The science is settled on vaccines.
That's what they tell us.
What does that actually mean?
There once was a debate about whether the
small pox vaccine even prevented small pox.
The debate was raging so violently that the
vaccine inventor himself, Edward Jenner, switched
the formula from a cow pox source to another
disease called Horse grease.
But that killed his first patient, so he switched
back to the cow pox and said "the science
is settled, cow pox vaccine prevents small
pox."
I'm perfectly willing to accept that a cow
pox infection could prevent a small pox infection-
even though to my knowledge there has never
been another animal-associated virus used
to prevent a human virus (I'm sure someone
will correct me if I'm wrong), I could still
accept it as one of those freak accidents
of nature.
Molecular mimicry or something like it.
But the science being settled on that- never.
You can go to Wikipedia right now- look up
the Vaccinia virus and you will see all kinds
of phrases like "The most common notion is…",
and "Speculation is that…" and "Although
the issue remains contentious…"
Small pox and the vaccine that "Eradicated"
it, is full of all kinds of unsettled debates
that people argue about to this day.
Take a look at polio.
Why did it start paralyzing more people around
the 1800s.
It apparently lived in peace alongside humans
for hundreds, if not thousands of years, but
towards the beginning of the 1800s it started
to make its way into the spinal column of
humans.
You can read book after book on polio, and
believe me I've read most of them, and you
will not find a conclusive answer as to why
the poliovirus suddenly had great success
invading the spinal column.
You will find theories as to why poliovirus
infections increased, but you won't find anyone
mention why paralysis from these infections
seemed to increase.
I think I know why, and in fact am writing
a riveting tale about the true story of polio
right now, but the science on why polio started
to paralyze more and more people is not settled.
Even the efficacy of the vaccine itself WAS
and IS a hotly debated topic.
Read any account of public health officials
in the late 1950s and 1960s and you will see
there were grave concerns the polio vaccine
was causing more paralysis than it was preventing.
This is not crazy anti-vaxxer talk- it's there
for anyone to read (if you dare).
I'll try and remember to link to a very interesting
meeting of public health officials in 1960.
Does the flu shot work?
Sometimes?
Is the science settled on that?
The flu shot definitely, without a doubt,
cross my heart, works sometimes.
Always.
Seriously, what is the science on the flu
shot.
Settled?
I'd could go on and on like this for all the
different vaccines, for which they all have
science articles that give conflicting stories
as to their safety and efficacy.
One thing I've seen that recently that blows
me away is this chart of vaccine ingredients.
When it comes to vaccines and autism, this
is the one vaccine ingredient that has been
studied.
Out of 38 other vaccine ingredients, and I'm
sure there are others, this is the one that
the science is settled on.
Right.
Out of the 9 or 10 vaccines that children
are likely to receive 4,000 doses of, there
is one that has been studied for it's connection
to vaccines and autism.
Just one.
The science is settled for that vaccine, according
to public health officials.
As to the OTHER vaccines, and the OTHER ingredients,
the science is not settled.
In fact, we'd be LUCKY to have science that
was unsettled.
Because apparently, there's no science at
all.
And that's my incredible opinion.
