Do vaccines really work? Over the past decade, some parents in the U.S., Canada and Europe have started refusing to give their kids the recommended childhood vaccinations. They worry about safety, believing vaccines may cause autism or other disorders. Denial that the vaccines have any benefit at all has been a part of this particular type of refusal. (Parents in other parts of the world oppose vaccines for other reasons.)
Although no vaccines are 100 percent effective, they can have a big impact on the health of a population. Toronto's public health department put together this visual of the rates at which Canadians got different infections before and after the advent of some common childhood vaccines.
You can learn more about studies of vaccine safety and efficacy with Popular Science's new guide.
Vaccines also have many well documented detrimental effects in addition to the obvious positives. The collective population numbers are all well and good, but the choice on which vaccinations to choose for your child should involve weighing ALL of the consequences.
Thanks for the continued 2-sided reporting on this issue Pop-Sci...keep pushing your agenda and watch your subscription numbers begin to dwindle.
Being that this site is about, you know, real science, post your sources, Kohz.
If they are valid, you will reign supreme, and will change many people's minds.
Because, again, people interested in science aren't afraid to admit they were mistaken.
it is of no use talking to idiots, just ask anyone who lived before vaccines and all the misery that every family lived through before these diseases became preventable, I swear all these idiots are just trolls or have some mental illness that does not allow them to comform to what would be considered normal, normally when abnormal behavoir puts others at risk the perp would be locked up, how about setting up camps for the non-vaccinated so they can't risk the health of others, I realize that will never happen but how about getting your kids vaccinated or no school period, negative cheers
More of the patent misrepresentation and illegitimate non argument used by “science”, in violation of “science's” rules, to promote vaccines.
Among other things, answering the questions about ancillary dangers from vaccines not by proving there is no danger, but by saying they act against certain diseases. Arsenic will wipe out every disease pathogen in the body, but it doesn't make it advisable to take! Just because something works in one area doesn't mean it doesn't have severe, even worse, side effects!
And the issue arises again that the numbers being published as promoting the effectiveness of vaccines against various diseases are not vouched for in a y way! “Science”, political and money oriented sources are providing those numbers and those same “science”, political and money oriented sources are the ones who want to convince people to trust the vaccines more. That's a “vested interest” and completely invalidates any supposed trustworthiness of the numbers. No one has even talked to each and every one of those involved, so there is no independent proof that the “science” that didn't warn people about radium on clock dials can be trusted here. There's no proof that the drop off in disease wasn't the result of the New World Order stopping spreading the pathogens when they got people to start doping themselves with the poisons! And just mocking a suggestion involving the New World Order doesn't make it untrue! That's also something “science' supposedly would say, but “science” devotees ignore that, as well!
And look at the data that is being invoked. The reports of infections “before vaccination” are from 1950 to 1954, while those “after vaccination” are 2007 to 2011! Why the widely differing epochs? How many even noticed this? Why not look at the years 1955 to 1959? or 1960 to 1964, when there was such a successful program of vaccination? What are they trying to say that isn't true or trying not to say that is true? And, if they're going to use such picked and chosen disparate time periods, they are definitely trying to hide something or say something false!
And notice the pretended “Aw shucks” attitude of saying “no vaccines are 100%”, then parading numbers ranging from 98.8% up to 100%? They are claiming vaccines are 100%! Why say they aren't? Incidentally, note the references to “about 100%” effectiveness with respect to diphtheria and rubella. Why “about 100%”, couldn't they find someone who could divide 12 by 37917 or 4 by 9010?
With respect to shills like darkonesme or drchuck1, among other things, where are all the “sources” for the information provided in this article, or any of the articles claiming vaccines are safe? The most they might give is the name of an organization promoting vaccines or a publication that claims to consolidate all the information from claimed past “studies”, without ever actually showing those “studies”. And, as for drchuck1's recommendation to “ask anyone who lived before vaccines” about “all the misery” they went through, since the first vaccines were in the late 170'0's, which of those will “science” represent as still alive to be asked questions? If there are any with such horrendous stories to tell, why don't vaccine shills present them, instead of telling those who oppose vaccines to talk to them? If their story is so convincing, why aren't the pro vaccine forces featuring them? Because things were never like that! If there was “so much misery”, the number of people dying each year would be greater than the number surviving! And there is no sign of such constant massive death. Note, too, according to the chart, for example, between 1950 and 1954, more than 61 million people in Canada were stricken with measles. But Canada had less than 20 million people overall at that time! How could that many people have been afflicted if their population was never that high?
And bear in mind another important point. The warnings about vaccines are about the garbage being pumped out now by the drug companies. Not even vaccine opponents accuse Edward Jenner of doping his vaccines with dangerous substances. A sleazy trick trying to declare that your actions must be trusted because someone else, acting nobly and well in the past, was trustworthy!
