Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dragonwriter 2173 days ago
> Do you believe that the vaccines contain mercury and aluminum and that those metals are causing problems in people who take that vaccines?

That’s a lot to unpack.

Yes, vaccines have very low concentration of compounds of those metals.

Yes, those metals at the concentrations in vaccines can cause minor side effects, though there is no evidence of serious side effects.

But, more to the point, vaccines more broadly than those ingredients occasionally cause serious injury. This is a rare but known risk.

> I not allowed to sue about that

It is true that one cannot sue in the US over vaccine injuries but presented alone in this context that is misleading to the point of dishonesty, since there is an alternative compensation program (one where, unlike with regular court where if you win you are still out legal costs without extra proof of particular egregious conduct, you can be awarded costs and fees even if you aren't eligible for compensation for actual harms.)

https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html

That's because the “medical establishment” doesn't view vaccines as perfectly safe, but instead that they are viewed as being safe in the same sense as other prescription medicines but, further, than the public health establishment—the relevant part of the government—feels there is sufficient public health benefit from vaccination that even harms which would not compensable for other approved drugs are compensable on a no-fault basis for vaccines, to encourage their use.

> and no one in the medical establishment would acknowledge that the only cause of my daughters sickness could have been the vaccines.

If no experts would agree with your claims of causation, then allowing you to sue would just be allowing you to incur a bunch of costs to no end. A more likely explanation for no experts agreeing that the one thing you've focussed on as the cause being the cause is that there is not evidence for the claim of causation.

> There is propaganda about vaccines being harmless

There may be somewhere, but it's not coming from the “medical establishment” or the government, both of which acknowledge that there are both the common minor and less common severe harms from vaccines.

2 comments

>Yes, those metals at the concentrations in vaccines can cause minor side effects, though there is no evidence of serious side effects.

How about this to ensure safety: demonstrate that they are safe at say 100 times the amount used in vaccines. Has this been done? No, is what I understand. ( if you do find a study to that effect please put it here or email me).If that can be demonstrated then we can be reasonably sure that 1/100 the massive dose will be relatively harmless.

The way it is normally put : that is no evidence of serious side effects is disingenuous. It's the other way round, it has to be demonstrated that it has no serious side effects.

>> There is propaganda about vaccines being harmless

> There may be somewhere, but it's not coming from the “medical establishment” or the government, both of which acknowledge that there are both the common minor and less common severe harms from vaccines.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

"Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism"

The CDC does not know if vaccines cause autism, they only know (assuming they are telling us everything they know) that a causative relationship has not found.

This is just one example of vaccine related propaganda that is asserted by authoritative bodies.

EDIT: Moving a conversation from the abstract to the concrete seems to be a reliable way to invoke this behaviour in many individuals, even in a thread devoted to the very topic. Surely there must be a name for this phenomenon, it would be interesting to read studies on it.

> The CDC does not know if vaccines cause autism, they only know (assuming they are telling us everything they know) that a causative relationship has not found.

No, they also no that the controlled-for-other-factors correlation that would indicate the possibility of causation has not been found outside of research that has been established as deliberately fraudulent.

And they know that there has been extensive research into the question because of the popularity of the fraudulent research cited for the opposite conclusion.

If there is a mechanism by which vaccines cause autism in some specific cases, they must also prevent autism that would otherwise manifest in other cases enough to mask the effect in aggregate.

In any case, the evidence-based rejection that vaccines cause a specific harm is not equivalent to propaganda that they are harmless.

The existence of the compensation program is an explicit acknowledgement that they are not harmless, as well as an easier route to compensation for games than exists for most drugs.

Let's try and unmuddy the waters here a bit....

"Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism"

Are you saying that this assertion is unequivocally known to be true? No uncertainty or possibility of future conflicting discoveries whatsoever?

> In any case, the evidence-based rejection that vaccines cause a specific harm is not equivalent to propaganda that they are harmless. The existence of the compensation program is an explicit acknowledgement that they are not harmless, as well as an easier route to compensation for games than exists for most drugs.

Scope expansion is an effective form of rhetoric (which some people classify as a form of propaganda in itself). Not saying this was intentional on your part, I tend to believe it is simply an innate/instinctual ability (System 1, in Thinking Fast and Slow parlance) of the subconscious. I am surely guilty of the same thing at times.

Also: how did you come to know what everyone working for the CDC knows?