Any Anti-Vaccine People on MyBB?

[porchrat]

I hate needles so I have to inhale the vaccines nowadays. The malaria one always fecken gives me nosebleed.

That's the autism settling in.

 

[Aghori]

That's the autism settling in.

ohnoes!

 

[SoulTax]

ohnoes!

I see what you did there...

 

[goldfritter]

Thanks for showing me the WOT addon:
http://www.naturalnews.com/048819_vaccine_injuries_autism_US_government.html - if vaccines are safe, why has the US gov. paid out $3 BILLION to vaccine-injured families?
Gets a GOOD WOT rating!

There are only about 3-5 people posting very Pro stances here on Vaccines.

based on the immense evidence of shills being employed and private discussions from people in know in the industry I KNOW there are many shills and the like in this country.
If you would like to meet privately with your bank records for my accountant to go through then we can arrange it.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/dru...doctors_millions_in_pitching_schemes_partner/ (WOT - EXCELLENT)
http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n06.shtml
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=705635 (WOT - excellent)
http://www.alternet.org/story/14881...ly_shills_dangerous_bone_drugs_you_don't_need (WOT - excellent)
http://www.propublica.org/article/dollars-for-docs-mints-a-millionaire (WOT - excellent)

there are shills a dime a dozen.

Your "Natural News" article has four references; one is an HRSA report that concludes:

Vaccines offer the promise of protection against
a variety of infectious diseases. Despite much media
attention and strong opinions from many quarters,
vaccines remain one of the greatest tools in the public
health arsenal. Certainly, some vaccines result in
adverse effects that must be acknowledged. But the
latest evidence shows that few adverse effects are
caused by the vaccines reviewed in this report.

Two link to a page that links to the above report. One links to another article that links to the page that links to the above report.

The Salon article describes how doctors are paid by specific drug companies to advocate their drugs - i.e. the doctors are saying "Use company X's drug, not Company Y's!" No doctors are being paid to recommend drugs where none are needed. The article refers specifically to drug companies competing against "cheaper generics." So basically if your doctor recommends you take the more expensive drug, not the cheaper generic, ignore him.

The orthomolecular site's main aim is trying to convince you that you need to take multivitamins, and makes some unproven and unreferenced allegations.

The straightdope link is a forum thread where people complain about FOX, a media company, paying people to post positive comments about them on message boards. No references, just a "sensational exposé-" type book.There's also a bit about software creating fake online personas to do similar things; if you think I'm a piece of software then there's little hope for you.

Alternet talks about a class of drugs that was aggressively marketed as it showed initial promise at improving bone health, was then found to have serious side effects. It even asks the question "why was only a warning added - why was the drug not discontinued?" It proceeds to link to an article describing how a big pharma company's stock plummeted after a drug was discontinued.

Unfortunately it happens occasionally that side effects only become apparent when drugs are released to the market. It's impossible for clinical trials to pick all these up, because they analyse only a sample of people for a relatively short time. If the risks of the drug are later found to outweigh the benefits, it generally gets pulled. This has not happened for vaccines as the benefits massively outweigh the risks, as concluded by the report I quoted above which you, indirectly, linked me to.

The propublica link is literally a copy/paste of the Salon link, down to the update in italics at the beginning of the article.

 

[SoulTax]

^ Nice investigation.

What I always think with regards to Vaccines is this:

If you (A concerned anti-vaccine parent) really think your kid got Autism from a vaccination, which contains a dead husk of a virus that is confirmed to cause brain damage or even kill, then do you think that your kid would have fared any better vs the real virus? If, (And this is a big stretching if that I dont buy at all) a kid got Autism (A form of brain damage) from the MMR vaccination, because his particular brand of genetics left him susceptible to seriously adverse effects from this disease. Then surely it is reasonable to assume that his brand of genetics would have potentially been kicked to the curb in the face of the real deal.

I mean seriously. Autism was around before vaccinations ever existed.
Death from these diseases was around before vaccinations ever existed.
Vaccinations removed one of these things... the death of your children.

 

[Swa]

:wtf: do you know how vaccines work?

It is not the actual live virus used.

No - you said that flu vaccines give you flu and I quote



what amazes me is that you anti-vacs and conspiracy theorists start spurting cr@p when you have not even done your homework on how the stuff works.