Vaccine shills can attack suspicion about vaccines as being akin to “old wives' tales”, but it should also be mentioned that inoculation, from which vaccination sprung, was a practice carried on by old women on the farms, who would carry infectious material in a nutshell, open the vein of someone wanting treatment, and insert it.
Wow julianpenrod, just wow. You really need to go back and check everything you just said.
I mean, right off the bat is:
"Note, too, according to the chart, for example, between 1950 and 1954, more than 61 million people in Canada were stricken with measles."
You're off by 3 orders of magnitude! It very clearly says 61,370 not 61 million.
Also, sources are listed at the bottom, though I did have to dig back through the sources to get the original that was clear enough to read:
I don't really feel like going over the rest with you because I know you won't even acknowledge it. Take that as you will.
In their frantic scramble to attack me, did zechio not notice the legend at the bottom of the chart that showed that each human figure stood for “1000 people reported sick”? To be sure, the entire chart is so poorly rendered and blurred in the fine print it could be assumed that it was intended to mislead, but, too, for all that vaccines were called so crucial for health, only 61,370 people afflicted, out of a nation of about 15 million, over five years total, does not seem a condition that is so desperate! Anything else that zechio says, or that the article places for “legitimization”, seems equally as suspect.
Yes, 1000 x 61(little figures) = 61,000.
Let me ask you something. If you started a program that taught an illiterate country to read and write, could you then say if it was successful or if it failed the next year, or would you need to wait about 50 years to see the full effect of your efforts? Perhaps allowing time for everyone in the country to participate, or allowing for a generation to go by so that you can then compare one generation to the other? That is why the "widely differing epochs".
As for asking people who lived before WIDESPREAD vaccinations, we can ask our grandparents who lived through polio epidemics and other such diseases that are virtually unknown in our time. Another example: "Smallpox was responsible for an estimated 300–500 million deaths during the 20th century. As recently as 1967, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 15 million people contracted the disease and that two million died in that year.
After vaccination campaigns throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the WHO certified the eradication of smallpox in 1979. Smallpox is one of two infectious diseases to have been eradicated, the other being Rinderpest, which was declared eradicated in 2011."
In your defense, we can argue that some of these vaccines may be causing some unwanted side effects in some children, perhaps even some maladies in adults. We can even say that studies need to be done to determine if they are indeed at the root of Autism, asthma and allergies, etc. But with that said, there is no doubt how effective they have been against premature DEATH. So before you go all crazy next time, I would seriously do some research. Because it IS a matter of life and death, and you can't just spew your beliefs and accept them as facts.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
In any event, 61,370, out of a population of 15 million or so, and spread over 5 years is nowhere near the kind of figure that would merit vaccines being called so desperately needed. In fact, it rather suggests that, without vaccination, the “herd infection” phenomenon that is so widely touted as an excuse for vaccination, did not occur! There was contact between what could very well have been about 1 million children and only about 6300 a year contracted it. That is not the out of control herd infection that proponents of vaccination warn about. The same for the other diseases illustrated.
And drchuck1 did speak of “living before vaccines”. Interestingly, though, if these people lived before even widespread vaccines and they are still alive to talk to, then they must have lived through the epidemics without being afflicted! And, if only those who were vaccinated were still around to talk to, then here would have to be so few of them, it wouldn't necessarily be “scientifically” valid.
And, again, if their story was so convincing, why haven't pro vaccine forces picked up on it and interviewed them?
And, again, too, this completely ignores the issue that, even if ethically derived vaccines were made and used decades and decades ago, it doesn't attest to whether vaccines made today are not poison! That is a crucial issue! As I said, crooks peddling garbage trying to cash in on the panache of ethicality of individuals long ago! It makes absolutely no sense to judge how good a vaccine concocted today is by stories of how well vaccines derived in completely different, more ethical, ways acted back then! The small number of reported cases today may not be because modern vaccines are so good, but, rather, that ethically derived vaccines decades ago eradicated much of the pathogen so there wasn't as much around today for modern vaccines to handle!
Like any medicine, properly tested and researched , it will work great. But many vaccines are a best guess, poorly tested, and a big money maker. Anyone who disputes that vaccines are effective is a fool. As is anyone who takes any vaccine as a "cure" without researching how long it has been around, and it's side effects. Vaccines have grown from a medicine to a profit driven market.
Your understanding of virology and epidemiology is amazing! I bow down before your superior knowlege /s. Please understand the basic knowledge of disease transmition and infection.....then maybe you will grasps why people were able to live through pandemics, and epidemics. Or how its "Herd Immunity" not "herd infection"....
julianpenrod: Realise that the 61,000+ *people* (not abstract figures) you're talking about here will have suffered terribly for the duration of their illness. Furthermore, roughly 1 in 20 may have contracted pneumonia, and roughly 1 in 1000 of them may have contracted encephalitis [Source: CDC]. Not to mention any other potential complications such as miscarriage and even death. By introducing a simple vaccine, all this suffering has been made preventable.
