Surely that is not the debate. (for most vaccines)
The debate is about how prevalent vaccine damage is from these vaccines.
We both accept there will be collateral damage, Pharma need to be truthful about the extent of it.
Which brings back to the film Vaxxed and the CDC whistleblower. Why won't they put him on trial for his lies or investigate his claims? And surely giving him a research fund of many million of dollars out of blue and only a few months after describing him as mentally ill seems a bit odd?
You can see how the Pharma industry does not help itself.
Pharma are presenting their studies. Surely those studies show the prevalence of vaccine damage. How those findings are interpreted is up for discussion, but the discussion here has been far from fruitful: (summarizing just a couple of the rotavirus discussions)
-When the pharma study shows an overall mortality rate of around 0.2% in the experimental group you claim that there's a accepted mortality rate from the vaccine of 0.2%. Which would mean that all kids that died in the 30.000+ sized experimental group died of the vaccine. Which is ridiculous.
-The pharma study concluded, based on a statistical analysis that is widely use in medical science and other branches of science, that the difference between the experimental and placebo groups in mortality rate wasn't statistically significant. Meaning that it's likely due to normal variance. You concluded that the difference was because of the vaccine and that the vaccine killed kids. This is an interpretation of the data that would topple science as we know it if it was valid. Significance testing as used here is instrumental in much of science, but you of course know better than most scientists on how to use statistical significance testing.
-When the pharma company study shows the efficacy of a vaccine to be around 85% with a less than one in one thousand statistical chance of the demonstrated efficacy being due to chance you concluded that they can only know it has a better than 50/50 chance of working. Again related to statistical significance testing, again, instrumental in much of science. For your conclusion to be true it would invalidate science in most fields.
-When placebo controlled double blind studies are published by Pharma companies you will claim that vaccines are not tested in the same way as drugs because they didn't use sugar pills as their placebo. Despite "sugar pills" just being a common short hand for placebo and non-sugar-pill placebos being fairly common in placebo controlled double blind studies. Not actually a real standard placebo controlled studies have to live up to.
After making these utterly inflammatory claims. About areas you haven't studied, against the judgment of the peer-reviewed published experts you quote mine, with the confidence of a 12 year old boy claiming to know what a tit feels like. You go on to blame the pharma industry for being polarizing... It's baffling. These are peer reviewed articles in serious scientific journals. They wouldn't allow the authors to make basic mistakes in the interpretation of a basic issue like significance testing.
I've said it before, I'll repeat it. Think of a topic where you're actually something of an expert. Think of something you know a lot about. And imagine a conversation with someone who has no education, no experience and who demonstrate by making basic errors that they don't have any real knowledge in the field. Imagine them speaking with the kind of arrogant confidence you're showing here.
