How does Voat feel about vaccines? ( conspiracy )

submitted by zeesquees

I know on the other site, anti-vaccine discussion was always bashed and downvoted. I'm curious to know how Voat as a whole and this sub feel about vaccines, I'm still feeling out what we can talk about here.

VargasKillsSabin

I don't like the idea of forcing them. I think there's an agenda on reddit and other media to change public opinion. The 1st step was making the derogatory term "Anti-Vaxxer". Putting these words into peoples heads is the 1st step to divide and conquer.

sadam029

CDC recommends 72 injections for healthy adults from the age of 19-65. ~1.57 injections per year...

FisherOfMen

You're thinking of a Chicken Pox party, not smallpox-- smallpox has a very high death rate, too high to risk!

nursenerd

Kids have died from both that and measles. What's the acceptable level of death?

Super-Script

done and done

Charlie_Prime

I'm not claiming to debunk any scientific research. I'm claiming Big Pharma uses a combination of media manipulation and paying legislators to force people to pay for their products, and exempt themselves from liability for the damage they cause. This is why we see so much pro-vax shilling on Voat.

I suspect you don't know the standards which differentiate Science from Science Fraud. Go learn the Scientific Method. Then compare.

FisherOfMen

How can it be "science" if there never was a double blind study to compare a vaccinated group against a non-vaccinated control?

Mumberthrax

I think that vaccines can be a very good thing. I also think there are a lot of risks involved. Many people have reported serious adverse reactions to various vaccines. There are also fears about vaccines being used to force sterilization (which has happened in a few places around the world)... which considering the amount of eugenics proponents in high places is a little disconcerting. Heck, the US government infected people with diseases just to study them at Tuskeegee. Combine this with the really corrupt nature of the pharmaceutical industry on the whole, and there's fair justification for being cautious.

Super-Script

you're dumb. how many rats and mice and rabbits do you think died in the process of developing a vaccine before they ever considered injecting it into a human. Do some research, those pharmaceuticals are just as bad as oil companies.

Mumberthrax

hey now, just because someone has an opinion different from your own doesn't mean they need to be insulted.

Vheissu_

I think vaccines (ones that have been tested and approved) are great. They're literally no different than the medicines that we happily buy from the pharmacy or get prescribed by our doctors, except they're injected into our bloodstream intravenously. Like all medicines, some people will have reactions, some worse than others due to getting a vaccine, but history doesn't lie.

Look at all of the viruses and illnesses that have been eradicated and prevented thanks to vaccines and modern medicine? Without vaccines, we would still be losing people to polio and smallpox.

FisherOfMen

Without vaccines, we would still be losing people to polio and smallpox.

Check your givens. Polio diagnostic criteria was adjusted at the same time they started giving out the vaccines.

The stopped calling it 'polio' and broke it into three different diseases: polio, meningitis, and flaccid paralysis.

Research it a bit. If the diagnostic criteria hadn't changed, the rate would have gone up .

Vheissu_

We can get specific about it all you like and while you are correct that it was broken into three different diseases, it doesn't invalidate the claim that without vaccines the death toll from said diseases would have been much higher. All of those diseases were basically eradicated thanks to vaccines, but now because of this anti-vaxxer movement researchers are seeing diseases basically in the single digits of spread and infection rate climbing at an alarming pace.

FisherOfMen

All of those diseases were basically eradicated thanks to vaccines

Go look at the actual rates. We're "back down" to where we were about 1995. That's not even statistically significant.

And we can't determine the cause as yet. The cause could be anti-vaxxers, the cause could be massive immigration, the cause could be the huge increase in global travel. Nobody could say at this point what is the factor-- the factor might even just be a random blip up, or a factor of changing climate (we just had two decades of increased sun activity and now the sun's activity has decreased enormously) or economic trouble. All those things happened at the same time.

it doesn't invalidate the claim that without vaccines the death toll from said diseases would have been much higher.

It DOES invalidate it. It means nothing whatsoever without a solid metric to compare before/after.

Vheissu_

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree as we have hit a wall in our debate. It was nice briefly debating with you, but I am going to end it here just so things remain civil.

Sorahzahd

Yep, by age 18, kids are expected to get over 70 vaccines. The first is supposed to be administered mere hours after birth, with a further 50(!) by age 6.

