kwilco

probably more a reflection of the Thai healthcare industry - which is a totally different tangent. Too many people have blind faith in healthcare in Thailand and often don't realise when they get bad advice.

...and what conclusion do you get from this ?

Yet another example of misuse of Google! "So you play Russian roulette every day and think you're invincible because the gun hasn’t fired yet? That’s not science, that’s luck and bad logic. Tetanus is rare because of widespread vaccination and basic hygiene — not because it's harmless. You're not proof it's safe; you're just one of the lucky ones… so far."

looks like a pretty good example of a poor assessment of sources I was talking about earlier.

The level of arguments on this and other vaccine threads is appalling - so many arguments just fall apart. You’ll just see arguments with no foundation in reason or logic….. Quoting fake experts or assuming a qualification makes someone always right Using anecdotes and “I heard…” stories as if they’re solid evidence Attacking the person, not the argument (classic ad hominem) Misunderstanding science: “It’s just a theory” shows ignorance, not insight No grasp of how logic, evidence, or proper opinions work Cherry-picking info and misusing studies Thinking Google = research (it’s just a tool, not a source) If you want real debate, you need real standards. Not all opinions are equal — you need facts, logic, and critical thinking matter. Raise the bar — or stay in the comment section swamp.

deflection - don't be silly.

So… mRNA vaccines aren’t “real” vaccines because science moved on from the 1950s? And they’re secretly gene therapy because someone on YouTube said so? No, mRNA doesn’t edit your DNA. No, the FDA didn’t “hide” data for 70 years — it just takes time to process half a million pages. And no, VAERS isn’t proof of mass death; it’s a public report system, not a death registry. Calling it “my opinion” doesn’t make made-up stuff true. Facts still matter — even if Google, doctors, and actual scientists are inconvenient to your worldview. But hey, good luck curing viruses with vibes and vitamin D.

Old vaccines were fine — it’s just the new ones I don’t trust! - ???? This argument falls apart fast. Why? Because the principles behind vaccines haven’t changed: Safely train your immune system Build immunity before infection Prevent serious illness and the spread of it The only thing that’s changed is the technology — and that’s a useful thing. mRNA vaccines don’t replace your immunities. They teach it the same way older vaccines do, just more precisely and without using live or inactivated virus. Saying “I trust old vaccines, but not new ones” is like saying you trust horse-drawn carriages but not seat belts — it’s not logical, it’s just fear of the unfamiliar. Science evolves. That’s how we beat diseases faster and safer.

"Solidify" is not the word I'd use to thinking but like anything, you can't do it without the right tools.....and there are certainly some right tools on this thread

kind of shows why you aren't really fit to argue if you think comments like that have any value

For those of you who can't read for any reason here is a TED Talks vidoe by Ben Goldacre I should also add that if you have never heard of or watched TED talks - you shouldn't be commenting on any threads about science or health

By going through tertiary education, you learn how to educate yourself - this includes the skills of research and critical thinking - unfortunately you show all the signs of someone who can't do these things - and furthermore don't realise that either. You are the sort of person who under "qualifications" puts "University of life" - When people say they went to the "University of Life" as a way to dismiss formal education, they're usually revealing more than they intend. We've all been to the "University of Life" — it's called being alive. But that doesn’t replace structured learning, critical thinking, or expertise gained through formal education. Ironically, those who boast about their street smarts while rejecting academic knowledge often fall squarely into the Dunning–Kruger effect — overestimating their competence because they lack the very skills needed to recognize their own limitations.

There is a limit - endlessly refuting the rubbish you post is very tiresome. I think if you are going to enter a discussion you should have some knowledge of the topic - and this also involves how to cite references and critical thinking - you never went to tertiary education did you?

yes - read the book! I wasn't addressing you in particular - the problem is that inside every conspiracy theory is a germ of truth.... in this case they hear about the pharmacy industry which has a lot of problems, give it a soundbite nickname and then try and attach all their cockamamie to it. THe logic is indefensible. There is a lot written on this and Goldacre's book is the "gold standard" for getting the message across accurately to the general public book of the year for tboth Times and Independant and It reached the Top 10 bestseller list for Amazon Books. The book was also shortlisted for the 2009 Samuel Johnson Prize

Is available in Thailand try the name Venetoclax.

