richard_smith237

While I consider the existing body of scientific evidence as robust, I also agree with you that additional, rigorous assessments are necessary - albeit for different reasons. The growing influence of the anti-vaccine movement is (IMO) causing harm to public health, and this issue must be addressed. To combat this, it is essential that future studies be conducted with complete impartiality and transparency, ensuring that the findings are not only credible but also accessible to the public. By providing clear and unbiased data, we can counter misinformation and foster trust in vaccines, which are one of the most effective tools in safeguarding global health. But even if impartial and transparent studies were conducted, conclusively proving that vaccines are safe, would the anti-vaccination movement ever change their stance? Conversely, If it could be conclusively proven that vaccines were dangerous for even a tiny minority, would existing opinions, medical expertise, and even the stance of governments and big pharmaceutical companies change ? - I think they would. And... that’s where the fundamental divide lies.... On one side, there are those whose beliefs are driven by deeply held ideologies or misinformation, and no matter how much evidence is presented, their stance remains unwavering. Their resistance to change often stems from a complex mix of emotional, social, and cognitive factors, with the spread of misinformation exacerbated by social media amplifying their views. On the other side, you have those committed to public health and scientific integrity - healthcare professionals, governments, and regulatory bodies. These entities are bound by a duty to protect the public, and their stance is not rooted in ideology but in evidence and data. If credible, irrefutable evidence were presented showing vaccines to be harmful, this side would have to adapt, recalibrate, and even shift public health strategies, as they are grounded in the evolving understanding of science. Yes, the reason lies primarily with social media. Too many laypeople have the platform to spread alarmist misinformation far and wide, often without fully understanding the science behind the claims. Many people, swayed by persuasive arguments and partial truths, fail to critically assess the information they encounter. This unchecked flow of misleading content spreads rapidly, shaping opinions based on incomplete or distorted facts, rather than on the solid evidence.

You can buy on BitKub - which is a Thai exchange. If you wish you can transfer your crypto from BitKub to Kraken..... Or better still, transfer your 'keys' to a Cold Wallet such as Ledger, where its safer to be kept... ... and from there transfer to any exchange when you wish to make a transaction.

Oh I don't know... Give the 'Butter Churner' or the 'Sultry Hill' a go...

I completely agree with this. VAERS serves as an initial "flag" to identify potential patterns that may justify further investigation. However, any subsequent inquiry must be impartial and robust, avoiding the pitfall of using VAERS data as the sole basis for conclusions. It is essential that the investigation be independent of the biases inherent in the VAERS system itself.

I've seen that article before, and have heard of Neil Z. Miller too. He's a known anti-vaxxer, not exactly someone I'd call impartial. That said, the article itself makes some strong points. Here’s what Miller claims: Temporal Clustering: He looked at 2,605 infant deaths reported to VAERS between 1990 and 2019, and found that 58% of them happened within three days of vaccination, and 78.3% within seven days. Statistically significant (p < 0.00001) — no denying that. Literature Review: Miller pulls in a number of studies and case reports suggesting a possible link between vaccines and sudden unexplained infant deaths. Proposed Mechanisms: He throws out a few possible biological explanations — like inflammatory cytokines messing with the infant medulla, adjuvants crossing the blood-brain barrier and affecting respiratory control, and the idea that giving multiple vaccines at once could cause synergistic toxicity. BUT... While the study raises some interesting points, there are some major issues that undermine its conclusions... I'll list those below.. Nature of VAERS Data: Passive System: VAERS is passive - it relies on people voluntarily reporting events. That means underreporting, over-reporting, and a lot of noise in the data. No Causality: Just because an event is reported to VAERS doesn’t mean the vaccine caused it. It just means the two happened around the same time. Temporal Association ≠ Causation: Just because deaths happened shortly after vaccination doesn’t prove the vaccine was to blame. Babies get a lot of vaccines in their first few months - which also happens to be the peak window for SIDS. So you get an overlap that looks suspicious, but it doesn’t automatically mean one caused the other. No Control Group: There’s no comparison between vaccinated and unvaccinated babies in Miller’s study. Without that, you can’t really say if the rates he’s pointing at are unusual at all. For context: From 1990 to 2019, there were about 130,000 SIDS deaths in the US. Only 2,605 were reported in VAERS. So the data’s incomplete - though, to be fair, it’s all they’ve got to work with. Author Bias: Miller’s reputation as an anti-vaccine activist isn’t exactly a secret. His past work has been rightly criticised for cherry-picking and bias, and that definitely colours this study too. Selective Literature Review: He mainly cites studies that support his theory and conveniently ignores the mountain of research that supports vaccine safety. That’s not how honest science is done. Speculative Mechanisms: Sure, the biological mechanisms he proposes are theoretically possible. But there's no direct, solid evidence linking those mechanisms to vaccine-related sudden infant death. Now, stepping back a little... Extensive research absolutely supports the safety of infant vaccines - and it pretty much dismantles Miller’s arguments: Epidemiological Studies: Massive studies, like one published in The Journal of Pediatrics, found no increased risk of SIDS after immunisation. Public Health Data: Since widespread infant vaccination programmes started, SIDS rates have actually dropped in many countries - not gone up. Regulatory Oversight: Organisations like the CDC and WHO keep a constant watch on vaccine safety — and they haven’t found any causal link between vaccines and SIDS. --------------- I want to add a little about the flaws in Miller's work... Misuse of VAERS Data: He leans on VAERS reports to push vaccine scare stories, despite the fact that VAERS is a messy, unverified data set that can’t establish causality. Experts constantly warn against using VAERS this way - it’s straight up misleading. Ecological Fallacies: In stuff like his 2011 paper (co-authored with Gary Goldman), Miller claims that more vaccines = higher infant mortality across countries. But critics have pointed out (correctly) that these kinds of studies are riddled with confounding factors and can't actually prove anything. David Gorski, a surgical oncologist and fierce critic of pseudoscience, has labeled these conclusions as "bad science" that misrepresents data to promote anti-vaccine narratives. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-and-infant-mortality-rates-a-false-relationship-promoted-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement-again-12-years-later Lack of Peer Review: A lot of Miller's papers are published in sketchy journals with minimal (or nonexistent) peer review - like Medical Veritas. That alone should raise big red flags about the scientific quality of his work. Confirmation Bias: In his books like Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, he only highlights studies that support his anti-vaccine stance and ignores the much larger body of evidence showing that vaccines are safe and effective - its not an impartial study by any means. ------------ Thus: While the article presents data indicating a temporal association between infant vaccinations and sudden deaths, it does not establish a causal relationship. The reliance on passive reporting data, absence of control groups, potential author bias, and selective literature review limit the study's validity.... and thats just what I can pick out from the paper. Experts would tear it a apart !

