r/DebateVaccines • u/SeaOfMagma • 2d ago
Question Is pro-vaccine science based on trustworthy data?
It really makes you wonder when they pretty much all have conflicts of interest.
7
u/The-Centrist-1973 1d ago
There is no such thing "Pro-vaccine" science. There is no such thing as "Anti vaccine" science, either. Quite simply, we have studies and data.
Let's face it folks. We have more than enough scientific studies out there that prove both the benefits and harms of/from vaccines.
3
u/Logic_Contradict 1d ago
I disagree. We have enough evidence if you're answering specific questions, but not the question that a lot of people want answers to.
1
u/Healthy_Tie_9828 1d ago
Well if you taking that path.. there is God like question, if you know vaccine is a necessary evil.. will you have the courage not to do it and take the red pill?
Imagine you are the only one in the trib who is not vaccinated... i bet you will see them as more docile and manipulated. Thats to your benefit because they are vaccinated... will you enjoy that situation or feel you betrayed the trib...
Or you will stand with Truth alone ?! Will life have a meaning if it is constant struggle like the standard dog with three legs ?
I know my idea is not very well stated... but here it is, very few will understand what im saying and this is the heart of the vaccine problem for those who think its an easy topic
1
u/The-Centrist-1973 22h ago
Yes, I see some of the musings, but what some people are asking proof for seems to be very out of reach.
They want studies that actually definitely prove or disprove that vaccines either do or don't cause autism. Autism is mostly genetic, which seems to be an agreed upon fact. But there are also "environmental" factors. I suppose pregnant women taking a vaccine could fall into into that category, but there are also so many things that can go wrong during an average nine month pregnancy.
Any studies that compare the fully vaccinated children following the recommended vaccine schedule against children receiving no vaccines at all, to see which group is more "healthy", might show results showing one or the other is in the majority for the actual study, but may not translate into the general population. Studies always have limitations, the general population, does not.
That all said, I see people's points on what they are looking for or want to be proven or disproven, on both sides.
•
u/Logic_Contradict 9h ago
Then I don't know how you can conclude:
We have more than enough scientific studies out there that prove both the benefits and harms of/from vaccines.
We have plenty of incremental risk studies, where you study the safety of one vaccine overtop the existing baseline, which is a vaccinating population.
some people are asking proof for seems to be very out of reach.
Why do you believe that? I can understand that doing an RCT style study where people are randomized to receive vaccines or not may be controversial, but retrospective cohort studies don't have this issue, and while one study may not be strong evidence on it's own, repeated studies may strengthen that evidence.
I suppose the other "out of reach" component is that anyone who has a vested interest in vaccines will NOT want to fund a study that compares vaccinated vs vaccinated, nor would journals want to risk their pharma financial support by publishing studies like this.
9
u/Recent-Day3062 2d ago
The lack of understanding of the scientific method is astounding here.
Every study aims to prove they do cause problems. You run the stats, but if you can’t show from the data it is sensible, you publish that. EVERY STUDY TRIES TO PROVE THERE IS A PROBLEM.
If you did a properly designed study and found a link, you would be famous. The authors could pick their job, be well funded, and get tenure. It would be a huge coup.
In the vaccine debate, no one can prove a link. Even though they set out to do that. Publishing “no link” is the booby prize
0
9
u/Level_Abrocoma8925 2d ago
Seems you start off with the assumption that if research turns out to be pro-vaccine, then the authors necessarily have conflicts of interest.
If vaccines are so bad, you'd think RFK jr. would get the funding to do some real research to show it, research that holds up to scientific standards and gets peer-reviewed. This could've been his epic legacy in history, yet it's not happening. Curious to know any AV's take on that.
4
u/Burstrider12 1d ago
Yes.
Are there any anti-vax studies that weren't retracted and weren't done by people with conflicts of interest? (for instance, you can't trust anything from McCullough)
6
u/Recent-Day3062 2d ago
Most of the research is done with grant money by independent academics.
You realize every study comes up null. But if a major study showed a link that was clear, the authors would be famous in their field, get their pick of jobs, a large budget, and tenure.
I have not seen one person here who understands the scientific stats method. Every study aims to prove a link, not disprove it. When you can’t prove it, the consolation prize is saying there is no link. That’s a boring research result
7
u/siverpro 2d ago
Is there any anti-vaccine science, trustworthy or otherwise?