Many participants in this discussion seem to struggle with understanding the wealth of genuine, peer-reviewed medical research on this topic. Instead, the conversation often gets clouded by paranoia, catchy soundbites, and cognitive biases rather than clear facts. What’s more, there appears to be a lack of even the basic tools needed to grasp an accurate overview of the issues involved. It’s clear that very few have ventured beyond headlines and simplified snippets, which only adds to confusion. That’s why I strongly encourage everyone to push past any hesitation about tackling complex material and read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (ISBN 978-0-00-728487-0). This book offers a clear, engaging, and well-informed guide to understanding how science really works — and how to spot misinformation in health and medicine. If you want to join this conversation from a place of knowledge rather than guesswork, Bad Science is a perfect place to start. Ben Goldacre—a doctor with a dry wit and a sharp scalpel, takes apart the nonsense we’re sold in the name of health. Bad Science exposes bogus claims from homeopaths, detox peddlers, nutrition “gurus,” and snake oil salesmen. But he doesn’t stop there. Goldacre also tears into Big Pharma, showing how drug companies can be just as guilty—burying negative trial results, distorting evidence, and gaming the system to boost profits. He argues that bad science isn’t just an alt-med problem—it’s systemic, and the only cure is transparency, proper trials, and public understanding of how science really works. Importantly, he rejects the flawed logic that says “because Big Pharma behaves badly, all mainstream medicine—including vaccines—must be fraudulent.” That’s not skepticism, he argues, it’s just bad reasoning. What you’ll find out is why homeopathy, detox, and miracle cures are a scam. How pharma firms distort clinical evidence. Why evidence-based medicine matters. How the media helps spread bad science. How to think critically and spot scientific BS – very little of this is shown on this thread If you care about real health, not hype, Bad Science is essential reading.

you quite simply don't understand your own quotes -

You really don't understand the issues with "big Pharma" - you should read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre

Sdly you don't actually know what the "immune system" is - it's not some"thing" that gets damaged at all... “The immune system doesn’t need vaccines” sounds clever — until you actually understand what the immune system is. It’s not some magical shield that always works perfectly. It’s a massive, messy system of cells, proteins, and organs constantly reacting to threats. Sometimes it wins. Sometimes it overreacts. Sometimes it fails completely — that’s how people die of infections. Vaccines don’t “replace” your immune system — they train parts of it. They safely teach your immune memory how to recognize real threats before they strike. Saying “we don’t need vaccines because we have an immune system” is like saying you don’t need a seatbelt because your reflexes are good. Great — until they aren’t. Your immune system is amazing. Vaccines just give it a head start.

so how wold you treat a dog bite? Rabies vaccine or how abpout tetanus? - After an accident, the primary injection administered is typically a tetanus shot (or booster) if the individual's vaccination status is not up-to-date. For very dirty wounds, or if the individual is at high risk for tetanus, they may also receive tetanus immunoglobulin (HTIG or HNIG), which provides immediate protection

Hardly! Not with This Level of Pseudoscience Let’s be honest: what Red Phoenix and Stillwagon are pushing isn’t a “discussion” — it’s an ideological rant dressed up as science. Claiming that no vaccine can ever be safe is not science — it’s dogma. Dr. Stillwagon (a chiropractor, not an immunologist) offers zero evidence, just sweeping claims and recycled anti-vaccine talking points. His idea that “natural infection is better” has already been debunked countless times — especially when it comes to diseases that kill, cripple, or burden society. Stiddle Mump says we should "question the MSM" and make better “medical choices.” Let’s unpack that: What is the "MSM line"? That polio was worth eliminating? That measles vaccines work? What exactly are these "better choices"? Vitamin D and vibes? This isn’t critical thinking. It's a conspiracy echo chamber pretending to be a debate. Want a real discussion? Then cite real evidence. Engage with real science. And stop pretending that contrarian YouTube videos are research. Vaccines aren't perfect — nothing in medicine is — but they're one of the most life-saving tools humanity has ever developed. If you want to reject them, fine. But don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by pretending this is some brave new truth being uncovered.

Worth remembering: if we’re going to quote chiropractors like Kevin Stillwagon on vaccine science, we should also know who the real experts are. Take Dr. Stanley Plotkin, for example— He’s the actual doctor who developed the rubella vaccine (used in the MMR), helped create vaccines for rabies, rotavirus, and more, and literally wrote the global reference textbook, Plotkin’s Vaccines. He’s advised the CDC, WHO, and major vaccine makers for decades. No conspiracy, no politics—just science that has saved millions of lives. Plotkin’s lifetime of peer-reviewed work stands in stark contrast to fear-based claims from non-experts with ideological agendas. When it comes to science pretence of some on this thread just doesn't work...

I guess it was only a matter of time - You've shot yourself in the foot!! The main thing your post does is show how limited your understanding is of the article and how true science works – however it also demonstrates how some anti-vaccine activists are now wildly misrepresenting this recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Stanley Plotkin — one of the world’s most respected vaccinologists — claiming he has “admitted” vaccines were never properly tested. This is completely false. What the article actually says is that vaccine safety studies are already extensive — but could always be improved, especially post-licensure, with better funding and coordination. That’s a call for more investment in science, not an admission of failure. Vaccines are among the most thoroughly studied medical products in existence. That’s why, globally, they’ve saved hundreds of millions of lives. Claims that Plotkin “capitulated” or confessed to wrongdoing are pure propaganda — a cynical attempt to twist nuance into conspiracy. The article doesn’t say vaccines are unsafe; it says we can always do better, and we should. Read the article for yourself: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2402379 Science evolves. Honest scientists seek improvement — not denial.

OP - what do you think you will achieve?