Yes, most of those terrible stories of vaccination injury are pure bullshit. The rest are a result of people not knowing how to figure out the real reason for their state.

All a-bluster with internet rage and your magical fairy belief that what you want' a forum to be is what it shall become.

You are so special for your insights that I cannot fathom how we could have all missed it so...

Quick, shake your little fist some more and prove yourself all "palidin" over all us content producing monsters.

How dare us!

Vaccination is a completely natrual -- you do know it was discovered not invented, right? -- process. That is it happens in nature. It isn't any more crude than the daily swim we all take in a sea of pahtogens.

It's a sham you didn't listen in that one class, and measutred the truth by weight (number of white-boards filled) instead of import.

Not every pahtogen takes every step. So like the things you inhale "bypass" the skin's responses. Every scratch you get "bypasses" some of this stuff.

It's almost like "immunology" involves more than just that one module you took in microbiology. There's probably more than three white boards worth on the function of any one particular vaccine.

Pleading to your _own_ authority, when you know it was that unauthoratative is just damn sad...

Yea, fuck those girls! They deserve cervical cancer! They must have been tramps for getting HPV in the first place!

(A) There are no documented cases of Gardasil causing cancer.

(B) If I offered you a homeopathic remedy that had proven track record of blocking just under 40% of any cancer would you take it? Sure you would.

Remember that "just 38% protection from cancer" is 38 girls saved from cancer out of every 100 girls that would have gotten cancer if you did the _nothing_ you seem to be advocating.

So _when_ is saving 38% of women from cervical cancer a bad thing?

The fact that it saves many more girls from HPV in the first place is something you also ignore; you know, HPV, the thing the vaccine is for? Yea, that sucks all by itself. The cancer thing is just gravy.

Do you even _listen_ to the twat-waddle that pours out of your mouth?

God forbid that you get some alluminium in your system. It's not like every fistfull of soil has aluminium. It's not like a single breath in a dusty room won't deliver as much or more aluminum into your system than any vaccine ever.

Thimerisol, which is only found in the flu shot, and only if it comes from the bottle (as opposed to premeasured single-shots). On and there's a trace amount in one other vaccine that I can't remember.

But you know, on average, you take in more thimerisol from changing your contact lenses ONCE than you get in a flu shot. OH THE HORROR!

Seriously, the "scheme" of "big pharma" that leads them to make vaccines is that if you vaccinate the public they live long enough to buy a lifetime supply of the cold remedies and NSAIDS and stuff that old people choke down. The average "big pharma" profit on a single vaccine is just about the same as on a single bag of cough-drops. And you only get a few of these shots as opposed to the number of over-the-counter crap you will consume all your life.

The very fact that you cite "big pharma" kind of proves you to be a "big tool".... how much have you spent on "big homopathy" so far? How many "organic" this, and how many books on "the dangers of" that?.

You have been had. Taken to the counter-culture cleaners. They waved a "big pharma" flag under your nose and then bilked you for cold hard cash. What an idiot.

Is to point out that the crowd that ignores all the science behind the FIVE BILLION vaccinaiton performed world-wide wihtout harm, balances this overwhelming proof of safety agains a few fairy stories told around digital campfires; and that's just not science.

See this "calling people on their bullshit" is an immune response smart people have to stupidity. It serves to protect the credulous from the claims of the wildly misinformed.

Think of it as "herd immunity against the innane."

So better dumb than sorry? The phalacy behind virtually all "vaccine injuries" is called "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". E.g. "I decided to blame my broken hip on my flu shot because the flu shot happened monts before I fell down so I am sure it made me dizy.".

No really. The stories are less true, and less well connected, and less _credible_ that the average urban myth.

But, even if they were all true, which they are proveably not, the dozen or so scary stories you know have to be stacke up against FIVE BILLION safely administered vaccinations world-wide.

If the "vaccine injuries" were true, there would be a line of body bags fifty-million long behind the last sixty years of vaccinaiton. Do the math. Seriously.

As far as "medical warnings", have you looked at a carton of eggs lately? Did you know PEANUT BUTTER _MAY_ CONTAIN PEANUTS? Seriously, everything has a warning. Nothing is safe.

Only those afraid of their own breath would let this kind of fear endanger their children and so beleive that you can stop Measles from blinding your kid by getting them a back-rub. (no seriously folks, look up chiropractic clams for alternatives to vaccination. It's farking insane where these people go for solace after their unwarrented fears kick in.)

