Reply #237: Yep, because what he said in that regard was pertinent. [View All]

[trotsky]

WHAT SIGNIFICANT RESEARCH?! There aint any! Dr. Hurwitz and several other noted scientists have indicated that.

I think you totally misunderstood my point. It is that if vaccines were truly as dangerous as you fear, there WOULD BE the research to show that. The U.S. drug companies can't have everyone in their pockets, can they? Or, perhaps you could state for the record: is every research paper in favor of vaccination due to bias? Is that what you believe?

Vaccine safety is not properly monitored, and it is effectively denied by anyone who questions it.

That's a remarkable blanket statement. I am amazed that a layperson like you feels qualified enough to make it. (And yet again, you completely fail to acknowledge the safety - by a factor of 5 to 10 - of the faulty rotavirus vaccine vs. catching and dying from rotavirus. That fact is just sitting there, glaring, and your omission of it speaks volumes.)

And it doesn't appear as though you've been able to show otherwise. Additionally there are many factors that contribute to lower disease rates. Death from disease was declining rapidly before the introduction of vaccines, and I have demonstrated that the data may be flawed. I have also noted that most of the diseases we vax against were fairly benign.

One area where you have me at a significant disadvantage is that we in the U.S. DON'T suffer from widespread disease as we did early in the 20th century. I don't have much real world data to show you how dangerous disease really is, because it's simply not there! Thank you, vaccination! Others have posted the risks, even from diseases you label "benign", of severe complications, yet you simply wave them off with your stuck-record arguments.

I think one of the most frustrating aspects of your argumentation style is that you keep shifting around as it suits your purpose. First all that matters is how the death rates from SOME diseases were falling due to better medical care. Then it's not the death rates (because the death RATES are lower for vaccination, even when adjusted by orders of magnitude in your favor, than they are for the diseases), but the number of deaths. Or, failing both of those, it becomes the "unknown" side effects of vaccines instead of the well-known side effects of disease. You start losing on one of those, you jump to the other. Around and around - aren't you dizzy?

And I'm afraid you missed the point of my Hurwitz quote. He clearly acknowledges the important role that vaccinations have played, and must continue to play, in promoting public health. Your own expert disagrees with you.