An unvaccinated student infected 21 others with measles at a yeshiva in Brooklyn.

[shank hawk]

Has anyone else noticed the high correlation of those that believe in colloidal silver, essential oils, etc. that are also antivaxxers?

Years ago when our son was paying a visit to the good folks at Mayo Clinic he was given a small tube. The nurse said when he started feeling nauseous to take the cap off and let him breathe in the peppermint oil.

I suppose they’re nothing but a bunch of flat-earthing witch doctors up there now?

 

[Joes Place]

Years ago when our son was paying a visit to the good folks at Mayo Clinic he was given a small tube. The nurse said when he started feeling nauseous to take the cap off and let him breathe in the peppermint oil.

I suppose they’re nothing but a bunch of flat-earthing witch doctors up there now?

What does that have to do with "vaccines"?

Peppermint oil or similar stuff is used routinely in med schools for students doing their first cadaver work, until they get used to the sights and smells. Have you never been in a medical facility aside from being a patient? Google that if you've never heard of it.

Because most of the people on here explaining vaccines to you have. When I was in grad school at the UI, our lab was across the hall from the anatomy morgue, and just down the hall from where the autopsy rooms were in the Pathology Dept.

 

[Wendy79]

Years ago when our son was paying a visit to the good folks at Mayo Clinic he was given a small tube. The nurse said when he started feeling nauseous to take the cap off and let him breathe in the peppermint oil.

I suppose they’re nothing but a bunch of flat-earthing witch doctors up there now?

It's more the use of essential oils as cure-alls (cancer, psoriasis, autism, digestive issues, whatever - apply essential oils to the skin or some even recommend you ingest them). A quick sniff of rubbing alcohol is also an old nurse trick for nausea.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Years ago when our son was paying a visit to the good folks at Mayo Clinic he was given a small tube. The nurse said when he started feeling nauseous to take the cap off and let him breathe in the peppermint oil.

I suppose they’re nothing but a bunch of flat-earthing witch doctors up there now?

LMAO...........wow!

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Maybe I didn’t understand exactly what you meant: how could something ‘unvaccinate’ a person?

LOL EVERYONE should have known that by "unvaccinate" a person it meant bone marrow transplant because to "unvaccinate" of course means to only remove immunity.

At least one thing is certain. Legit questions will not go without ridicule here.

 

[shank hawk]

How do you figure that Joe? The study you posted was dated March 5th. The critique vid and article that cover that very study were both posted March 7th.

Timing is everything my friend. Take that Lindenberger snowflake who was brought to DC for the dog and pony show last week.

The kid was born in 2000, yet claimed his mommy got ‘all’ her anti-vac info from DisgraceBook*, an entity that didn’t even exist until he was four and probably didn’t metastasize across the country til he was seven or eight. Wouldn’t she have had him immunized since she couldn’t possibly have been brainwashed at that point?

And where did this young scientific researcher go for his initial vaccine advice? That’s right - reddit.com, a well known dispensary of sound medical advice. You just can’t make this shit up.

*aka Facebook

 

[shank hawk]

What does that have to do with "vaccines"?

Peppermint oil or similar stuff is used routinely in med schools for students doing their first cadaver work, until they get used to the sights and smells. Have you never been in a medical facility aside from being a patient? Google that if you've never heard of it.

Because most of the people on here explaining vaccines to you have. When I was in grad school at the UI, our lab was across the hall from the anatomy morgue, and just down the hall from where the autopsy rooms were in the Pathology Dept.

Ask your buddy fsu1. He’s the one that changed the subject.

 

[Joes Place]

Ask your buddy fsu1. He’s the one that changed the subject.

You're the one who called it out as something "nonscientific". It's common knowledge and commonly used in the medical field. Apparently, you were unaware of that.

Note: it's not a 'vaccine', it's something used to treat acute nausea, or block out unsettling smells. And there's real science behind that, as well.

 

[Joes Place]

It's more the use of essential oils as cure-alls (cancer, psoriasis, autism, digestive issues, whatever - apply essential oils to the skin or some even recommend you ingest them). A quick sniff of rubbing alcohol is also an old nurse trick for nausea.