You are a public health threat if you don't vaccinate your kids, and I hope you live in a cabin far, far away from all human contact. It's the only way to be sure.

It seems that the idea is to use messenger RNA to get some cells to start producing signature protiens (e.g. the "N1" and "H1" parts of, say N1H1) so that the immune system will remain primed to combat whichever protiens those are.

The dangers I see are:

How will these protiens exit those cells?

How will the selection of cells be controlled and moderated?

Will this "burn up" white blood cells, causing them to wear out faster than normal. I know that one of the current anti-aging things being investigated is a way to purge the body of these used-up cells via complex filtration. So we "know", for small values of knowing, that the accumulation of these used-up cells is bad for us. I think increased arterial plaque is one of the direct results. (this is not my area).

We know that citokine (spelling?) storms can cause some diseases to harm the "healthy", which is part of why the spanish flu really tagged fit men in their twenties. So would such a self-continuing response to some protien make such storms more likely?

What if the cell that starts spewing this protien becomes cancerous?

In short, the doability isn't that remote, but the potential badness isn't that constrained. So the "should we" conversation is kind of more important than the "can we".

But in no case is the eternal vaccination "contageous" or "shedable"... /sigh.

I used 90% as a stable (oversimplified) value. The actual numbers depend on real math I didn't present (and I don't even know how to format in a slashdot posting) and in which I am not going to claim any expertese at all. The real numbers are like 1-(1/R0) where R0 is the number of people one person is likely to be able to infect. The real numbers for any disease get all differential and such once you bring in efficacy and real immunity. The real numbers are up there in the ninety-or-so for most every well understood disease to date for which we have a vaccine if I understand all that I have read.

In the century plus sinc vaccination was discoverd -- you do know vaccination is a natural process that was discoverd not invented right -- there have easily been FIBE BILLION vaccinations administered world wide.

I'd say that there are hundreds of times _less_ active component protiens in the modern vaccination schedule as compared to the bulk of those done when I was getting those scheduled vaccinations back in the sixties.

I'd say that there is a negative correlation between autism and the contents of vaccines since autism rates are on the rise while vaccinations are getting milder and weaker in content and are being spread out over a longer period of time.

I would strongly suggest that someone with an agenda and a book to seel you, or a set of homeopathic remedies to bring to market, tossed together the phrase "neuroimmune disfunction" to lend an air of credibility to their fear mongering and general scam.

I'd assay that you are more likely to actuall get cash from that Nigerian Prince In Exile than to suffer "neuroimmune disfunction".

I'd wager you, for presenting this idea, have no idea what the study if immunology is about, nor the first bit of what this medical discipline has taught us in the fist-full of decades it has been studied as a separate discipline.

I'd also bet that you are immune to any argument that doesn't support the piss-poor health care discisions you have made for yourself and family.

And I go so far as to posit that you don't know the difference between anecdote and evidence.

So take your pusdo-scientific meta-jargon and go away before you get someone killed.

Citing "Natrual News", which also carries bigfoot sightings and the most cracked-of-pot theories as fact is the Goodwin of health arguments. Nothing on that site is true or accurate as near as I can figure. You might as well cite something you heard in the girl's locker room in junior high as "peer reviewed".

That you beleive or agree with anything on "natural news" is proof that you have disavowed all of science in favor of the four humors and blood-letting.

Since I am _not_ in the studied and approved demographic, I would require you fund my injection as part of a rational and scientific study with control group(s) and proper blinds. But if you got the cash, I am down for participation.

Meanwhile I would not hesitate a heartbeat in recommending the vaccine for the young females, or even the young males, in my life.

I've had HPV and it sucks donkey balls. I've had family members die of cancer. I've read the risk papers enought to know which is the best risk.

Please tell me where to have Johns Hopkins or a similar medical institution capable of proper scientific research send the paperwork for the study grant you propose.

Oh, you were proposing it be done "off lable"... e.g. as an uncontrolled sample trial of one? What would that prove beyond your complete failure to understand the first principles of science?

Since vaccines don't conferr "immunity" they conferr "resistance", herd immunity is actually more than just about Fred.

If you are vaccintated against Anthrax, the white powder doesn't flee the room when you enter, nor does it bounce off your skin. The Anthrax enters your system and your system fights with it. In effective vaccination you are pre-armed to fight the disease off before it becomes fully contageous and, more importantly, before it can become fully harmful and do significant damage to your body and its subsystems.