To contrast, 80s kids got about 10 shots TOTAL.

boltsand

I can agree with the non-force issue, but I think that it would also be reasonable for these unvaccinated people (children, for example) to be denied entry to public schools due to increased risk to other people. Exceptions would have to be made for those who are unable to be vaccinated, though.

richard_m_lurkmoar

I have no issue with vaccines, but rather their being forced by some kind of government mandate. I also think sometimes we think we suddenly know best, when actually not enough time/effort has been devoted to making sure we know best.

boltsand

I hear ya, but vaccines are most effective when nearly all of the population has received them. They don't just protect the people who have been vaccinated, they protect against the spread of disease to those who are unable to be vaccinated.

FriedBizkit

It's not the vaccines that I absolutely do not trust...it's the manufacturers. If I am forced to take vaccines for "herd immunity", haul me to the quarantine gulags.

Obesity? Tobacco? Sugar intake? Sodium? Whats the next forced health decision?

boltsand

I think the main difference between the last things you mentioned and vaccination is that obesity, tobacco use (mostly), sugar & sodium intake only affect you, while not being vaccinated can cause injury to another person.

FriedBizkit

The other things mentioned only affect my health, except secondhand smoke exposure which is declining, but they still have an impact on society.

I am pointing out there is always a slippery slope to be considered. Especially when Big-Pharma owns the government, can't be held accountable, doesn't properly test vaccines, wrote a chunk of the TPP, and has proven not to be trust worry time and again. Vaccination as an idea is a no brainer, but trust corporations to write laws requiring you to use their products is shaky ground. You can hold me to this; as this trend continues flu vaccinations will become mandatory to protect the immune deficient and elderly.

Sorahzahd

This.

People want to make this about science, but it's actually about corruption. The "pro" vaccine side is mostly made up of people with a vested interest in the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry continuing to expand without limit, and the number of vaccines on the schedule to increase into the hundreds.

The "anti" vaccine side is mostly made up of people who are smart enough to realize that corporations who have been proven to be corrupt for DECADES cannot, by definition, be trusted to provide safe medicine.

dop

The "anti" vaccine side is mostly made up of people who are smart enough to realize that corporations who have been proven to be corrupt for DECADES cannot, by definition, be trusted to provide safe medicine.>

There haven't exactly been a lot of people dropping dead from vaccines.

FriedBizkit

Then let me play devils advocate here. Lets have the FDA regulate fast food to the point that it is healthy and not fattening...to solve the obesity epidemic. Ban soda. Imprison parents of obese children.

BeerBaron

I don't understand exactly what you're playing devil's advocate to. Is it to the gov't attempt to force vaccination? Is it to giving too much trust to a regulatory body that should be in charge of research & safety? I'm kinda lost.

Not being flippant, I'm genuinely curious where you were going with this. I like devil's advocate discussion.

FriedBizkit

Okay, I will just be clear. I will never be in favor of laws requiring me to use a product, especially given that the corrupted corporations making the products have been writing the legislation. Vaccine manufacturers can't be held accountable for deaths and damages from vaccines. Who tells us these are safe? FDA? So ex-corporate jockies telling us to trust corporate jockies. No thanks.

Second point, when childhood vaccines are required in every state and the corporations realize they have a blank check in their hands how many vaccines are we going to have to take? 20? 50? Required yearly flu shots? Then 10 per year? Bullshit, my health is my responsibility and yours is your own. "but herd immunity and plagues"...on this I will concede, but only with point three.

Three: Take corporations, greed, corruption, and the things I have mentioned out of the mix and vaccines are a no brainer. It's not that I am scared of the hoodoo of vaccines, it's that multi-national corporations are making them. For-profit medicine that you are required by law (laws written by the manufacturers of said medicine) to take...think about that for a bit.

gnostic_torch

My opinion on the matter. We're not living in candy land, the governments and corporations have proven time and time again that when it comes to the big issues that matter, they dont have societies bests interests in mind. I wish I could trust them, but I think it would be pretty ignorant to do so. Profits, control, and power. These are the prime-movers of modern society...very sad.

BeerBaron

This is the same line of thinking that has me believing there's a conspiracy to everything, it's just a question to what extent and what ends I'm willing to entertain the thought. Everyone is out to make a buck for themselves. At this point govt's and corporations work together to fulfill their personal interests with little care for the greater whole, the question is how far are they willing to go to fulfill those interests.

