SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From the (boneheaded) editor: My apologies. I pooched this one in a way that is exceptional, even for me. I humbly beg your forgiveness. The line for torches is on the left, and pitchforks is on the right. Please, move on to the next story and don't waste any further time on this one.
Regards,
cmn32480
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I'm wearing PAMPERS!!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15 2016, @06:21PM
I did some Googling to find arguments against vaccinations and I will post some of the sites here. While I find most of these sites to be extreme and their arguments to be questionable and I think they should mostly be taken lightly I thought at least some counter arguments are worth mentioning since they are on topic.
Like the first or second link that comes up is the following
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/six-reasons-to-say-no-to-vaccination/ [thehealthyhomeeconomist.com]
#1 reason is kinda funny
"#1: Pharmaceutical Companies Can’t Be Trusted"
Fair enough but I don't think that alone is reason against vaccination altogether. It's a very general statement that doesn't provide any specific data.
To move on I found this link that I found interesting.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/judge-lawsuit-against-mercks-mmr-vaccine-fraud-to-continue/ [healthimpactnews.com]
One part says
"a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled in favor of whistleblowers who have accused Merck of lying about the efficacy of its mumps vaccine ... This week, U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II ruled that the whistleblowers had sufficiently pled that Merck might have provided false statements to the government and that the direct purchasers had shown enough evidence to establish that these falsehoods could have helped the company gain a monopoly.
Most people in the U.S. do not even realize that U.S. law prevents anyone damaged by vaccines from suing the manufacturer. In 1986, Congress passed a law preventing legal liability to vaccine damages, because the drug companies manufacturing vaccines blackmailed them, by threatening to stop manufacturing vaccines without legal protection. There were so many lawsuits resulting from vaccine injuries and deaths prior to this time, that it was no longer profitable for them to continue marketing vaccines without legal protection."
OK, so there is a drug manufacturer that may have exaggerated the effects of a specific vaccine at one point to get approval. No surprise there. Drug manufacturers can't be trusted. Still no reason to say that all vaccinations are bad.
I would be interested in what sources they have to show that there were so many lawsuits and vaccination related deaths. But I find it interesting that vaccine manufacturers should be shielded from lawsuits if true (and that's not exactly how I understand it). So I tried reading more and it seems this claim is exaggerated (and some people have have discussed this here) so I found the Wikipedia article more informative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court [wikipedia.org]
Worth reading.
Yes, the system isn't perfect as no system is and some improvements could be made but I don't think it's as bad as these anti-vaccination sites make it out to be either.