Alright, I need some answers.

>>8678892
My only source is myself. I have some social anxiety and it's probably I've been vaccinated heavily my whole life.

>>8678892
What is your definition of safe?

I've been drinking water all my life and i'm autistic.

>>8678915
Doesn't cause any serious or mildly serious disorders or diseases. I ask because both sides bring up good points, yet I feel the citations on one of them is lacking and could have misleading or incorrect information. And, as mentioned before, their sources/references are shit. One of them had four references, all of which lead to other articles on the website.

>>8678922
Read scientific publications. PubMed is your friend, sci-hub too. There is more than enough evidence to support the thesis that vaccines are safe, antivaxxers are just a bunch of lunatics with no biological background (few exceptions, in my country there is one researcher treating rats with insane - afair 10^4x more than in vaccines - amounts of mercury ethide to show its toxicity on organism scale, results still dont show any negative impact. Forgot her name tho).

>>8678934
Alright,thanks for this information. Still, don't you think there are too many vaccines being used on children today? And that it might have a cumulative effect on a person's health?

Of course, I'll do my own research, it's just a question.

>>8679498
What we think literally doesn't matter for shit. How you feel doesn't matter for shit.

The only thing that matters is what the strict, physical evidence says.

Scientists and those in STEM fields are typically trained to think in this manner.

The fact is, no clear negative effects have been demonstrated. While research may continue, your best bet would be to find a subscription to a medical journal or watch arxiv for relevant publications, and put aside however you feel about it.

>>8679522
Alright. Sorry for using the word feel. I'll be sure to put more research into this, and finally come to my own conclusions. Again, I thank you.

>>8678892
>So /sci/, are vaccines safe

No, not if you're one of the people who die from them. It's amazing how people change their attitude about guy-made vaccine drugs when their kids die.

I had a flu "once" in my lifetime (30 years ago), but my closed-minded doctor thinks I should get "shot" [in the arm] (so my body stops producing necessary anti-bodies and my body gets "addicted to drugs").

Only place where more people are "saved" is in the catholic church: that does such a incredible job saving children from a rape-free childhood.

>>8678892
>I have read both sides of the debate.
There is no debate, OP. A bunch of idiots screaming things completely unsupported by science is not a debate.

The funny thing is even if vaccines had side effects they would still be preferable to the alternative, and by "the alternative" I mean "child mortality out of the goddamn roof".

Like, "vaccines harm my kids" isn't even an argument because the natural state of your kid is not '100% organic natural chemical free' but 'died in infancy from polio', and vaccines would have to be amazing at harming kids to beat literal fucking viruses at their own game.

File: autism.jpg (267KB, 1600x860px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1600x860px

>>8678892

>>8679905
This
and even if you could prove that 100% of autism cases are caused by vaccines, it'd be still considered a statistical side effect compared to the illnesses prevented in the whole population
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXWziRDVbjI

>>8678892
Look at the statistics of vaccination safety. You shouldn't need someone else's analysis to spell out whether or not vaccines are a benefit or not.

If you have had numerous vaccines and do not have some crippling disability, vaccines don't cause crippling disabilities. You can't possibly believe, with the shear wave of people vaccinating their kids, that there wouldnt also be a corresponding wave of autists.

File: 1487171003089.jpg (387KB, 2709x1844px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 2709x1844px

Here ya go, op, here's your answer

>>8679859
>not if you're one of the people who die from them.

Seriously? Who actually has that much of a beta immune system?

>>8680271
Memes aside, I like how they change up the timescale and use terms like 600% increase. Not disingenuous in the slightest.

>>8680278
r9k

>>8678892
That's because big gov and big pharma suppress the truth.

Vaccines are the biggest scam ever made.

>>8679948
>nih.gov

What do you know, the shills are pushing propaganda websites.

>>8680320
>PubMed
>propaganda websites
wat.

for whom exactly do you think i'm shilling? i didn't get that from your post. Pro or anti vacc?