BeerBaron

testing methods

This is my biggest problem with them. They've done individual testing. They've done group testing (MMR) that shows some individual vaccines don't interfere or have negative reactions with each other. But there have been no studies to indicate that these mass-groupings of vaccines do or don't interact with each other that the schedule for the first two years demands.

zeesquees

I see where it's possible to think they do more good than harm, but I believe that the vaccine industry is so deeply imbedding their message into our lives, "they're safe and won't cause any of the problems those crazy people claim." I think attacking people who are "anti-vaxxers" is proof that there is something there we should be digging into. Whenever the mainstream message bashes a group or idea or person to the point of complete defamation, there's a reason.

samtrovaum

No one knows what they're being injected with besides those who manufacture the vaccine, but the fact that they put aluminum and mercury is just plain ridiculous and some people think that's normal. I have no reason at all whatsoever to believe 'official' sources when it comes to vaccines.

BeerBaron

I've always been of the mind that vaccines are a good thing. A fair number of disease has been eradicated thanks to them, and more than enough evidence points to vaccines doing that and not just cleaner/safer environments.

That said, the vaccine schedule is incredibly dangerous and the medical community has been historically and horrendously dishonest in this regard. There have been no studies done that combine all the vaccines given in the first two years. They've done test on groups of two or three vaccines, but little to no testing on interactivity between all groupings and vaccines given.

samtrovaum

People deserve the right to choose. If I don't want to inject mercury into my child I should have the right to deny it. If your kid has been poisoned by vaccines then you shouldn't be worried about mine not being vaccinated. It's not up to the State to decide how I choose to protect my child.

Chompchompers

But what if my kid is allergic to the vaccine? What if my kid gets infected because of your kid? If your kid kills my kid can I kill your kid?

Tleilaxu_Ghola

not to mention injecting aluminum and Thimerosol which are also very toxic, especially when injected directly into the bloodstream.

samtrovaum

Vaccines are poisons. We are not born to be dependent on vaccines. It even goes against evolution. You'd think we would have evolved to have an immune system capable of resisting 'measles', but governments think otherwise...

boltsand

You'd think we would have evolved to have an immune system capable of resisting 'measles',>

We do have an immune system that is capable of resisting measles. In order for your body to develop antibodies, however, exposure is required.

nursenerd

Or, you know, get vaccinated and get the antibodies without risking complications.

boltsand

Yup, that's what I meant by exposure. In this case, the dangers of exposure to the actual organisms are minimized by being exposed to attenuated versions of viruses, or to non-virulent strains of similar organisms, as is the case with tetanus vaccines.

samtrovaum

Or don't and live your life like a normal person without subjecting yourself to poisons.

Chompchompers

I know right? Finding solutions to problems is so stupid. Honestly, why do we even drink water? You think we'd have evolved to just suck up all the water out of the ocean for that shit. Food too, what's the point of that? Plants suck their food out of the air and ground, why can't we just sit down and photosynthesize? Why do we wear clothes? Seems like we could have just evolved to have a fur coat or something. You know what? Fuck all medicine, all society, let's just go swim in the ocean with great whites or go to Siberia and live as nudists. You go first.

samtrovaum

Bla bla bla, whine whine whine.

drbarke

You second. I'll get there eventually.

samtrovaum

False equivalency is a fallacy. You wrote 5 lines of highly concentrated bullshit. Congrats.

Kleyno

With that line of thinking, I guess we should just let smallpox back into the wild and destroy all our stockpiles of the vaccine.

We should have evolved the ability to resist it by now, I mean, it has been with us for thousands of years.

sadam029

I don't know about small pox but humanity is basically immune to polio. By vaccinating against it though, the .5% of people who would have lasting damage and most likely wouldn't pass on their genes, are able to reproduce - almost certainly causing that .5% number to raise rather than fall.