Indeed. Shank thinks just because something actually works for nausea, that the medical profession will suddenly and magically assume it also cures cancer...

 

[naturalbornhawk]

No, they're not.

Yes that was proven long ago. Oh yes I forgot. Since Joe and his cc's don't respect them because they don't fit their agenda, the rest of the scientific community must not respect them either.

 

[shank hawk]

Indeed. Shank thinks just because something actually works for nausea, that the medical profession will suddenly and magically assume it also cures cancer...

Link?

 

[Wendy79]

https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/essential-oils-for-cancer/

https://naturallivingfamily.com/essential-oils-for-cancer/

I don't know if anybody on here thinks essential oils are good for cancer treatment or prevention, but there are definitely people out there who think so.

 

[Hawki97]

I love this post. I am fully vaccinated according to the 1980's vaccine schedule. Today's vaccine schedule in the US is completely different. In addition, not everybody is the same. Just because I might currently have no obvious visible symptoms of damage from the 80's schedule doesn't mean that the same must be true for anyone else.

So just going off the 80’s schedule...are you glad your parents “took the chance” against potential visible symptoms and got you vaccinated or do you wish they hadn’t and you were unvaccinated today?

 

[Hawki97]

Maybe I didn’t understand exactly what you meant: how could something ‘unvaccinate’ a person?

Essentially, I’m asking if you could go back in time and not get vaccinated to begin with...would you? Assuming of course you are vaccinated today.

 

[Joes Place]

Essentially, I’m asking if you could go back in time and not get vaccinated to begin with...would you? Assuming of course you are vaccinated today.

Like I've stated in their other antivaxxer thread:

Every year I "roll the dice" and get a flu vaccine shot. Hoping for that day I catch 'the autism' and can go to Vegas to count cards at the blackjack tables and get super rich.....

Sadly, over a decade of flu vaccines, and still no autism.



(My car mechanic, however, just had his wife go to the hospital for the flu for rehydration/IVs (they didn't get flu shots this year); he was going to get a flu shot this week, in the hopes it prevents him from getting it, too)

 

[Joes Place]

Yes that was proven long ago.

No. It wasn't. Which is why every major medical organization recommends people get vaccinated.

 

[shank hawk]

Essentially, I’m asking if you could go back in time and not get vaccinated to begin with...would you? Assuming of course you are vaccinated today.

Would I ? Sure, but I grew up at an opportune time. Went thru mumps, measles, chickenpox, etc. along with a very small vac schedule. Not sure what it consisted of though I do remember getting tetanus boosters.

Can’t roll back the clock though. My parents did what they thought best for me and that’s a parent’s prerogative, no matter what Hillary or anybody else thinks.

 

[Joes Place]

Would I ? Sure, but I grew up at an opportune time. Went thru mumps, measles, chickenpox, etc. along with a very small vac schedule. Not sure what it consisted of though I do remember getting tetanus boosters.

Can’t roll back the clock though. My parents did what they thought best for me and that’s a parent’s prerogative, no matter what Hillary or anybody else thinks.

Thankfully, I don't look to "Hillary" for my healthcare-based decisions.
I get them from my doctor, who recommends vaccine updates/boosters (like tetanus, flu, shingles, etc)

When Youtube finishes its medical school training and a few years of medical residency, I'll be happy to listen to medical advice from it....

 

[Joes Place]

99.999% of Americans would prefer to fly in a plane designed by the likes of:

McDonnell-Douglass

or Boeing

AntiVaxxers: "NO EFFIN' WAY - WE WANNA FLY IN THIS FLAT EARTHER ROCKET SOME GUY ON YOUTUBE PUT TOGETHER"

 

[Hawki97]

Would I ? Sure, but I grew up at an opportune time. Went thru mumps, measles, chickenpox, etc. along with a very small vac schedule. Not sure what it consisted of though I do remember getting tetanus boosters.

Can’t roll back the clock though. My parents did what they thought best for me and that’s a parent’s prerogative, no matter what Hillary or anybody else thinks.