>>8680326
big pharma.

They have more paid shills than anyone.

>>8680314
if the truth is suppressed how could you possibly know it?

>>8680329
Because some people are actually fighting to get the truth out.

It's risky, but some things are worth fighting for.

>>8680333
So where are these truthers? These well-intentioned freedom-fighters? Where is their evidence that vaccines are a scam?

We know that vaccines prevent disease. We know that not being vaccinated increases the risk of disease. These things are documented.
You know what's not documented? A causative relationship between vaccines and mental retardation. "My son got vaccinated and then later we found out he's retarded" is not evidence of a causal link, the same way that "my son ate a ham sandwich two weeks before lightning struck him" is not evidence of a causal link.

The fact that all the anti-vaxxers I know also believe in chemtrails, nefariously fluoridated water, and government mind control programs does not lend them any credence either.

>>8680352
>We know that vaccines prevent disease.
Wrong.

>We know that not being vaccinated increases the risk of disease.
Wrong.

>These things are documented.
Lie.

>The fact that all the anti-vaxxers I know also believe in chemtrails, nefariously fluoridated water, and government mind control programs does not lend them any credence either.

Can't shill for just one thing, can you?

>>8680361
So what was it that triggered you? Was it the chemtrails or the fluoride?

Vaccines do prevent disease. Their mechanism of action is very well understood, and that's why it's possible to collect data about vaccines. Vaccines have eliminated certain diseases in the west. These diseases still exist in other parts of the world. Is that not evidence of the feasibility of vaccines? Is that not documentation? Or is it all a lie? Is every single scientist conspiring against you, some chucklefuck shitposter on an anonymous messageboard? Or maybe, just maybe, are you wrong?

I wish I was being paid to call your ilk idiots; I'd make a lot of money.

>>8680352

it literally is a causal link

File: 1473222860775.jpg (127KB, 455x1028px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 455x1028px

>>8680385
so are these, to the uninitiated

where's the scientific paper where a doctor studied the effects of vaccination on a large sample of children? Oh wait, there isn't one. There's just a lot of blogs run by women who waited until they were 40 to conceive and now wonder why their son has a genetic defect. They blame vaccination for their troubles, and an evil conspiracy by the nebulous "BEEG FARMA" as to why there's no evidence supporting their unfounded accusation. And because the anti-vax community doesn't have a single biologist among them, they'll never be able to produce such a paper. And why's that? Is it because you're not allowed to become a biologist if you're against vaccines? Or is it because everyone who is a biologist understands how vaccines work and why they should be employed? That's the biggest fucking mystery of the century, isn't it?

If there really is a causal link, YOU could be the first person to prove it exists. Hit the books, anon. Get that degree. Get some church in the boonies to collect all the shekels from that backwater shithole town in your flyover state where you were unfortunate enough to be born, and then do a real study. Maybe while you're pursuing your righteous cause you'll stop being such a fucking moron.

>>8680377
your arguing with a right wing christian flat earther
who gets off on anti establishement propaganda

>All these claims
>Only one image "source" so far.

It's shit like this that made me start this thread. If someone is willing to post actual studies and source documents, that would be just fine.

>>8680385
correlation=/=causation and there's not even a correlation, just anectodes

File: 1456585852-20160227.png (171KB, 684x864px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 684x864px

>>8680417

vaccines cause autism via anti-vaxxer rhetoric! eureka!

>>8680412
just search for yourself you fag
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814559
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2908388/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379703001132

and here some background as to why this fucking conspiracy started /spoiler/some dude wanted to sell shit to idots and others jumped the bandwagon
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1345/aph.1Q318

>>8680426
>just search for yourself you fag
I have no problem searching for it myself. I am merely pointing out that no one put any sources in their posts to try and convince the other side (with the exception of this one). I feel that, in both scientific articles and this board, sources should be posted and they should be as close to the original information as possible, in order to prevent any bias from tainting it.