You counted? As of 2025 - there are 26.66 Million stinging little critters in Australia...

Which is it ?? am I cutting and pasting from Google, or I am an AI bot ??? Such stupid comments.

Go ahead - post the proof of 'my cut and paste'...

You received a COVID vaccination specifically designed to minimise the impact of infection. You caught COVID, suffered no serious effects - and somehow you argue the vaccine "did nothing" for you. In reality, your experience is a textbook example of a successful vaccination: it did exactly what it was meant to do, and you're living proof of it. The smallpox vaccination is no longer routinely given to the general public because smallpox was declared eradicated by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1980... ... All of that is thanks to successful vaccination campaigns worldwide...

Survivor fallacy - surely, by now even you must grasp the fundamental flaw in the tired "I'm still here" argument, no? Do you wear a seatbelt? No? Why bother - after all, you're still here, even if you've never had a major accident, right? (I hope that clears up the flaw in your thinking.) Apply the same logic to riding without a helmet... and now, apply it to your anti-vaccination argument. Survival without incident doesn't invalidate the protective value of prevention - it merely proves you were lucky, not wise. The Polio and Tetanus vaccines stand as strong examples of why you are still here today. Before vaccination, polio crippled and killed thousands every year, and tetanus turned even minor injuries into near-certain death sentences - its likely you avoided that through due to vaccination of you and everyone around you. As for your refusal to take the smallpox vaccine - it's meaningless throwaway point. By the time you had the luxury of declining, smallpox had already been eradicated through the collective action of those who were vaccinated long before you ever had the chance to freeload and claim some intellectual choice !! Did the two COVID vaccines somehow harm you? Have they devastated your health in some mysterious, unspoken way? Or are you now claiming to be a living example of "post-vaccination autism"?

I guess their intelligence is just a little below yours ? 55555555555555 It was intellectual mediocrity such as yours that I had in mind when drafting my comment... Ironically, you were the one to take such a comment personally !!!

Thats your only angle - another comment of yours so readily debunked... If you lack the eloquence to articulate an effective argument you could look back and either blame your education, your lack of learning ability, or simple lack of intellect... reading your comments, I'd blame all three.

The truth strikes and you use "Artificial Intelligence" to counter say it ain't true. You're clinging to this tired "AI" accusation - feel free to run my comments through every AI checker you can find; it won't change a thing. As I said before, and it's even more accurate now: "The truth strikes, and you have no intelligent response." Your inability to engage with substance speaks loudly enough - you don't have the tools to debate this intelligently. You misrepresented 'it' as something it was not, and now part of your anti-vax argument clings desperately to the idea of something a research group merely considered. Your relentless doubling down on a broken and readily debunked argument only serves to highlight the fundamentally broken thinking that underpins it.

In the interests of balance, does he also give a voice to those whose lives have been saved by vaccines? Of course, that’s harder to showcase — it’s impossible to know whether you, I, or anyone else was personally saved. Yet statistical modelling makes it clear: without vaccines, nearly half of us wouldn't even be here to argue about it. The correct emotional response is, of course, empathy toward any suffering. Thus, while compassion is essential, the wellbeing of the greater whole must take precedence over the rare misfortunes of a few. In the grand scheme, vaccines have dramatically reduced human suffering rather than caused it. Though big-picture thinking must never lose sight of individual hardship, the overwhelming body of evidence makes clear that those adversely affected remain an extreme minority.

Yes reads to me like an AI generated flowery word fest thanks. The truth strikes and you have no intelligent response, when your focus shifts to attacking how something is said, rather than what is said, it usually means the truth hit a little too close for comfort - your comment and lack of intelligent response highlights the weakness in your argument and the strength in mine. As always, anti-vaccination arguments are laughably easy to dismantle - and predictably, the only defence is a half-witted tantrum or some absurd claim that we’ve somehow failed to "open our minds" to the real science, meaning YouTube gurus and anecdotal rants that collapse the moment they’re held up against decades of peer-reviewed evidence and undeniable statistical reality.