Yes let's just assume that modern vaccines are ONE HUNDRED FUCKING TIMES more deadly than vaccines that contained a live virus from fifty years ago.
Who is assuming that? As shown, for the united states, using rates from the last 10 years, vaccinating to 100% with
equal to a smallpox-level danger (at rate according to CDC) would be a net increase in deaths.
And at rates for 2014, at ~8x the number of measles cases as in recent years, it's STILL a net increase in deaths to vaccinate to 100% with a vaccine like the smallpox one.
(0.5 extra deaths from vaccine versus 0.05*8 = 0.4 fewer deaths from measles from wiping out all of the heightened expected number)
So no, even just being dead equal to the smallpox vaccine danger + even also assuming 800 cases a year instead of the more recent 100-150, vaccinating to 100% would seem non-optimal for the U.S. (it's possible that some number in between 91 and 100 is optimal though).
That being said, YES, it very well MIGHT also be
more deadly than estimates of the deadliness of a vaccine that contained live virus from 50 years ago, for all we know:
1) Those estimates might have been too low.
2) The live virus in question
was not smallpox, but vaccinia virus. Which is probably indeed
much less deadly pound for pound than measles virus. Yes, it was live and now measles isn't live, but is a more dangerous inactivated measles virus more or less deadly than a less dangerous live vaccinia virus? This is entirely unclear.
3) You don't know whether most of the deaths back then were because of the antigen or the adjuvants, or a combination thereof, or preservative, or a combination of all three, or.... blah blah blah. If you don't know what part of the mixture or what mixture is deadly to begin with, you have no reason to assume that a different ratio mixture of the same stuff is less deadly now. For example, if the adjuvants are actually the main problem, then current vaccines use more of them and could indeed be more harmful than the old ones that had less adjuvant (and fewer kinds) and more antigen.
4) "Oh but they're had 50 years to figure that out" Yes, and have they used that time? Can you actually find any research on vaccine adjuvants (and their combos) versus placebo? I've never seen any. (looking at immune reactions/allergies, not cancer treatment which also aren't usually the same adjuvants anyway) If so, how many participants? Which combos?
I mean we did trials certainly ONE trial should have found a co-relation between using a vaccine and you just dropping dead on the spot.
1) Nobody said anything about "right on the spot."
2) No, a trial with 2,000 people in it is actually far more likely than not to
not reveal one single case of death if the rate is at, say 1/10,000 even.
3) Even if a trial does reveal a single case of death almost immediately after (which has indeed happened -- in fact it happens surprisingly often if you actually go read trials), unless they have an autopsy or something that 100% verifies it was vaccine, they generally don't treat it as a case basis, but instead would report it as statistically insignificant given the power of the study, and the trial would pass. (I don't disagree with this analysis decision, by the way -- I only disagree with the number of participants they are allowed to get away with running)
4) There ARE additionally many many many more cases reported to VAERS every year about people dropping dead almost right on the spot after getting vaccines. I quoted several of them a couple of pages back. Go back and look at them. Are they from vaccines? Maybe maybe not. The world is not so simple that you can just look at a case and say "Oh yup, clearly vaccines" or not usually. The people who are most vulnerable to reactions are going to be people who are already sick with other things that make it unclear what they died of, for example. Also infants, who can't tell you what theyre feeling, or who you might just find dead in their crib hours later? Vaccine respiratory problems? Or just unrelated SIDS from... whatever causes SIDS? Impossible to say in an individual case. Or somebody dies of "sepsis" -- was it actual sepsis from an infection from something they ate or whatever? Or was is a blood reaction to vaccine? Unclear. That's why you need
statistics, combined with enough participants in order to detect MANY cases above the average rate in order at a significant ratio, without having to actually argue over every individual situation. If you're looking for, say,a 1/10,000 rate, you need to run many tens of thousands of participants in trials for this reason. We haven't even done that, and what we need to look for is even smaller than 1/10,000.
By the way, we should ban cheese
1) I don't recall ever saying once in this entire thread that anybody should ban vaccines.2) I'm not aware of any laws that mandate you eat cheese in order to be allowed to attend public school.
3) Do you have a citation from the CDC citing a rate of 1.1 deaths per million people eating cheese in the 1960s that we need to consider whether or not we have improved on since then? Do you have a cheese reporting system with dozens of vague, plausible cheese-related deaths reported every year and estimates from the CDC that >10x as many would be reported with full participation? Do you have admissions from cheese manufacturers that their products may cause deaths?
4) Cheese has an entirely different and vastly more complicated benefits side to the equation. So even if it does kill a bunch of people, how are you quantifying whether its benefits outweigh that or not?
Author
Topic: Vaccine risks vs. benefits, a thorough mathematical consideration (Read 35901 times)