles outbreak. President Obama told NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie on Sunday, “You should get your kids vaccinated.”

“The science is, you know, pretty indisputable,” Obama said. “We’ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren’t reasons to not.”

Christie, however, said Monday that “there has to be a balance, and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest.” He added: “Not every vaccine is created equal, and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others.
To keep your kids away from measles, move here(1:24)
With the latest measles outbreak spreading fast, you may be surprised by the state with the best child vaccination rate in the country.

“I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide,” he said.

As for Paul, he told talk show host Laura Ingraham that he had chosen to hold off on vaccinating his children for some diseases.

“I didn’t like them getting 10 vaccines at once, so I actually delayed my kids’ vaccines and had them staggered over time,” he said.

Both men’s remarks drew immediate rebuke from experts on the issue.

Seth Mnookin, a professor at MIT who has written a book on the vaccination debate called “The Panic Virus,” called the comments from Christie and Paul “incredibly, in­cred­ibly irresponsible.”

Such remarks, he said, “basically fail at the first duty of a politician, which is to calm his constituents in moments of irrational crisis.”

The criticism came too from some political strategists, who wondered whether Christie in particular might have been attempting to appeal to Republicans suspicious of government mandates.

“There’s only one of two options,” said Rick Wilson, a Republican operative from Florida. “Either he’s so tone-deaf that he doesn’t understand why saying this is bad for him, or this is a considered political strategy. And that would be even more troubling.”

Christie aides said he was not questioning science, and they acknowledged that his initial comments could be misconstrued.

“The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated,” said a statement issued from Christie’s office in Trenton, N.J., after the uproar. “At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate.”

In substance, Christie’s overseas comments did not differ dramatically from remarks he has made previously in New Jersey, which faces higher than average childhood autism rates and an active community of parents who have questioned vaccinations.

In 2009, Christie met with parents concerned about autism rates and listened to some who expressed fears that the disease might be linked to vaccinations, said Louise Kuo Habakus, who co-edited a book called “Vaccine Epidemic” and is active with the group New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice. She said not everyone at the meeting held that view.

Habakus said she gave Christie a copy of her book just before a 2011 town-hall meeting. During the public event that followed, Christie chose to call on her to ask a question, which she said she took as a sign that he wanted to allow her a forum to express her concerns.

She praised Christie for supporting “greater dialogue” about parental rights but said she had never heard him link autism and vaccination or discourage parents from getting shots for their children.

“I think he’s been very brave on this issue,” she said. “He’s been constant and courageous on this issue, saying parents should be more involved in the discussion.”

The link between vaccinations and autism was alleged in a small 1998 study that has since been widely discredited in the scientific community. The journal that published the study retracted it in 2010, and its author lost his medical license.

But many doctors had cast doubt on the study even before those actions, insisting that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was safe and effective at combating once-deadly but now preventable diseases.



New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and his wife Mary Pat Christie visit a MedImmune laboratory in Cambridge on Monday. (Neil Hall/Reuters)
By Philip Rucker and Rosalind S. Helderman February 2 at 7:47 PM

CAMBRIDGE, England — Medical experts reacted with alarm Monday as two top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination appeared to question whether child vaccinations should be mandatory — injecting politics into an emotional issue that has taken on new resonance with a recent outbreak of measles in the United States.

First, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, while visiting a vaccine laboratory here, called for “some measure of choice” on whether shots guarding against measles and other diseases should be required for children.

Then, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), an ophthalmologist who is also readying a 2016 campaign, said in two U.S. television interviews that he thinks most vaccines should be voluntary, citing “many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.”

“The state doesn’t own your children,” Paul said on CNBC, praising vaccines for their health benefits but insisting that the government should not mandate their use in most cases. “Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom and public health.”