Seriously bro do some fcking homework before you post junk

Some people around here should do their homework rather than post uninformed junk like this. Vaccines can give you flu and you don't need to get it from the vaccine itself. Most flu symptoms are from immune response and not from a virus. When your body encounters a vaccine it goes through the same response as with the live virus so you can develop the same symptoms and this is well documented. It usually doesn't last as long as with a "live" replicating virus but it can be just as severe. For the people who get a more severe flu later on this could be due to the fact that the immune system is taxed by the vaccine and not being an endless resource their body can't fight the real viruses.

Seriously, we kicked the asses of some of the most horrific diseases mankind has ever known and now fscktard anti-vaxxer anti-science morons are trying to give those diseases a fighting chance again. Absolutely insane.

This obviously brainless stance deserves all the ridicule, mockery and scorn it gets.

Sure we did. The black plague killed millions. That was until someone developed the germ theory. The resultant hygiene movement saved hundreds of millions of people by eradicating the rat plague. Seriously, don't assume that we kicked the asses of some of the most horrific diseases mankind has ever known because of vaccines.

 

[goldfritter]

http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/Live-Virus-Vaccines-and-Vaccine-Shedding.pdf

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress...-and-sweet-about-live-virus-vaccine-shedding/

http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccine-Shedding

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2615200/

http://www.vaccinetruth.org/shedding_virus.htm

and once they got what they where supposedly "immunised against" they pass it on to those around them.
That is why more and more day cares are popping up which ONLY allow un-vaccinated children.

The first link concludes:

The impact of vaccine-strain virus shedding infection and transmission on individual and
public health is a question that deserves to be asked and more thoroughly examined by
the scientific community. The fact that children and adults given live virus vaccines have
the potential to pose a health risk to both unvaccinated and vaccinated close contacts
should be part of the public conversation about vaccination.

This is not unfair at all. It's commonly known that live vaccines can cause active disease in people with poor immune systems. In fact with the ancient smallpox "vaccines" everyone who was vaccinated became ill with a milder form of the disease. People who suffer from AIDS, that take drugs that affect the immune system, or suffer from genetic immune disorders should be handled with care when receiving live vaccine; there is plenty of ongoing research about this - such as your NCBI link, which concluded live vaccines are not more dangerous than dead ones in kids with HIV.

Insidevaccines is a blog that links to a bunch of articles talking about the shedding of virus in people who were vaccinated with a live virus. Live virus is always shed from the body, whether from a normal infection or a live vaccine. The difference is, the viruses in live vaccines are attenuated, meaning that the bits of the virus that make you sick are removed. They don't cause active disease in people with normal immune systems. In fact, the symptoms or sickness many people experience after receiving a vaccine is actually caused by the immune system itself. It reacts in the way it would to any infection, and that reaction makes you feel sick.

Your vaccineriskawareness site mentions many sources:

A baby fell badly ill after his mother ignored advice to avoid the yellow fever vaccine while breastfeeding...

"While there may be situations in which the mother will have unavoidable and significant risk of yellow fever exposure, the risk to the infant due to maternal vaccination must be weighed against the risk of wild-type virus infection."

Well, when you ignore advice... Anyway, in any medical intervention risks must be weighed against benefits. Doctors know the risk of breastfeeding after vaccination, and advised accordingly.

...There were cases with serological evidence of asymptomatic infection among vaccinated household contacts...

We conclude that, in this particular outbreak, the risk of a close contact becoming infected by vaccinated patients was small, but present.

The word "asymptomatic" means "no symptoms," i.e. these kids picked up the live vaccine virus from their siblings, but since the virus was attenuated as I explained above, they didn't get sick. Once again this study concludes that the risks involved with vaccines are small.

Although rotavirus vaccines are known to be shed in stools, transmission of vaccine-derived virus to unvaccinated contacts resulting in symptomatic rotavirus gastroenteritis has not been reported to our knowledge.

This article goes on to document the first case ever documented of an attenuated virus infecting another person and causing active disease. The researchers found that the virus had evolved in one of the kids to cause disease. This is not an unexpected event either. Viruses evolve constantly; this is one of the reasons that there's a new flu vaccine every year, as mutations may create some strains that are resistant to last year's vaccine. When this happens a new vaccine must be found.

