@freemo
The problem is that insufficient studies have been done on the interactions between adjuvants.

Have any studies on the interactions between the aduvants in one vaccine with the antigens in another vaccine given in the same shot or at the same time EVER been done? If great effort is expended to insure the right adjuvant gets delivered with the right antigen, it follows that the same amount of effort needs to be expended studying the unintended "cross-contamination" between adjuvant-adjuvant and adjuvant-antigen combos.

You know what the largest segment of new vaccine doubters is? Physicians. They're the ones who actually see the fallout from this great human guinea pig laboratory.

All of the above is from the W.H.O. in their talks on the fact that vaccines need new marketing. THEY are the ones lamenting the complete lack of studies.

@sda @freemo sure, more studies could always be useful - but the effects of vaccines and their ingredients has been studied multiple times. It's easy for people, even smart people like physicians, to be tricked by confirmation bias, but actual studies have found negligible harm compared to the huge benefits.

@mewmew @freemo
So, you know drain cleaner A is safe. You know drain cleaner B is safe. Mix them together.

> but actual studies have found negligible harm compared to the huge benefits.

Institute of Medicine
... studies designed to examine the long-term effects of
cumulative number of vaccines or other aspects of the immunization schedule have not been conducted.

... existing research has not been designed to test the entire immunization schedule

No studies have compared the difference in health outcomes... between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children.

@sda @mewmew @freemo

> No studies have compared the difference in health outcomes... between entirely unimmunized populations of children and fully immunized children.

Well, we could compare child mortality rate with current children vs before the various vaccines were invented. I think we can imagine the results already.

@nerdman @mewmew @freemo

Yes, and everyone's imagination is different. The WHO is trying to devise actual science to convince people... doctors... that vaccination is better than not vaccination. They currently do not have any.

@sda @mewmew @freemo

So if your kid got bit by a rabid dog you wouldn't vaccinate them.
@sda @mewmew @freemo

It's not an idea. It's a question. I'm just retarded and put in the incorrect punctiation sign.
Follow

@nerdman @mewmew @freemo

Sorry. I'm behind the times. Rabies vax IS available for humans at high risk... but they don't do any good AFTER your kid is bitten.

@sda @mewmew @freemo

> Treatment after exposure can prevent the disease if given within 10 days. The rabies vaccine is 100% effective if given early, and still has a chance of success if delivery is delayed.

@nerdman @mewmew @freemo

You are correct.

"Vaccination after exposure is neither a treatment nor a cure for rabies; it can only prevent the development of rabies in a person if given before the virus reaches the brain."

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.