I, for one, am willing to analyze at least the first several claims of your “tome”… 10 seems like a nice round number. First there’s the vivisection thing, which is defined as performing surgery on animals (by opponents of surgery on animals). I’m not sure what vaccines have to do with surgery. As for the listicle…
- “Not one disease was ‘eradicated’ from vaccines. […] mortality rates […] were already on the decline even before the vaccines were introduced.”
Smallpox — variola minor and variola major — were both eradicated by vaccines. Rinderpest was also eradicated by vaccines. Polio has been eradicated in most countries and reduced to 22 cases in 2017 in the entire world.
Your second statement is plausible, but not relevant. Mortality rates don’t tell us anything about incidence rates. HIV mortality, for example, has also dropped dramatically, but that doesn’t mean fewer people have HIV or that an HIV vaccine would have no value. Come back when you have data on incidence rates from before each vaccine was invented and again after it was widely deployed (but you won’t, because that data surely shows the opposite of what you wanted.)
2. “Thanks to our country (USA) becoming more industrialized […] diseases rates and their mortality rate has decreased” Correct and irrelevant. Disease and mortality rates have also plummeted in poor/non-industrialized countries, much faster than the increase of industrialization in those countries. Could maybe vaccines and antibiotics explain that? Methinks yes.
3. “Toxins are in vaccines… [Aluminum, Thimerosal (50% Mercury), Formaldehyde]” With rare exceptions, thimerosal is no longer used in children’s vaccines in the United States. The other stuff appears only in trace amounts. Hey, my smoke detector contains radioactive material. Why am I not worried?
4. “Other ingredients consist of aborted fetal cells […]” I don’t care if this is true or not so I’ll skip the fact-check on it.
5. “Some of the ingredients in vaccines are known carcinogens.” Again, the radiation from my smoke detector isn’t going to give me cancer. It matters which substance and how much of it there is. Believers in homopathy even think that trace amounts of something actually cure whatever negative effects a large amount would cause — and yes, just as there are a small minority of studies compatible with anti-vaxxers’ opinions, there is a small minority of studies that are compatible with the idea of homeopathy as beneficial, versus the large body of scientific evidence that homeopathy is bullshit. We can see which small minority you side with, but that doesn’t make you right.
6. “Although we may potentially eat and/or inhale more formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum etc., this does not mean that it is safe.” Oh I see, you’re saying “Even though I still haven’t admitted that I’m talking about extremely tiny amounts of these substances, I know you’re going to bring up the ‘trace quantities’ argument so let me reject it preemptively by claiming that it doesn’t matter because the trace amount is being injected rather than eaten.” But no, you don’t get a blank check. You actually need some kind of evidence that scientists are wrong in saying vaccines are safe. Not only that, you need evidence that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits — which is laughable.
7. “by law, they are classified as unavoidably unsafe”. Um… what? Citation needed.
8. “Vaccines can and do cause a wide variety of different health issues in people…” I think you’ve fallen prey to The Affect Heuristic, a human cognitive bias (“The affect heuristic is how an overall feeling of goodness or badness contributes to many other judgments, whether it’s logical or not, whether you’re aware of it or not. Subjects told about the benefits of nuclear power are likely to rate it as having fewer risks; stock analysts rating unfamiliar stocks judge them as generally good or generally bad — low risk and high returns, or high risk and low returns — in defiance of ordinary economic theory, which says that risk and return should correlate positively.”) Since you think vaccines are bad, you’ll eagerly believe it causes a host of ailments with little or no evidence.
9. “Vaccines can and do cause death in people … SIDS” Says who?
9b. “the higher the vaccination rate is, the higher the infant mortality rate and vice-versa.” Oh, the Neil Z Miller study, huh? No one has corroborated those results, and there is reason to suspect that the correlation reverses when more countries are added, more years are added, when post-neonatal mortality is considered, when deaths with a known cause are excluded, when parental wealth and other factors are controlled for… etc.
10. “Vaccine manufactures are free of any legal liabilities from anyone” — False. This legal paper says that “A manufacturer who produces and sells a defective vaccine that creates a risk of significant injury to the recipient is liable to any person injured by that defect under the principles stated in section 402A of the Restatement of Torts. This is thought to be the law in every American jurisdiction”
So yeah, I’m planning to have a child soon and I will definitely vaccinate him or her.
P.S. Other web sites say your claims were written by Ariana Green, not Char V Padworny. But that’s how this nonsense circulates, copypaste after copypaste.