So trying to get a read on your views...would you say any of these apply to you:

1) You're against vaccines - but more because you see the mandate as an overstep by "the man" (big pharma, perceived govt forces at work forcing you to do things, etc.) and there ain't nobody gonna tell me what I have to do.

2) You agree with the broad benefits vaccines provide, but you're personally against them because you believe science has shown that there is a small percentage of people negatively impacted by vaccines and you don't want to be part of that percentage. Therefore you're thankful most people do "take the chance" - but you're not willing to either put yourself or your children at risk. However, you do admit that you (and society as a whole) are reaping the broader benefits because of those that did roll the dice.

3) You simply believe all vaccines are bad (or not worth the risk for anyone, not just yourself or your children) and it's all just a big pharma hoax / orchestrated money grab.

Edit to add I'm curious if @naturalbornhawk feels like any of these apply to you.

 

[shank hawk]

So trying to get a read on your views...would you say any of these apply to you:

1) You're against vaccines - but more because you see the mandate as an overstep by "the man" (big pharma, perceived govt forces at work forcing you to do things, etc.) and there ain't nobody gonna tell me what I have to do.

2) You agree with the broad benefits vaccines provide, but you're personally against them because you believe science has shown that there is a small percentage of people negatively impacted by vaccines and you don't want to be part of that percentage. Therefore you're thankful most people do "take the chance" - but you're not willing to either put yourself or your children at risk. However, you do admit that you (and society as a whole) are reaping the broader benefits because of those that did roll the dice.

3) You simply believe all vaccines are bad (or not worth the risk for anyone, not just yourself or your children) and it's all just a big pharma hoax / orchestrated money grab.

Edit to add I'm curious if @naturalbornhawk feels like any of these apply to you.

I would say #1 in general. A long time ago the Ford Pinto earned a reputation not only as a shitty form of transportation but one that just might explode even in a minor collision.

In and of itself no big deal but if the government tried to FORCE everyone to drive Pintos then yeah, I would take issue with that.

 

[Hawki97]

I would say #1 in general. A long time ago the Ford Pinto earned a reputation not only as a shitty form of transportation but one that just might explode even in a minor collision.

In and of itself no big deal but if the government tried to FORCE everyone to drive Pintos then yeah, I would take issue with that.

On #1, you're clearly not wanting anyone - especially the govt or corporations - telling you what to do. Totally get that.

Considering your Pinto statement, do you think you're a bit of #2 as well? Sounds like you agree there's a purpose for vaccines and they've done a good thing for the world (e.g. the Pinto's purpose and good thing they brought to the world being transportation to the masses), but you also don't trust vaccines and while you're happy others will because it's a good thing for broader society, you'd rather not risk it (e.g. the Pinto blowing up). I might be putting words in your mouth...so feel free to clarify. Just trying to map the analogy.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I would say #1 in general. A long time ago the Ford Pinto earned a reputation not only as a shitty form of transportation but one that just might explode even in a minor collision.

In and of itself no big deal but if the government tried to FORCE everyone to drive Pintos then yeah, I would take issue with that.

Holy shit! Are you against the govt forcing car companies to take steps to prevent their cars from blowing up? 'Cause THAT'S WHAT THEY DO!

 

[shank hawk]

Holy shit! Are you against the govt forcing car companies to take steps to prevent their cars from blowing up? 'Cause THAT'S WHAT THEY DO!

How has you comprehension of the English have been?

I am against the government forcing people to use (in my opinion) shitty products, especially when they stand to benefit financially.

 

[BrunoMars420]

How has you comprehension of the English have been?

I am against the government forcing people to use (in my opinion) shitty products, especially when they stand to benefit financially.

Financially or for the betterment of mankind?

 

[Wendy79]

Let's say smallpox was released as a biological weapon. Should the government step in and force immunizations?

 

[shank hawk]

Financially or for the betterment of mankind?

Are they mutually exclusive? I am not against vaccines; I don't approve of the incestuous relationship between corporations/government that allow both to thrive and benefit financially. If you have a product for sale let it grow or die on it's own merits.

Let's say smallpox was released as a biological weapon. Should the government step in and force immunizations?