The vigorous outcry in response to the remarks underscored the sensitivity surrounding the vaccination debate, particularly given a widening multistate measles outbreak linked to a California theme park. Both Christie and Paul are leading GOP candidates who are likely to exercise significant influence over the direction of the 2016 primary race.
CDC: Get vaccinated for measles(0:55)
The CDC is urging people to get vaccinated for measles amid an outbreak that began at Disneyland and has now spread to other states, including Utah, Washington, Oregon and Colorado.

The comments also illustrated persistent strains of skepticism within both parties over vaccination requirements, fueled in part by discredited claims of a connection between childhood shots and autism. Scientists have blamed a small but influential anti-vaccine movement for helping spark a new epidemic of measles, which was once virtually eliminated.

On Monday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that more than 100 cases of the highly infectious disease were diagnosed in January. Most of the cases appear linked to victims who became ill after visiting Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., in mid-December.

“When you see educated people or elected officials giving credence to things that have been completely debunked, an idea that’s been shown to be responsible for multiple measles and pertussis outbreaks in recent years, it’s very concerning,” said Amesh Adalja, an infectious-disease physician at the Center for Health Security at the University of Pittsburgh. He called the comments from Paul particularly troubling because Paul is a doctor.

Christie’s aides quickly tried to clarify his remarks, insisting in a statement that the Republican governor believes vaccines are “an important public health protection.”

After visiting a MedImmune vaccine laboratory in Cambridge, Christie was asked to weigh in on the debate in the United States over the measles outbreak. President Obama told NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie on Sunday, “You should get your kids vaccinated.”

“The science is, you know, pretty indisputable,” Obama said. “We’ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren’t reasons to not.”

Christie, however, said Monday that “there has to be a balance, and it depends on what the vaccine is, what the disease type is, and all the rest.” He added: “Not every vaccine is created equal, and not every disease type is as great a public health threat as others.
To keep your kids away from measles, move here(1:24)
With the latest measles outbreak spreading fast, you may be surprised by the state with the best child vaccination rate in the country.

“I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide,” he said.

As for Paul, he told talk show host Laura Ingraham that he had chosen to hold off on vaccinating his children for some diseases.

“I didn’t like them getting 10 vaccines at once, so I actually delayed my kids’ vaccines and had them staggered over time,” he said.

Both men’s remarks drew immediate rebuke from experts on the issue.

Seth Mnookin, a professor at MIT who has written a book on the vaccination debate called “The Panic Virus,” called the comments from Christie and Paul “incredibly, in­cred­ibly irresponsible.”

Such remarks, he said, “basically fail at the first duty of a politician, which is to calm his constituents in moments of irrational crisis.”

The criticism came too from some political strategists, who wondered whether Christie in particular might have been attempting to appeal to Republicans suspicious of government mandates.

“There’s only one of two options,” said Rick Wilson, a Republican operative from Florida. “Either he’s so tone-deaf that he doesn’t understand why saying this is bad for him, or this is a considered political strategy. And that would be even more troubling.”

Christie aides said he was not questioning science, and they acknowledged that his initial comments could be misconstrued.

“The Governor believes vaccines are an important public health protection and with a disease like measles there is no question kids should be vaccinated,” said a statement issued from Christie’s office in Trenton, N.J., after the uproar. “At the same time different states require different degrees of vaccination, which is why he was calling for balance in which ones government should mandate.”

In substance, Christie’s overseas comments did not differ dramatically from remarks he has made previously in New Jersey, which faces higher than average childhood autism rates and an active community of parents who have questioned vaccinations.

In 2009, Christie met with parents concerned about autism rates and listened to some who expressed fears that the disease might be linked to vaccinations, said Louise Kuo Habakus, who co-edited a book called “Vaccine Epidemic” and is active with the group New Jersey Coalition for Vaccination Choice. She said not everyone at the meeting held that view.

Habakus said she gave Christie a copy of her book just before a 2011 town-hall meeting. During the public event that followed, Christie chose to call on her to ask a question, which she said she took as a sign that he wanted to allow her a forum to express her concerns.

She praised Christie for supporting “greater dialogue” about parental rights but said she had never heard him link autism and vaccination or discourage parents from getting shots for their children.

