How about polio, diphtheria, small pox, etc.?
I was referring to Polio. Since we are talking about that, it is funny this little problem is okay to discuss if this is the source,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40, but not okay to discuss if this is:
https://www.naturalnews.com/032854_sv40_polio_vaccines.html. The first link also links the nearly 3 dozen peer reviewed sources in the article, the latter has colorful ads in the margins which means someone is making a living off it. Just like Fox News does every 5-7 minutes with colorful ads.
Regardless, while the conclusions of the early studies were that some of the Polio vaccines may have had a carcinogenic virus along for the ride
http://www.sv40foundation.org/CPV-link.html, most of us didn't get Polio, although a couple of my classmates in school had had the virus and suffered its effects (and were handicapped as a result).
Most of the problem from vaccines doesn't come from the actual primary antigenic agent, but appear to stem from
squalene (an adjuvant added to retain efficacy and allow more doses to be made from the same amount of viral material), and the preservatives used (like
Thiomersol , better known under its trade name "Merthiolate", the mercury bearing orange stuff mommy used to paint your boo-boos with if she didn't use Tincture of Iodine or Hydrogen Peroxide for an antiseptic). There are people who attribute the squalene in vaccines for everything from the rise of peanut allergies to Gulf War Syndrome And it's okay if some one cites a source like
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/adjuvants.html, but is "kook nutjob" if you find it here:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/08/04/Squalene-The-Swine-Flu-Vaccines-Dirty-Little-Secret-Exposed.aspxNow, I'll be the first to point out that the colorful sites with the ads in the borders tend to over hype things. Often enough, the conclusions they present aren't completely, or at times, at all supported by the data and sources they cite, and at times the research material on issues is conflicted. Maybe that depends on who funded the study, maybe (and I would hope) not. With the AGW/Global Warming/Climate change bunch, scientific credibility has taken a black eye, and as a scientist, I resent that diminution of my profession by charlatans so I really don't have a problem with wiping the board clear of them.
But, as a scientist I have a problem with labeling something "Kook" or "nutcase", which is not only intellectually lazy, but fails to so much as consider any evidence. If that evidence or the conclusions drawn from it are flawed, that should be demonstrable, and the flawed theories can be discarded, in a reasonable fashion. If not, we can delve deeper, but either way, let's do so with rational arguments rather than emotionalized labels. We can keep in mind that some sites tend to be more hype than truth, but even the most egregious lies have some element of truth in them. If not, that should be evident, too.
As for vaccines, yes some of them have been so effective as to be game changers. Some of those same vaccines have proven lethal in individual cases, and that continues to occur. There is a number of persons who will have adverse reactions to the squalene or other adjuvant present, even fatal reactions. There are people who will have little reaction to the vaccine, and it will have no effect in increasing their immunity either. We're dealing with a population at that level, and it's all statistical. However, jut because every other kid in the room can take penicillin and find it beneficial, doesn't mean MY kid can take it and not have a potentially lethal anaphylactic reaction. Because different people react differently, and the individual is more likely to rely on personal experience than a statistical mean, and more likely to function as an individual rather than the statistical mean, the decision should lie with the individual.