In my opinion, no. But if it was a legitimate threat even I might put aside my distaste for vaccines as they are currently used and take my place in line.

 

[Joes Place]

Are they mutually exclusive? I am not against vaccines; I don't approve of the incestuous relationship between corporations/government that allow both to thrive and benefit financially.

Like that same gub'mint that forces us all to use the SAME Air Traffic Control System!!!!

PUT ME ON THE FLAT EARTHER JET, BOYZ!!!! NO GUB'MINT NEEDED!!!!

 

[tarheelbybirth]

How has you comprehension of the English have been?

I am against the government forcing people to use (in my opinion) shitty products, especially when they stand to benefit financially.

My comprehension of English surpasses your comprehension of reality by orders of magnitude.

 

[shank hawk]

On #1, you're clearly not wanting anyone - especially the govt or corporations - telling you what to do. Totally get that.

Considering your Pinto statement, do you think you're a bit of #2 as well? Sounds like you agree there's a purpose for vaccines and they've done a good thing for the world (e.g. the Pinto's purpose and good thing they brought to the world being transportation to the masses), but you also don't trust vaccines and while you're happy others will because it's a good thing for broader society, you'd rather not risk it (e.g. the Pinto blowing up). I might be putting words in your mouth...so feel free to clarify. Just trying to map the analogy.

Pretty spot on. I think naturalborn or Nat have referred to the disincentive the manufacturers have in making their product safer when congress absolved them from any and all liability. The relationship between those two parties is conflicted to the nth degree.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Pretty spot on. I think naturalborn or Nat have referred to the disincentive the manufacturers have in making their product safer when congress absolved them from any and all liability. The relationship between those two parties is conflicted to the nth degree.

If only you didn't lie so much.

Or perhaps you're just supremely ignorant.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

So trying to get a read on your views...would you say any of these apply to you:

1) You're against vaccines - but more because you see the mandate as an overstep by "the man" (big pharma, perceived govt forces at work forcing you to do things, etc.) and there ain't nobody gonna tell me what I have to do.

2) You agree with the broad benefits vaccines provide, but you're personally against them because you believe science has shown that there is a small percentage of people negatively impacted by vaccines and you don't want to be part of that percentage. Therefore you're thankful most people do "take the chance" - but you're not willing to either put yourself or your children at risk. However, you do admit that you (and society as a whole) are reaping the broader benefits because of those that did roll the dice.

3) You simply believe all vaccines are bad (or not worth the risk for anyone, not just yourself or your children) and it's all just a big pharma hoax / orchestrated money grab.

Edit to add I'm curious if @naturalbornhawk feels like any of these apply to you.

My biggest beef with the "pro vaccine" side of the debate is that they say 1) vaccines are safe, and 2) the science is settled. Those are two of the most easily disproven statements there are yet people still unwaveringly dish them out as matter of fact.

I started looking into this vaccine debate eleven years ago. I heard several things that I didn't know were true or not from two different people. Yes, my chiropractor, and a good friend of mine who also happened to be a nurse who has an autistic son. so I started looking into these items and asking a lot of questions. The things that they were saying I didn't really buy into at first but as I looked for answers to these things I began to realize that the either the answers I was given weren't really making sense, or there were no answers. As time went on the evidence just seemed to pile up, from whistleblowers claiming fraud, to science seeming fraudulent (there are many examples), to regulatory agencies admitting that they're not doing their job, to many studies indicating dangers, to countless doctors and scientists including experts admitting there are issues with vaccines, to the science clearly being of poor design. These things start accumulating. With no good answers why. Stanley Plotkin, Paul Offit, and the experts at the IOM say that we don't know whether or not vaccines cause autism btw, and another expert, Andrew Zimmerman actually thinks they can cause autism.