0
u/Nicaraguano 2d ago
There was scientific research on ethylmercury exposure from vaccines back when it was relevant
Depends how broadly you define anti-vaccine tho
3
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
And that proved that themiserol has no impact. The only study that worked was the one that realised misinformation was causing a drop in vaccination rates so they replaced it anyway despite the lack of evidence to appease the uneducated.
0
u/Nicaraguano 1d ago
It has never been proven that thimerosal cannot harm particularly vulnerable individuals
3
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
You've got it backwards. It's never been proven that thimerosal can harm particularly vulnerable individuals.
0
u/Nicaraguano 1d ago
Huh, that's not an expected standard when you put a neurotoxic compound into a product that's supposed to be injected into newborns.
1
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
It isn't toxic in the quantities used. Hope that helps.
1
u/Nicaraguano 1d ago
Yeah, because apparently we can confidently rule out harm in particularly vulnerable individuals without having properly studied them in the first place, right.
2
2
u/Sirenwine 1d ago
Nobody was vaccinated and then sick people were called to infect the vaccinated, so in that scenario - no. It’s only based on antibodies, people could have antibodies for hiv, hepatitis - they get infected. Antibodies on their own do not get rid of the virus or bacteria.
1
u/SeaOfMagma 1d ago
Wait, so that means that natural infection is identical to vaccination. It is in my opinion safer because you don’t have to worry about the fun things that aluminum, mercury, or polyethylene glycol are capable of. Let alone worrying about what else is in the damn thing you don’t recognize. Do these ingredients combine to create something better akin to the two volatile compounds sodium and chlorine combining to make salt? Or do these ingredients remain toxic in their own right and go on to do the exact things decades of data proves they will do?
1
u/StopDehumanizing 1d ago
Aluminum in vaccines is already in a mild form called an aluminum salt.
There's just a few micrograms, so not enough to have any sort of toxic effect.
Aluminum is one of the most abundant elements on the planet. You absorb thousands of times as much aluminum and your body just processes it and you pee it out.
There's absolutely no reason to be afraid of aluminum.
3
u/Logic_Contradict 1d ago edited 1d ago
The issue is more nuanced than it appears.
Most vaccine safety studies are designed to answer one narrow question: Does this specific vaccine or ingredient increase adverse events compared to a placebo (saline or an active comparator)? They measure whether the vaccine raises risk above the existing baseline.
However, that baseline usually includes children who are already receiving other vaccines. So the studies test incremental risk on top of an ongoing vaccination schedule. They do not compare a fully vaccinated child to a completely unvaccinated one.
Antivaxxers are typically asking a different question: Is the full schedule riskier than no vaccination at all? Standard trial designs do not answer that.
So it's not the data that is not trustworthy, persay, it's the way the studies were designed to answer a very narrow question, and provaxxers use these individual vaccine studies and often treat it as proof that the entire schedule has been shown to be safe. This extrapolates from studies that were never designed to evaluate cumulative exposure against a true unvaccinated control group, while they go on accusing their opponents of not understanding the science when they themselves are commiting a non sequitur with the science.
6
u/Burstrider12 1d ago
However, that baseline usually includes children who are already receiving other vaccines. So the studies test incremental risk on top of an ongoing vaccination schedule.
which combinations of vaccines do you believe are dangerous, even though when tested on their own they are safe?
4
u/Remarkable-Ad155 1d ago
Doesn't reality answer that though? There is a strong argument that vaccines conquered several previously virulent diseases. Look at the measles outbreak in the States. To argue we don't have evidence to support the idea that vaccinations in combination are safer than none at all requires Olympic level mental gymnastics.
1
u/Logic_Contradict 19h ago
We are talking about two different topics here. You are addressing the case drop of the disease and I generally agree that vaccines do help accomplish that goal.
The other issue is regarding safety. You asked whether reality answers that question, but this is difficult to know. We do know that there has been a rise in immunological and neurological issues for over half a century now. We have multiple explanations for this (better recognition or diagnosis, or genetic, or some other environmental cause), all of which may be part of the answer.
Vaccines are a good environmental candidate for immunological and neurological changes since the very nature of a vaccine is to modify immune response and memory.
Additionally, you didn't address or rebut the issue of incremental risk above the baseline issue.
If we started off with comparing a population that doesn't smoke to a population that smokes once a month, you might not see that single cigarette as an issue for lung cancer. So now everyone smokes once per month, and now you add another cigarette, so now you're smoking bi-monthly, and we see no major difference between those that smoke once per month compared to those that smoke twice per month. We can keep playing this incremental game, and when we get to smoking 50 cigarettes per month, there's no significant lung cancer risk compared to those who smoke 49 cigarettes per month.