Mumberthrax

Yeah it's a little bit of an oversimplification. Viruses evolve quite rapidly. Vaccines do save lives. The problem is when they are potentially used for other purposes. You can do a lot of damage with a syringe.

madmalloy

SANITATION, NOT VACCINATION THE TRUE Protection against Small-Pox

http://www.whale.to/vaccine/tebb1.html

zeesquees

This is where I differ from other "anti-vaxxers", I think it doesn't matter if we go unvaccinated against these diseases, because a: vaccines don't have the efficacy rates they claim and b: we don't need so many people anyway. I would rather let nature decide what we should die from, and if we need to cull the herd then I'll do my best to enjoy the life I have.

nursenerd

Care to cite your sources on these claims of innefficacy? I could use it for my A&P paper.

zeesquees

I cited this article in another comment. Follow links to documentation of proof.

nursenerd

Iiiiinteresting.
Okay. So in this particular instance the mumps vaccine from this single company wasn't 95% effective.

zeesquees

Yeah. And they fibbed to reach numbers they needed. I can look, I know I read a few pieces about industry sponsored research and how results are forced in favor of the company requesting that research be done. I just think, with the way we see big pharma companies, Monsanto, GE, mainstream media conglomerates, etc., looking out for themselves and not the people they call consumers, is it out of the realm of possibility for this to be one case in many, rather than an isolated incident?

nursenerd

Well, that's harder to prove because we haven't had huge outbreaks of say, smallpox, measles, and so forth in areas with high vaccination populations. If they did, that would be an indicator of this being one case in many. But we haven't. On the other hand, not having huge outbreaks is pretty good proof that the majority of vaccines work.
And it's entirely possible that the testing requirements for vaccines are more rigorous than usefulness dictates; maybe they only need to have a 75% efficacy in the lab to work 100% in the human body, because unlike the test tube blood samples they use to test with, an actual human body manufactures antibodies on the fly in your lymph nodes. The legal requirements of vaccines might not be in line with the physical requirements. Its not surprising that the laws don't match what is needed, because the people that write the guidelines probably have no idea how the immune system works. Much like how they don't know how the internet works, or what the internet is.
Additionally, a 'wild strain' of mumps wouldn't necessarily need to be tested against to make a mumps vaccine that protects against wild strains of mumps, as this depends on how the human body utilizes the attenuated pathogen to make antibodies. Influenza is tricky, because the part that mutates the most is the part that our bodies use to identify it, so the influenza your white blood cells learn to fight might not look anything like the flu strain you become infected with, to the immune cells they're the wrong color and shape and taste. This is also why we have new flu vaccines every year.

mwg

Do you have a non-biased source for your statement that vaccines don't have the efficacy rates they claim?

zeesquees

This is a good example I think. I don't know what sites are considered non-biased and/or reputable by this community, but I like their articles here.

mwg

While I respect your decisions and views, I personally don't consider that sire to be un-biased. A quick google shows it's generally very conspiracy-centric, which is not necessarily where I'd like to read news.

Wiki page of the founder.

Rational Wiki about the site.

zeesquees

...with all due respect, we're in a conspiracy subverse here. There are many obscure news or pseudo news sites cited to draw our conclusions towards "conspiracies", so basically I'm saying don't dismiss the theory based on the source of the information.

samtrovaum

So why haven't we? Doesn't your science based evolution god been able to solve that one?

nursenerd

That science based evolution god gave you that internet connection. Have some respect.

deathcomesilent

Al Gore is no scientist.

/joke

Kleyno

You can talk about pretty much what you want here, but if you are expecting a safe space where your fee-fees won't be trampled because your opinion wasn't protected from criticism, then I feel that Voat is not going to work out for you.

Not saying that you are one of the above, just putting that out there.

As for my opinion:

Anti-Vaccination is a viewpoint that I feel is both stupid, dangerous and lethal, and not in anyway supported by solid science.

Sorahzahd

I see you aren't very well informed about vaccines.

Are you aware of these facts:

1) Vaccine manufactures are IMMUNE from criminal liability for death or injury caused by their products.

2) The vaccine injury court created to pay victims of vaccine injuries has awarded over $3 BILLION dollars since it was created.

3) Merck, the maker of the popular MMR vaccine everyone loves to claim is super safe and effective, is in the middle of a lawsuit by the federal government for defrauding their vaccine application, including adulteration with non-human antibodies (which can cause massive health problems, even death), high levels of aluminum, and critically low effectiveness (50% instead of 98% they are mandated to produce).

4) Thimerosol, when combined with aluminum, has a synergistic toxicity over 100x more toxic than either alone.

5) Both of the above chemicals are still in use, because most vaccines given out are old, before those (cheap preservatives, i.e. unnecessary) were removed.

6) Anyone who says that the above doses of aluminum and thimerosol are "safe" is lying, because the CDC does not have a guideline for safe daily INJECTED doses. Pharma shills like to quote the numbers for INGESTED aluminum, which is moronic, since injection bypasses both the gut and the blood-brain barrier.