People say that a cost benefit analysis will clearly indicate that vaccines are definitely the best option. I say, ok, let's see that cost benefit analysis. Then nobody is willing or able to touch it because nobody can figure out the costs because 1) the pre marketing clinical safety trials are performed without using inert placbo and are extremely short-term, 2) the science indicating no causation between vaccines and autism are only mmr and thimerosal and are of extremely poor design. 3) the post marketing surveillance measuring adverse reactions is extremely poor quality, by the government's own admission. Over 4B paid out in vaccine court? 4) there is no completely vaxxed unvaxxed study with today's schedule minus the retracted survey that indicated issues. What's left? HHS, which is supposed to be the mothership overseeing vaccine safety admits it's basically done nothing over the last 30+ years to help ensure safety, and congress has allowed them to do it. Then the aluminum studies cited by the regulatory agencies ensuring aluminum is safe cite ingested aluminum rather than injected, despite science clearly indicating there is a huge difference. These are just a handful of the unanswered questions. I could seriously go on and on. So is it unreasonable to ask for a reasonable, accurate, coherent cost benefit analysis of vaccines?
Is it so unreasonable to think that the science is not settled, and that maybe, just maybe that not everything is as peachy in the vaccine world as we're told?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

If only you didn't lie so much.

Or perhaps you're just supremely ignorant.

Exactly which part of that post was a lie again?

 

[naturalbornhawk]

My comprehension of English surpasses your comprehension of reality by orders of magnitude.

You and Joe just love you some pissing matches don't you?

 

[shank hawk]

Exactly which part of that post was a lie again?

I am so confused. Apparently even my own, personal opinion is a lie now.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

I am so confused. Apparently even my own, personal opinion is a lie now.

Half right? You're certainly confused. You didn't espouse an opinion in your post - you made a statement of fact. Why don't you actually learn what damages vaccine manufacturers are still responsible for before you post anything else that's dumb as hell. Given your posting history on this topic, that would constitute a sea-change.

 

[Hawki97]

My biggest beef with the "pro vaccine" side of the debate is that they say 1) vaccines are safe, and 2) the science is settled. Those are two of the most easily disproven statements there are yet people still unwaveringly dish them out as matter of fact.

I started looking into this vaccine debate eleven years ago. I heard several things that I didn't know were true or not from two different people. Yes, my chiropractor, and a good friend of mine who also happened to be a nurse who has an autistic son. so I started looking into these items and asking a lot of questions. The things that they were saying I didn't really buy into at first but as I looked for answers to these things I began to realize that the either the answers I was given weren't really making sense, or there were no answers. As time went on the evidence just seemed to pile up, from whistleblowers claiming fraud, to science seeming fraudulent (there are many examples), to regulatory agencies admitting that they're not doing their job, to many studies indicating dangers, to countless doctors and scientists including experts admitting there are issues with vaccines, to the science clearly being of poor design. These things start accumulating. With no good answers why. Stanley Plotkin, Paul Offit, and the experts at the IOM say that we don't know whether or not vaccines cause autism btw, and another expert, Andrew Zimmerman actually thinks they can cause autism.

People say that a cost benefit analysis will clearly indicate that vaccines are definitely the best option. I say, ok, let's see that cost benefit analysis. Then nobody is willing or able to touch it because nobody can figure out the costs because 1) the pre marketing clinical safety trials are performed without using inert placbo and are extremely short-term, 2) the science indicating no causation between vaccines and autism are only mmr and thimerosal and are of extremely poor design. 3) the post marketing surveillance measuring adverse reactions is extremely poor quality, by the government's own admission. Over 4B paid out in vaccine court? 4) there is no completely vaxxed unvaxxed study with today's schedule minus the retracted survey that indicated issues. What's left? HHS, which is supposed to be the mothership overseeing vaccine safety admits it's basically done nothing over the last 30+ years to help ensure safety, and congress has allowed them to do it. Then the aluminum studies cited by the regulatory agencies ensuring aluminum is safe cite ingested aluminum rather than injected, despite science clearly indicating there is a huge difference. These are just a handful of the unanswered questions. I could seriously go on and on. So is it unreasonable to ask for a reasonable, accurate, coherent cost benefit analysis of vaccines?
Is it so unreasonable to think that the science is not settled, and that maybe, just maybe that not everything is as peachy in the vaccine world as we're told?

Interesting perspective - I'm fascinated by it so a couple more questions.