The benefits of vaccines enormously, categorically and staggeringly outweigh risks.
End of discussion.
Oh wait, I just noticed: "New World Order." Pfffft. I don't need to mock that suggestion in order to make it untrue; it just patently is. Ignore everything I said in my previous comment. Just go away.
funny story. i live in Canada, and i had some blood work done RECENTLY, and it said i had no immunties against Rubella :S.
Imagine my surprise, i don't know about the USA, but here in Canada, you need to have that shot before you're allowed to go to elementary school. I was 33 when, the doc told me, i had no defense against Rubella! WTF?
So I ended up getting the Rubella shot about 2 years ago...
So either the original shot had no effect or i slipped through the cracks somehow. All this time, I never got sick though, thank goodness. .. so i dont fit either of those catagories on the infographic :(
I personally dont get the Flu shot. The last time i got it, I felt sick for about a year. not extremely sick, but it was as if i had a cold that never went away.
but again, an injection is putting something foreign into your body. most people will have a similar reaction / benefit. although not everyone is the same, and a few people will not experience any benefit / have adverse affects.
I guess as the saying goes, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few."
Kohz, since PopSci is about science and evidence, post the evidence for your ridiculous assertions, or go hang out on some other website that supports delusion paranoids such as yourself.
also, big LOL - who said Canada had a pop. of 61 Million?
right now we're just over 30 Million - i think it's around 33 Million ...
Thats right, Canada may be geographically larger than the USA, but our population is roughly 10 times smaller.
@julianpenrod...you are an idiot, do you really think because everyone didn't contract these illnesses, before vaccines became available, proves there is no real threat with these diseases? don't answer that, the likes of you are extremely offensive to those that suffered and died from these terrible diseases, my parents would just say "shame on you", I am not so polite, what you need is polio, diphtheria, small pox, whooping cough (just to name a few) to bring you around to anything close to normal, you are either a troll or so dumb it's surprising you can make it out of bed, fu
Shills for vaccines warn about massive death in epidemics unless vaccines are employed, and now lanredneck insists that it is unsurprising that even good numbers of people unvaccinated will live through epidemics and pandemics.
Guybrush is talking about people “suffering terribly” with measles. Measles never was a vacation, but it's only the fear mongering shills who would typify it as “suffering terribly”. Kids go through it will maybe some moaning, but not screaming. And quoting the CDC's numbers mean nothing since they have a vested interest in having the “medical” rackets seen as legitimate and not crooks manufacturing plagues then charging big to “cure” them.
And, if Guybrush wants to invoke the New World Order as “proof” nothing I said should be trusted, then where is Guybrush's claim they don't exist? It seems a foregone conclusion that Guybrush will use any of the patent scams to try to weasel out of the fact that their making claims they cannot validate. “You can't prove a negative”, but is absolutely untrue. Or “”I don't have to prove what I say, you have to prove what you say.” “Science” requires that if someone has a proof of their statement, they provide it, not that they scuttle like a cockroach behind any excuse to pretend not to have to prove their statements.
And drchuck1's unleavened viciousness is fully in keeping with the malignance of liars who want to see the population contaminated so they can sell ameliorating poisons at huge prices. drchuck1 admits themselves for what they are.
And, note well, none of the liars even tried to answer any of the points I put forward.
If there are these people who lived before widespread vaccine use whose stories show how bad it was then, why aren't the pro vaccine crowds parading them and their stories?
Even if a vaccine works against a disease doesn't mean the vaccine is safe! Arsenic kills pathogens, but it's not considered safe to take!
Even if vaccines worked in the past and were safe doesn't mean the ones put out today work or are safe.
Where is the proof the drug companies don't create the epidemics so they could charge to “cure” them?
Why all the talk about vaccines working, anyway? Even anti vaccine groups don't declare that vaccines don't kill pathogens, they argue that they cause many serious after effects. Basically, this is trying to whitewash yourself in one area where you are palpably guilty by proving you're respectable in another area! And that is not ethical!
People promoting the truth would be more than willing to address these points. Those trundling a lie, with depraved cont4empt for the welfare of others, would avoid it any way they could.
Well..... I am NOT going to sit here and write a book detailing all the research that proves this or that for anyone. Simply not my job to educate you. Besides, you can't fix stupid.
All I will say is that the proof is in the pudding, as they say. The majority of the scourges of the world are mostly gone. Something worked. And I don't see large amounts of people dying from the 'poisons' they are pumping into most of the population. So on that note, suit yourselves.
Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.