So lets say there is this disease and everone in a classroom is vaccinated against it, but a substitute teacher brings it into the classroom by teaching a single day durring the communicable phase. All the kids get "a little sick" after suffering one exposure. In effect none of the kids get meaningfully sick, their exposure results in a "sub clinical" illness.

Now lets say that the vaccine is 95% effective. So in a class of twenty kids, one has received no real benefit of from the vaccination. The susbstitute provides one exposure. The one child gets sick and, for ease of numbers, is contageous for three days before being weithdrawn from school. Now each of the ninteen other students was exposed to the disease four times.

Remember that each exposure is a strain on the immune system. There is a small chance that a second child will get sick.

Now lets add one completely unvaccinated child. There is now the substitute and two children who get sick. This is a total of seven exposures to the disease. There each of the vaccinated children is now seven times more likely for their exposure to become intense enough for the disease to become symptomatic and contageous.

Now assume that the unvaccinated child has unvaccinated siblings. That family becomes a hotspot. All the kids get sick. Each kid returns to school and mabye one adds an exposure or three to just one more of the kids in that class. That child is now ten times more likely to become symptomatically sick. Which, should it happen, would cause another three exposures to the entire class.

So put two unvaccinated children in the class,and have a 95% efficacy there is a good chance that one more child will be unprotected and the class will end up with a mortality rate more than the 15% represented by the unprotected kids. 30%, 80% or even 100% normal morbidity (clinical infections with a typical spread for results of disease X) becomes the expected result set.

This is the kind of thing where the anti-vaxxers then see statistics (that they don't understand) that demonstrates that "during such-and-such outbreak most of the overcome were vaccinated" and then conclude that vaccination is unsafe because "most of those overcome were vaccinated." Sure. That is mathematically certian in any community where most people are vaccinated. This is because the distribution is over "most of the people". Doh.

The magic number for herd immunity is about 90 percent. Above ninety percent the herd is effectively immune, below ninety, well "not so much". So a community wide vaccination is only as good as its weakest local links. Given that vaccination is never 100% effective, you need to get nearly 100% vaccinated to become protected above the 90% needed for the herd.

Small, concentrated communities of unvacinated persons act as echo chambers, or detonation zones, so lets say a small community has ten anti-vaxx famlies that all like to get together at the same "health center" or church... Whoops...

Having unvaccinated people in your midst is like inviting suicide bombers to your market place. They are primed, ready to explode with some disease if they get exposed themselves, and they will take out the vaccinated as well. Most of the people killed by terrorists are not terrorists so it is unsafe to not be a terrorist! That's anti-vaxx logic turned into highest hyperbole. But its not terribly wrong.

This video below is narrated by a jackass, but it will give you a nice visual verson of this topic:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRclbfK5q08
Sorry for his tone, but the math is right, if super-simplified. The "non-classroom" version is kind of funny for its vitriol, but I didn't post that here.

That isn't even a citation. They have recently said that the Flu Vaccine (and only that one vaccine) is nowhere near as effective in the very young and very old as was originally thought. With those numbers ranging from only fifty-something (injected) to eight-nine percent (nasal spray) efficacy in those groups. This makes it _more_ important that the median age (not very young or very old) get the vaccine as that protects the young and old from initial exposure more effectively than the direct applicaiton to the extremes.

That doesn't change the theory of vaccination at all.

It also doesn't say "getting a flu shot is bad".

It just says "we need to do better", which is kind of the refrain of science. We always need to do better.

But anybody who takes one case, particularly as adjuged by an actor or public figure, as "credible science" is not qualified to judged the credibility of science.

So the problem is that, in the same way that I wouldn't buy meat from a butcher who took cleanleness advice from a twelth century book on procedures for health as published in paris of the time, I don't tend to beleive people who MISTtake ANECDOTES as SCIENCE.

If you are going to beleive McCarthy as a true case, but you aren't going to balance it against the TWO to FIVE BILLION CASES of complicaiton-free vaccination that have happened since the discovery of vaccination, then you are demonstrated to automatically be No Sane Judge Of Science.

In short, anybody who beleives Jenny DESPITE the Evidence that PROVES JENNY UTTERLY WRONG, is yes, automatically anti science.

Anti-Vaccination people are Medical Flat Earthers.