1) Do you feel the lack of your version of a cost benefit analysis is such a critical point that - if you were king for a day - we should end all vaccine programs until the analysis is complete and proven out?

2) If so, what is your criteria for the cost benefit analysis to be deemed viable? And who would have to do it? That last question is particularly interesting to me because you seem to have a lot of distrust for the "establishment" scientists, studies, and organizations (arguably the vast majority) that would claim they've done and are doing these analysis already today. However, you seem to give the dissenters (arguably a very small minority) a lot of leeway - because they're a voice against the "establishment." I'm implying that because I think I've seen you allude to the importance of how small dissenting voices are important to sparking challenges to assumed norms.

 

[Joes Place]

My biggest beef with the "pro vaccine" side of the debate is that they say 1) vaccines are safe, and 2) the science is settled.

That's not true AT ALL.

And it is WHY there are still groups all over the globe who conduct studies like that Danish one, which lasted for 15 years, to obtain comprehensive and randomized results. NOT a "retrospective" analysis, a prospective one.

 

[Joes Place]

So is it unreasonable to ask for a reasonable, accurate, coherent cost benefit analysis of vaccines?

Completely reasonable. And it's been done. And the cost benefit to society is one of the largest cost benefits you'll find.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a4.htm

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/pubs/methods/index.html

If you bother to Google it, you can find many analyses on the topic, published in many Western countries by dozens of different institutions and different authors.

 

[naturalbornhawk]

Interesting perspective - I'm fascinated by it so a couple more questions.

1) Do you feel the lack of your version of a cost benefit analysis is such a critical point that - if you were king for a day - we should end all vaccine programs until the analysis is complete and proven out?

2) If so, what is your criteria for the cost benefit analysis to be deemed viable? And who would have to do it? That last question is particularly interesting to me because you seem to have a lot of distrust for the "establishment" scientists, studies, and organizations (arguably the vast majority) that would claim they've done and are doing these analysis already today. However, you seem to give the dissenters (arguably a very small minority) a lot of leeway - because they're a voice against the "establishment." I'm implying that because I think I've seen you allude to the importance of how small dissenting voices are important to sparking challenges to assumed norms.

Joe's response is a classic example of what I meant when I said in my post above "the answers I was given weren't really making sense", as I think you'll see below.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a4.htm

Benefits....*sigh*

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/pubs/methods/index.html

This publication's cost analysis is skewed heavily in favor of the cost of not vaccinating for "vaccine preventable" disease (imagine that). Right off the bat, again, if no inert placebos are used in the safety analyses, and the analyses last for around a week give or take for each vaccine, then how many negative health outcomes do you suppose they are missing in their costs? The list of diseases the IOM's report says they simply don't know if there is a causal relationship because there is insufficient data is a huge list, and autism is on it, btw, along with a laundry list of other diseases. Do you suppose those estimates made it into this c/b analysis? Uh no. Again the pre-marketing analyses and the post marketing surveillance (less than 1% reporting) is dismal to put it mildly. In addition, it does not appear that they took adverse reactions from all vaccines on the schedule into consideration. For IPV (Inactivated Polio Vaccine) they flat out admit that they assume zero serious side effects, which is contradictory to what the surveillance system is indicating (and I realize that just because it's in the VAERS doesn't mean for sure the vaccine caused it) but I'm not convinced zero is a good number either.

Our children are among the sickest in the world (over half has a chronic condition), infant mortality rates are the worst among civilized nations, 1/10 asthma, 1/36 ASD, (I could go on) with the best doctors, best technology, best health institutions this world has to offer, yet the most aggressive vaccine schedule in the world. If vaccines were causing at least some of this, then how would one know? Remember, both the pre-marketing safety analyses AND the post marketing surveillance are completely inadequate to capture negative outcomes, and remember the IOM says there isn't enough data to determine whether there is a causal relationship with vaccines.

Lots of assumptions here Joe, even the publication admits it in the small section they devoted to the adverse reaction end of it.

Now, if they'd just do the vaxxed / completely unvaxxed study using the VSD, the costs section could be completely and accurately filled in, end of story. They could end the "antivax" movement right now. They won't do it because....