The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection[15-17]. Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.

Yes, some vaccines protect only against active disease, not against infection. You have the bug living in your body, and you can spread it to other people, but your immune system has been prepared well enough by the vaccine that you don't get sick. The BCG vaccine for tuberculosis (TB) is one such vaccine; evidently the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is another. One must once again weigh up the benefits and risks; that said, the benefit of not getting active pertussis or TB is a pretty good benefit.

Antigenic drift occurs when pressure from the body's immune system causes a virus used in a vaccine to mutate into a slightly different form that can potentially be more infectious...

The knowledge acquired by Sasisekharan and his team could help influenza vaccine designers develop vaccines that do not produce fitter viruses, as the evolved strains are known.

Yes, same as above. In fact this piece of research could pave the way for creating vaccines that protect you for longer.

In spite of the success of the vaccine programmes, some pneumococcal strains managed to continue to cause disease by camouflaging themselves from the vaccine.

Same story once again.

Recombination between herpesviruses has been seen in vitro and in vivo under experimental conditions.

These researchers have shown attenuated viruses combine together to become infectious again in lab tests (in vitro - in glass) and in animal studies (in vivo - within the living). This research is very important to make sure this does not happen in human vaccines; as noted above, there has only been one such case in the entire history of modern medicine. Viruses evolve all the time; all we can do is keep up and bring out new vaccines when a virus evolves to escape the old one.

Two of the children tested positive for enterovirus 68 (EV-68), a rare virus that has sometimes been linked to polio-like symptoms...

...The viruses can cause severe complications such as myocarditis, encephalitis, or paralysis in rare cases...

This is quite tragic, but has nothing to do with vaccination. There are viruses similar to polio that may - very rarely - cause the same kind of disease as polio. The polio vaccine doesn't work against them, but it does work against polio, as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no polio left in the world.

The article does, however, say one thing which is completely wrong. I'm going to post it fully:

Global Population Structure and Evolution of Bordetella pertussis and Their Relationship with Vaccination

Bordetella pertussis causes pertussis, a respiratory disease that is most severe for infants. Vaccination was introduced in the 1950s, and in recent years, a resurgence of disease was observed worldwide, with significant mortality in infants. Possible causes for this include the switch from whole-cell vaccines (WCVs) to less effective acellular vaccines (ACVs), waning immunity, and pathogen adaptation. Pathogen adaptation is suggested by antigenic divergence between vaccine strains and circulating strains and by the emergence of strains with increased pertussis toxin production.

Source: doi: 10.1128/mBio.01074-14 22 April 2014 mBio vol. 5 no. 2 e01074-14

This means that pertussis vaccination has caused the pertussis bacteria to mutate and develop and the new whooping cough is now more lethal than the natural one because the mutated pertussis generates more toxins.

The pertussis vaccine did not cause the pertussis bacteria to mutate; the pertussis bacteria did that all by itself. Every time the bacteria reproduces, some of the offspring will have a small, completely random error in its DNA. This is called a mutation. Sometimes the mutation helps the organism, making it stronger than its brothers, meaning it will be more likely to make more copies of itself. So the pertussis bacteria would have mutated and evolved to make more toxins all by itself, because pertussis bacteria that make more toxins are more likely to survive and reproduce.

It would also have undergone the mutation to be resistant to the vaccine all by itself; because the bacteria that are resistant to the vaccine are more likely to survive and reproduce, they become more common. All we have to do now is come up with a vaccine that kills the resistant strain in a new way (easier said than done, of course!). The vaccine does not make the bacteria stronger; it just makes it more likely to eventually become resistant to the vaccine.

The vaccinetruth site says all of the above in different words.

So by clicking all of your links the conclusion is that vaccines are almost always safe for everyone who has a normal immune system, and that continuous research is required to make sure it stays that way.

 

[BCO]

The first link concludes:



This is not unfair at all. It's commonly known that live vaccines can cause active disease in people with poor immune systems. In fact with the ancient smallpox "vaccines" everyone who was vaccinated became ill with a milder form of the disease. People who suffer from AIDS, that take drugs that affect the immune system, or suffer from genetic immune disorders should be handled with care when receiving live vaccine; there is plenty of ongoing research about this - such as your NCBI link, which concluded live vaccines are not more dangerous than dead ones in kids with HIV.

