Science
Out of context: Reply #546
- Started
- Last post
- 1,010 Responses
- formed3
This vaccination discussion is a tad more complicated than just "for" or "against". That's like people saying you are 100% democrat or republican, or worse the infamous "if you aren't with us, you are against us".
I am in the "no absolutes" category and believe there is good and bad. Obviously, vaccinations have done wonders as have anti-biotics. But look at a-b's now, walk into a Kaiser waiting room and they have charts everywhere about how the overuse has created an epidemic. Until recently, that was witchcraft/conspiracy thinking.
Then there's the dollars. JNJ just created a ebola vaccine. That's great, but it also means crazy dollars (and their stock shot up when it was announced, which is nice, 'cause I own it ;-) ).
Point being, there is no altruistic vision being done at JNJ, it's about dollars. Flu vaccine had a 23% success rate last year. But the dollars made? Globally $24 billion.
There's also enough cases of horrible side effects. The H1N1 vaccine causing narcolepsy is a pretty large thing to overlook. As an autoimmune disease that is triggered by external events, that suggests other autoimmune problems could be triggered as well.
Like modern medicine vs. acupuncture, etc., there is a place for everything. Whenever there are billions to be made, there's questions to be raised.
Again, no absolutes.
- Agreed. On a case by case basis vaccines/drugs require the highest scrutiny otherwise you get disasters like Thalidomide. However, suggesting that 'Vaccines'...Morning_star
- ...are generically 'Bad' and the distribution is some government control conspiracy is just fantasy.Morning_star
- Not a suggestion. Just seeing more people getting damaged. I'm thinking its a quality issue. seems that they put garbage into the vaccines to get a higheryurimon
- immune response in tests for the fda, I'm sure most of the ingredients are not necessary, like aluminum or mercury. prob a dynamic between fda n big pharmayurimon