Do you conclude then, because you've done this study 50 times for each incremental cigarette being added, that because each time it was shown to be safe, it means that cigarettes, at 50 per month, is safe?
0
u/FormerlyMauchChunk 1d ago
This is only true if you assume vaccine injury doesn't happen. What people want is a risk comparison. The problem is that the number of injuries is unknown and largely unacknowledged. There's a cult psychology aspect to this - if you get vaccinated (pious) but later come back to the doctor complaining of a vaccine injury, you'll be treated like a heretic, a bad person who would dare to blame a vaccine for a negative outcome. The only way through this is with more data, better data, that acknowledges, rather than hides, vaccine injury.
2
u/Remarkable-Ad155 1d ago
So, if i understand correctly, your argument is that people under report vaccine injury to avoid criticism from the "vaccine cult"?
I'm sorry but this just sounds like exactly the kind of mental gymnastics I'm talking about. You're looking for any justification other than the most logical because the most logical answer - that the threat of preventable diseases far outweighs the threat of vaccine injury - disproves your thesis.
In fact, this whole debate around "the right question not being asked" is another example of those mental gymnastics. It's shifting the goal posts because the opposing team keeps scoring.
1
u/FormerlyMauchChunk 1d ago
So, if i understand correctly, your argument is that people under report vaccine injury to avoid criticism from the "vaccine cult"?
No. The doctors who people report vaccine injury to are the ones under reporting to the vaccine injury system. I've seen it first hand - They treat you like a lunatic and then don't record the injury into the record. Later studies that compile this data will find nothing, but that's merely an artifact of bias in collecting the data.
that the threat of preventable diseases far outweighs the threat of vaccine injury - disproves your thesis.
If this were true, you might be right. But we don't know. You don't, and I don't. That's the problem. If it's wrong, we're harming children so that they become patients for vaccine injury, driving up revenue for the medical industry who will treat them for profit, but won't acknowledge that the condition is downstream from vaccination.
2
u/Terrible-Search3859 2d ago
Who has a conflict of interest worldwide?
5
u/SeaOfMagma 2d ago
If you look into who funds the vast majority of pro-vaccine research you find alot of big pharma.
4
u/Admirable-Pen7480 2d ago
It’s not necessarily pro-vaccine research, the results are just showing that the vaccines work. They have pulled vaccines when research showed the opposite.
Pharmaceutical companies are for profit and therefore have money to fund research. Unfortunately in the US, the government has not been historically great at funding that type of research, and this administration is only making that worse with funding cuts while claiming to want “unbiased research.” If you look at research studies from other countries with different health care models, they still show that vaccines are safe and effective.
-1
u/dhmt 1d ago
Unfortunately in the US, the government has not been historically great at funding that type of research
Here is some history: Dr Frances Kelsey, a physician and pharmacologist, was the FDA officer assigned to thalidomide. Guess what the modern pharma & captured FDA cabal would do with a thalidomide.
3
u/Admirable-Pen7480 1d ago
Yeah I have an advanced degree in public health I’m aware of Dr. Kelsey. That’s actually a really good example of how good science works and does pull the plug when adverse events are discovered. Using thalidomide for cancer isn’t the same as using it on babies.
I don’t know why everyone here gets so mad about how science works and evolves as we learn more.
Now off to help prevent Ebola enter the US for the day, have a nice day everyone 🫡
0
3
1
u/FractalFunny66 1d ago
True, but if you go back to the beginning when vaccines were FIRST developed, that may be a good starting point.
2
u/SeaOfMagma 1d ago
When vaccines were first developed they weren’t very effective.
It bears repeating because I find it profound that when vaccines were first developed weren’t very effective. They needed some additive to agitate a more aggressive immune system response, that additive is known as an adjuvant. Of all the things they could have used as an adjuvant aluminum was picked because it was very effective at boosting the immune system’s response to the immunization. Problem with aluminum is that it’s also mildly toxic when it enters your stomach but it’s waaaayyyy more toxic when it enters directly into your blood or muscle. Some of it floats around in the blood vessels and arteries and some of sticks to the injection site. Since your body recognizes it as an invader the t cells clump around it in an attempt to kill it but they prove ineffective because it’s not something that your t-cells can break down so a clump just forms on the vessel walls. Doing physical activity puts you at risk of getting the injection site punched and in the processed aluminum liberated into bloodstreams. From there it floats into the blood brain barrier and into the brain where it either lies in wait till your old and starts causing dementia or hits the ground running and depending on which hemisphere it deposits will lead to either autistic or savant behavioral issues. How do we know aluminum causes autistic behavioral issues? That’s a topic I don’t know that we’re ready to talk about yet because we haven’t even grasped the severity of aluminum toxicity.