In sum, the only retards are those that blindly accept pharma corporations word for safety, when they are known liars.

Kleyno

I'm always open to reading points from the other side.

If you'll be kind enough to provide sources on some of the points you mentioned, I'll happily take a look.

BeerBaron

This is usually how far I get in this debate as well. I'll be able sure to check it out if anyone actually does.

samtrovaum

Maybe because you don't care for the truth, but the CDC and gubmint sources are always right on the money! They don't lie....ever.

BeerBaron

That's clearly it. Somehow you've managed to figure me out through all of one post. Just as the person I replied to has already said "I forgot that it is my responsibility to provide citations for the claims others make."

I'm more than happy to read what's convinced you- I'm always open to see evidence to change my mind, but I'm not going to actively seek out information to counter it when there are far so many other things I can allow my mind to entertain that it hasn't already. I only hold one truth "The universe is always changing", anything and everything I think and feel outside that is open to evolve as evidence presents itself.

samtrovaum

You're not here to have your mind changed. If you've lived this long without even raising concerns then you are beyond lost in this debate and I have no reason to take you seriously.

BeerBaron

I'm beginning to wonder if you even read what I wrote or just have poor reading comprehension. Either way I agree, one of is beyond lost in this 'debate'.

Up to this point it was: A Guy: "Here's what I believe" Other guy: "Ok cool, what articles and things brought you to this conclusion?" You: "Fuck you, google it" Me: "Hey other guy, I feel your pain, I'd like to see this stuff too but no one ever seems to want to share it" You: "Fuck you, you're lost and beneath me to deal with"

Personally I'd prefer to hear from the first guy with his supporting evidence, rather than you just chiming in with a "google it", because that certainly doesn't help to further the discussion, no does your piss poor condescending attitude.

It's interesting that the individuals in the skeptic community will cry foul that no one even wants to bother to entertain whatever point they're trying to get across and then convince themselves everyone is just a sheep because they don't want to listen. We do, at least I do. It always boils down to 2 things: either you just don't have anything to support what you're saying or you don't want to get into the the further debate of what qualifies as evidence.

I would LOVE for you to shut me down with link after link to account for everything in this post . PLEASE DO! Until then, try being more of a dick to people because that will totally convince them that anything you have to say is valid.

samtrovaum

Source: Google.com

Don't be lazy.

Kleyno

Ah, I'm sorry. I forgot that it is my responsibility to provide citations for the claims others make. How foolish of me, I'll get right on that.

Tleilaxu_Ghola

Sounds like you are not one to let your intellectual curiosity get the better of you. I would not be able to resist Googling it up myself to make sure someone wasn't bullshitting me.

samtrovaum

No one is so alianated to the point where he has never seen an argument against vaccination. Or are you new to the whole 'conspiracy' line of thought? Try harder.

zeesquees

Haha, fee-fees sounds dirty. Okay I was just wondering, I'm not that soft that I can't handle the interwebs. I don't have the same opinion as you, but I also don't expect to change your mind. I think it's just one of those things people on either side cannot see each other's view point at all, so live and let live.

Stavon

The anti vaxxers are obviously astroturfing from big pharma who doesn't want those deseases to die out.

Mumberthrax

haha, I like it. Though in all honesty I don't think I believe this theory. :D

Stavon

This is /v/conspiracy , you should believe everyone.

Mumberthrax

that's silly. maybe you are thinking of /v/wildspeculation ? :D?

SarMegahhikkitha

They're turning up the volume on a specific conspiracy theory that's easy to disprove; that's their MO, killing the signal-to-noise ratio, and straw-man'ing all signal as noise. (That's the only reason they keep coontown around, so they can paint their opponents.) The truth is that gluten causes inflammation and inflammation during pregnancy causes autism; the truth is that vaccines increase sterility; if you say either of those truths Big Agra/Pharma (the same companies make you diabetic and fix your diabetes) lump you in with believers of the "vaccines cause autism" study they commissioned.

Charlie_Prime

Big Pharma gets to force people to pay for their products, and is exempt from liability for the damage they cause. This is why we see so much pro-vax shilling on Voat. It's totally worth paying to control the narrative with their usual ad homs and fraudulent "science".

samtrovaum

You can see the obvious when they use catchy terms like 'anti vaxxers'. Obvious trolls are obvious.