Insidevaccines is a blog that links to a bunch of articles talking about the shedding of virus in people who were vaccinated with a live virus. Live virus is always shed from the body, whether from a normal infection or a live vaccine. The difference is, the viruses in live vaccines are attenuated, meaning that the bits of the virus that make you sick are removed. They don't cause active disease in people with normal immune systems. In fact, the symptoms or sickness many people experience after receiving a vaccine is actually caused by the immune system itself. It reacts in the way it would to any infection, and that reaction makes you feel sick.

Your vaccineriskawareness site mentions many sources:



Well, when you ignore advice... Anyway, in any medical intervention risks must be weighed against benefits. Doctors know the risk of breastfeeding after vaccination, and advised accordingly.



The word "asymptomatic" means "no symptoms," i.e. these kids picked up the live vaccine virus from their siblings, but since the virus was attenuated as I explained above, they didn't get sick. Once again this study concludes that the risks involved with vaccines are small.



This article goes on to document the first case ever documented of an attenuated virus infecting another person and causing active disease. The researchers found that the virus had evolved in one of the kids to cause disease. This is not an unexpected event either. Viruses evolve constantly; this is one of the reasons that there's a new flu vaccine every year, as mutations may create some strains that are resistant to last year's vaccine. When this happens a new vaccine must be found.



Yes, some vaccines protect only against active disease, not against infection. You have the bug living in your body, and you can spread it to other people, but your immune system has been prepared well enough by the vaccine that you don't get sick. The BCG vaccine for tuberculosis (TB) is one such vaccine; evidently the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is another. One must once again weigh up the benefits and risks; that said, the benefit of not getting active pertussis or TB is a pretty good benefit.



Yes, same as above. In fact this piece of research could pave the way for creating vaccines that protect you for longer.



Same story once again.



These researchers have shown attenuated viruses combine together to become infectious again in lab tests (in vitro - in glass) and in animal studies (in vivo - within the living). This research is very important to make sure this does not happen in human vaccines; as noted above, there has only been one such case in the entire history of modern medicine. Viruses evolve all the time; all we can do is keep up and bring out new vaccines when a virus evolves to escape the old one.



This is quite tragic, but has nothing to do with vaccination. There are viruses similar to polio that may - very rarely - cause the same kind of disease as polio. The polio vaccine doesn't work against them, but it does work against polio, as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no polio left in the world.

The article does, however, say one thing which is completely wrong. I'm going to post it fully:



The pertussis vaccine did not cause the pertussis bacteria to mutate; the pertussis bacteria did that all by itself. Every time the bacteria reproduces, some of the offspring will have a small, completely random error in its DNA. This is called a mutation. Sometimes the mutation helps the organism, making it stronger than its brothers, meaning it will be more likely to make more copies of itself. So the pertussis bacteria would have mutated and evolved to make more toxins all by itself, because pertussis bacteria that make more toxins are more likely to survive and reproduce.

It would also have undergone the mutation to be resistant to the vaccine all by itself; because the bacteria that are resistant to the vaccine are more likely to survive and reproduce, they become more common. All we have to do now is come up with a vaccine that kills the resistant strain in a new way (easier said than done, of course!). The vaccine does not make the bacteria stronger; it just makes it more likely to eventually become resistant to the vaccine.

The vaccinetruth site says all of the above in different words.

So by clicking all of your links the conclusion is that vaccines are almost always safe for everyone who has a normal immune system, and that continuous research is required to make sure it stays that way.

Awesome post, thanks.

 

[LazyLion]

 

[Swa]

Lol. The "science" buffs again with their nonsensical analogies.

 

[PhleeBag]

"No doctors are being paid to recommend drugs where none are needed."
no, that never happens - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-gsk-china-idUSKBN0HE0TC20140919

Your "Natural News" article has four references; one is an HRSA report that concludes:



Two link to a page that links to the above report. One links to another article that links to the page that links to the above report.

The Salon article describes how doctors are paid by specific drug companies to advocate their drugs - i.e. the doctors are saying "Use company X's drug, not Company Y's!" No doctors are being paid to recommend drugs where none are needed. The article refers specifically to drug companies competing against "cheaper generics." So basically if your doctor recommends you take the more expensive drug, not the cheaper generic, ignore him.