The information I've found says there were 222 cases of the measles in 2011 and 223 in 2012. Before that, the number of cases seemed to average closer to the 50 range since vaccine use has been common. That puts the recent odds of your child being one of those 200 odd children at about 1/300,000 (say approx. 70M children in US). If your drive to the doctors office is about 15 min each way, your odds of getting into a fatal car accident is about the same (1 in a million per 10 min of driving - don't know source, found it a long time ago when researching airplane accidents). So, you might be protecting your children from catching measles only to get into a fatal car accident in doing so.
Further, the odds of your child dying from measles here in the US is about 2 in 1000. So that would put your yearly odds of your child dying of measles at about 1 in 150,000,000. Pretty close to the odds of hitting the Powerball or Megamillions.
I am not a "vaccine denier". But with those odds, even spending $20 would be a really bad investment. But further, considering the BILLIONS it would cost the economy if measles were to regain their former strength, I wouldn't put it past the govt. to overstate the case for measles vaccination.
I don't vaccinate my children with MMR, not because of any tenuous autism link or something but because of the risk/reward balance with very mild diseases and the incentive for misinformation on the other side.
@HenryT2...do you really fail to comprehend why there were only 222 cases of measles? probably most from not being vaccinated...a mild disease, really? i guess birth defects are mild to you...preventing death, cancer, life long afflictions are well worth a trip to the doctor, get a life...@julianpenrod, you are a discrace, what my family members suffered their entire lives should be gifted to you, unhappy trails to you
I work at a pharmaceutical company in Regulatory and Clinical and I find it amazing that people think that drugs and vaccines are meant to harm people. If you understood half the work that goes into getting one drug to market you would understand that 99% of drugs never make it to market and that as long as a drug is on the market there are ongoing studies on the long term affects of that drug. Secondly I actually have had discussions with and went to talks with researchers studying autism and looking for cures. They are trying to help but since the only study ever saying vaccines and autism were related was later retracted because of falsified data and any other research has concluded there is no correlation between the two the scientists tend to focus on more promising areas of study.
Sure, vaccines have been effective minimizing many terrible diseases. And denying this fact would ignore fundamental science. But shouldn't we also denounce the junk science campaign that halted the use of DDT, which was a very safe and effective pesticide? The prohibition of DDT use has resulted in the deaths of several million people around the globe each year from malaria.
Possible Side Effects from Vaccines: www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
According to the site above, the Polio vaccine: "However, a vaccine, like any medicine, could cause serious problems, such as a severe allergic reaction or even death"
...The US has been Polio free since 1979. So it would seem to be pretty apparent that the odds of having a serious side effect from the vaccine would be greater than contracting the disease in the first place.
Boom ------> Science!
No, Julian, the workings of science are really quite simple. If you come up with an idea or claim that massively goes against the grain of all currently available evidence then it is required that you provide some very robust evidence for it, otherwise you will in most cases, quite rightly, be laughed out of the room.
If you ask any statistician, or epidemiologist, they will tell you that it is in fact impossible to categorically prove a negative. As a demonstration, try now to devise an experiment which would irrefutably scientifically determine that a certain thing does not exist. It is impossible. The best we can manage is to determine something beyond all reasonable doubt.
Concerning your blatant disregard for human suffering, I can only hope that you will never pursue a career in healthcare. I have yet to come across a diagnostic procedure which separates "suffering" and "not-suffering" based on whether the patient is moaning or if the patient is screaming. Also, if you doubt my figures, try consulting any other reliable source of medical information and you will find similar epidemiological data. How about the National Library of Medicine, for a start.
Finally, I'd just like to draw attention to this little beauty that you came out with (sarcastic inverted commas removed by Yours Truly):
“Science requires that if someone has a proof of their statement, they provide it, not that they scuttle like a cockroach behind any excuse to pretend not to have to prove their statements."
Kindly apply these principles to your future comments.
P.S. Kohz, did it occur to you that perhaps if people stopped being vaccinated against polio its incidence would again rise? I'd say that's a pretty good reason to continue providing the vaccination.
Carter. I agree that Deborah`s c0mment is good, on friday I got a gorgeous Cadillac sincee geting a check for $7338 this last month and-a little over, $10,000 lass-month. with-out a doubt this is the nicest work Ive had. I began this four months/ago and almost straight away got me over $70, per/hr. I use this website,, .........zee44.com
Of course it did...but if a disease is completely eradicated then how can its non-existent numbers possibly rise?
Again...if the medication poses a bigger health hazard for the individual than the disease itself...why risk the medication?
That WHO bulletin outlines the reasoning behind it quite nicely I think.
I hope a lot of people take notic of my comment.
I just read through all of these, and by far the most hilarious is the comment by "julianpenrod".
I went into that person's comment history and I was just amazed at some of it.
Where do they come from?
What a shame that this topic has become so controversial, politically charged, and divisive. Vaccines are no different from any other pharmaceutical agent. There are always risks and benefits. Both of which should be considered with the help of one (or more) medical professional(s).