“I think he’s been very brave on this issue,” she said. “He’s been constant and courageous on this issue, saying parents should be more involved in the discussion.”

The link between vaccinations and autism was alleged in a small 1998 study that has since been widely discredited in the scientific community. The journal that published the study retracted it in 2010, and its author lost his medical license.

But many doctors had cast doubt on the study even before those actions, insisting that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was safe and effective at combating once-deadly but now preventable diseases.

Both Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) drew fire in 2008 for seeming to give credence to the link. At one campaign appearance, Obama noted that “some people are suspicious” that skyrocketing rates of autism might be linked to vaccines.

“The science right now is inconclusive, but we have to research it,” he said.

McCain said at a town hall meeting in 2008 that there was “strong evidence that indicates it’s got to do with a preservative in vaccines.”

Obama has said recently that the science is now settled and has urged vaccination.

Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of the libertarian magazine Reason, said there is a vigorous debate over vaccines, particularly whether government should mandate their use. He said Christie may have been trying to curry favor with libertarian-leaning Republicans with his emphasis on parental choice.

“There is a broadly ascending libertarian sentiment in the Republican Party,” he said. “Even mainstream establishment Republicans understand they need to speak to the libertarian wing.”

Former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, who is considering a long-shot 2016 run, also appeared to endorse parental choice for vaccines in a BuzzFeed interview last week.

“I think vaccinating for measles makes a lot of sense. But that’s me. I do think parents have to make those choices. I mean, I got measles as a kid. We used to all get measles,” she said. “I got chicken pox, I got measles, I got mumps.”

Fiorina also drew a distinction between the measles vaccine and one intended to combat human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexual infection that can lead to cervical cancer. The vaccine sparked controversy in the 2012 campaign when then-Rep. ­Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) blasted then-Texas Gov. Rick ­Perry for helping to institute a mandate requiring most girls in Texas to get the vaccine.

Some social conservatives object to a mandate because they argue it would suggest to young girls that having sex is acceptable. Bachmann later falsely suggested that the HPV vaccine might cause mental retardation.

Mnookin said various studies have tried to examine the political leanings of those who oppose vaccination, finding that they are drawn from both parties.

“It’s not a homogenous group,” he said. “People who don’t vaccinate are not more likely to congregate politically one side of the aisle or the other.”

Helderman reported from Washington.

Philip Rucker is a national political correspondent for The Washington Post, where he has reported since 2005.
Rosalind Helderman is a political enterprise and investigations reporter for the Washington Post.
 

Dylan

Jedi
I just listened to the health and wellness show, lots of great info!

My mind is pretty well made up, but I know that the social pressures to conform will be nigh on insurmountable. At least I can monitor my children's schedules and start asking for ingredient lists and so on, perhaps making sure that the vaccine frequency is staggered to a greater extent.

I wish more people would do their own research rather than just blithely accept whatever talking points authority spouts. I also wonder if human health writ large is actually diminished over time with vaccines? It was addressed briefly on the show, I would like to find out more about this.

Excellent show, thanks!
 

mb

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The documentary Bought (boughtmovie.com) offers some good food for thought about vaccines as well.
 

kalibex

Dagobah Resident
meta-agnostic said:
This appears to be where all the recent hubub is coming from. Typical case of having one party mention it and the other side goes berserk raving about how stupid they are, even though the article does mention opposition comes from both "sides" of the political spectrum. Still don't see any mention of last year's CDC whistleblower though. Or of the number of measles cases among those already vaccinated.
For sure, the anti-'anti-vaxxer' backlash on Facebook that I've noticed the past few days has been ferocious, coming across as a lock-step, mindless, parroting of the standard 'company line'. Absolutely relentless. The jeering, the sneering, the self-satisfied superiority. The best image I can use to describe it is 'That scene when that guy from the (1978) Invasion of the Body Snatchers turns on one unconverted character with this loud, accusatory, alien 'screeech' when she tries to talk to him.' It's just....wow.
 
Top Bottom