The orthomolecular site's main aim is trying to convince you that you need to take multivitamins, and makes some unproven and unreferenced allegations.

The straightdope link is a forum thread where people complain about FOX, a media company, paying people to post positive comments about them on message boards. No references, just a "sensational exposé-" type book.There's also a bit about software creating fake online personas to do similar things; if you think I'm a piece of software then there's little hope for you.

Alternet talks about a class of drugs that was aggressively marketed as it showed initial promise at improving bone health, was then found to have serious side effects. It even asks the question "why was only a warning added - why was the drug not discontinued?" It proceeds to link to an article describing how a big pharma company's stock plummeted after a drug was discontinued.

Unfortunately it happens occasionally that side effects only become apparent when drugs are released to the market. It's impossible for clinical trials to pick all these up, because they analyse only a sample of people for a relatively short time. If the risks of the drug are later found to outweigh the benefits, it generally gets pulled. This has not happened for vaccines as the benefits massively outweigh the risks, as concluded by the report I quoted above which you, indirectly, linked me to.

The propublica link is literally a copy/paste of the Salon link, down to the update in italics at the beginning of the article.

 

[PhleeBag]

"The pertussis vaccine did not cause the pertussis bacteria to mutate; the pertussis bacteria did that all by itself." - reference 'because I say so'?

http://www.medmerits.com/index.php/article/pertussis_encephalopathy/P4

The first link concludes:



This is not unfair at all. It's commonly known that live vaccines can cause active disease in people with poor immune systems. In fact with the ancient smallpox "vaccines" everyone who was vaccinated became ill with a milder form of the disease. People who suffer from AIDS, that take drugs that affect the immune system, or suffer from genetic immune disorders should be handled with care when receiving live vaccine; there is plenty of ongoing research about this - such as your NCBI link, which concluded live vaccines are not more dangerous than dead ones in kids with HIV.

Insidevaccines is a blog that links to a bunch of articles talking about the shedding of virus in people who were vaccinated with a live virus. Live virus is always shed from the body, whether from a normal infection or a live vaccine. The difference is, the viruses in live vaccines are attenuated, meaning that the bits of the virus that make you sick are removed. They don't cause active disease in people with normal immune systems. In fact, the symptoms or sickness many people experience after receiving a vaccine is actually caused by the immune system itself. It reacts in the way it would to any infection, and that reaction makes you feel sick.

Your vaccineriskawareness site mentions many sources:



Well, when you ignore advice... Anyway, in any medical intervention risks must be weighed against benefits. Doctors know the risk of breastfeeding after vaccination, and advised accordingly.



The word "asymptomatic" means "no symptoms," i.e. these kids picked up the live vaccine virus from their siblings, but since the virus was attenuated as I explained above, they didn't get sick. Once again this study concludes that the risks involved with vaccines are small.



This article goes on to document the first case ever documented of an attenuated virus infecting another person and causing active disease. The researchers found that the virus had evolved in one of the kids to cause disease. This is not an unexpected event either. Viruses evolve constantly; this is one of the reasons that there's a new flu vaccine every year, as mutations may create some strains that are resistant to last year's vaccine. When this happens a new vaccine must be found.



Yes, some vaccines protect only against active disease, not against infection. You have the bug living in your body, and you can spread it to other people, but your immune system has been prepared well enough by the vaccine that you don't get sick. The BCG vaccine for tuberculosis (TB) is one such vaccine; evidently the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine is another. One must once again weigh up the benefits and risks; that said, the benefit of not getting active pertussis or TB is a pretty good benefit.



Yes, same as above. In fact this piece of research could pave the way for creating vaccines that protect you for longer.



Same story once again.



These researchers have shown attenuated viruses combine together to become infectious again in lab tests (in vitro - in glass) and in animal studies (in vivo - within the living). This research is very important to make sure this does not happen in human vaccines; as noted above, there has only been one such case in the entire history of modern medicine. Viruses evolve all the time; all we can do is keep up and bring out new vaccines when a virus evolves to escape the old one.



This is quite tragic, but has nothing to do with vaccination. There are viruses similar to polio that may - very rarely - cause the same kind of disease as polio. The polio vaccine doesn't work against them, but it does work against polio, as evidenced by the fact that there is almost no polio left in the world.