1
•
u/caelanhuntress 8h ago
I would trust a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, but pro-vaccine cultists don’t ever use that method. Every time it has been tried, vaccinated populations are conclusively demonstrated to be less healthy than unvaccinated populations.
While the cultists can show a drop in the targeted disease, they often show increased mortality, allergies, eczema, asthma, and chronic disease.
1
u/OldTurkeyTail 2d ago
It's very easy to manipulate study data - if there isn't really good oversight. So the quality of pro-vax data is often questionable. And this article highlights issues with covid and other mRNA vaccine trials.
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-fraud-that-launched-the-mrna
But often even if the data from some trials is generally sound there's a lot of really weak logic used to sell vaccines. This short video from Dr. John Campbell highlights the difference between relative and absolute efficacy, and how horrific rates of adverse reactions can somehow be considered acceptable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a-MTuhfw98
5
7
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
You're using antivax propaganda website and not studies and a link to a retired nurse that isn't a doctor of medicine (so is using it unethically to cause confusion) and is proven incorrect on msot of his videos since he realised there was money in the antivax religion. If you just use the data, it shows that vaccines work and and are low risk.
1
u/OldTurkeyTail 1d ago
If you're going to respond without actually discussing the content, your comment is totally empty and meaningless.
You're just confirming that you only trust sources that parrot corrupt establishment propaganda!
5
5
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
No. I said studies. This is what happens, you imagine what is written on the page and thne build a fictional narrative around it. Other people with similar delusions write it down in blogs or youtube videos like you've posted.
1
u/OldTurkeyTail 1d ago
If you're talking about ignoring studies, it's evident that you didn't watch the video - OR - read the post. Do you have any evidence that the DATA John Campbell presented is false?
1
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
Yes. Please see my original post. Look at the studies only. Ignore the grifter that confuses easily manipulated minds.
1
u/OldTurkeyTail 1d ago
Campbell did a very straight forward and damning analysis based on the study used to get approval for mRNA flu vaccines. The whole point of the video is that we should be looking at what's actually in the study.
If you want to talk about a study - then focus on the study.
2
1
u/moniquesecreto 1d ago
Yes, Dr John camball is a nurse with a Phd...and he was very pro vaccine and received the covid vaccines...until he experienced side effects and then checked into ongoing issues with many vaccine injured patients who were gaslight ....so your opinion of his anti vaccine stance to make $$$ is incorrect
1
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
No. He absolutely is milking antivaxxers of their money. He deliberately misinterprets data just like CHD does to suit a narrative that in his case gets him money from his flock.
0
u/moniquesecreto 1d ago
What money has he ever gotten from me ? I havent ever spent a dime on anything. Can u show me any money he gifted? He doesn't sell supplements, or any Rx?
1
u/Mammoth_Park7184 1d ago
Adverts from views. He gets more views from promoting misinformation as people with braincells don't use YouTube as a source of info.
0
u/moniquesecreto 1d ago
Can u show me where he is misleading people? I have seen the videos debunk the funk, etc..m.and they did not have any convincing data ...I just wish u would open your eyes to what the vaccine industry is today. . Thousands of injuries and gaslighting all day....I pray your never affected with an Injury or your kids/grandkids because once you experience it you will never support any industry that is protected against all claims.
1
0
1
u/less_than_1percent 1d ago
Short answer: NO
0
u/SeaOfMagma 1d ago
Long answer: we literally can’t even call them immunizations because they simply don’t offer lifetime protection. What we saw with electionvirus injections was continually diminishing promises made by those in positions of authority from “lifetime immunity” to “only a year” to “it kills you, but you go to heaven”.
1
u/Entire_Quit_4076 1d ago
Funny how if yall would apply just 1% of that thought to fossil fuel companies while sucking up MAGA anti-renewables prpaganda you wouldn’t need to cry about gas prices all day 🤷♂️
0
8
u/the_comeback_quagga 2d ago
At one point I did a lot of work on vaccine schedules. None of that research was ever funded by pharma. It’s funded by NGOs and the governments of the countries who want the answers to whether or not to add the vaccines to their schedules (and where, and when).