The article does, however, say one thing which is completely wrong. I'm going to post it fully:



The pertussis vaccine did not cause the pertussis bacteria to mutate; the pertussis bacteria did that all by itself. Every time the bacteria reproduces, some of the offspring will have a small, completely random error in its DNA. This is called a mutation. Sometimes the mutation helps the organism, making it stronger than its brothers, meaning it will be more likely to make more copies of itself. So the pertussis bacteria would have mutated and evolved to make more toxins all by itself, because pertussis bacteria that make more toxins are more likely to survive and reproduce.

It would also have undergone the mutation to be resistant to the vaccine all by itself; because the bacteria that are resistant to the vaccine are more likely to survive and reproduce, they become more common. All we have to do now is come up with a vaccine that kills the resistant strain in a new way (easier said than done, of course!). The vaccine does not make the bacteria stronger; it just makes it more likely to eventually become resistant to the vaccine.

The vaccinetruth site says all of the above in different words.

So by clicking all of your links the conclusion is that vaccines are almost always safe for everyone who has a normal immune system, and that continuous research is required to make sure it stays that way.

 

[porchrat]

"No doctors are being paid to recommend drugs where none are needed."
no, that never happens - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-gsk-china-idUSKBN0HE0TC20140919

I think we all know doctors prescribe meds in cases where none are needed. It is an issue, though it certainly isn't in the majority of cases based on anything I've ever read. Note that your article AGAIN doesn't say that.

Also nothing to say about all the other responses? (well I mean other than "IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!!" that is)

 

[Swa]

Still find it funny the "science" buffs referring to science that doesn't exist then calling on "whackjobs using pseudoscience."

 

[goldfritter]

"The pertussis vaccine did not cause the pertussis bacteria to mutate; the pertussis bacteria did that all by itself." - reference 'because I say so'?

http://www.medmerits.com/index.php/article/pertussis_encephalopathy/P4

This article describes some cases where children appeared to develop encephalitis (infection of the brain and surrounding tissues) after receiving the vaccine. It was later found that all these children had a genetic defect making them more likely to have seizures during bouts of fever. Fever is a side-effect of many vaccines and is a result of the immune system reacting to the vaccine. People who have such a genetic defect probably should not receive vaccines, but it seems to be rare.

Regarding the mutation thing - that's basic, Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics. Every mutation ever in any living organism is a completely random event. If that mutation confers a survival advantage, it's more likely to be passed on to the next generation, and its prevalence in a population increases. For a reference I recommend any high school biology textbook.

 

[goldfritter]

"No doctors are being paid to recommend drugs where none are needed."
no, that never happens - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-gsk-china-idUSKBN0HE0TC20140919

This article describes a company bribing doctors to use its drugs instead of other company's drugs (which is, of course, despicable). It says nothing about doctors being paid to prescribe GSK's drugs where no drugs are needed.

I think we all know doctors prescribe meds in cases where none are needed. It is an issue, though it certainly isn't in the majority of cases based on anything I've ever read. Note that your article AGAIN doesn't say that.

It's certainly true that many (if not most) doctors over-prescribe medications. There are many factors contributing to this, including laziness to properly diagnose and investigate illness, fear of litigation for missing something and not treating it, pressure from the patients themselves to prescribe them something even if the doctor thinks it's not necessary... Bribery is quite low down on this food chain. Probably

 

[noxibox]

"The number of measles deaths declined from 7575 in 1920 (10,000 per year in many years in the 1910s) to an average of 432 each year from 1958-1962.(22) The vaccine was introduced in 1963. Between 2005 and 2014, there have been no deaths from measles in the U.S. and 108 deaths reported after the MMR vaccine.(23)"

So what they're saying is that the measles vaccine saved 4212 people between 2005 and 2014.

I think we all know doctors prescribe meds in cases where none are needed. It is an issue, though it certainly isn't in the majority of cases based on anything I've ever read. Note that your article AGAIN doesn't say that.

Doctors will also prescribe something basically benign because they know the patient essentially needs a placebo.

 

[PhleeBag]

always check ingredients : http://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005206

 

[alloytoo]

always check ingredients : http://vaccines.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005206

Salt. check the ingredients

 

[LazyLion]