Vaccine Conspiracy Theorists More Likely To See Conspiracy Everywhere

SE_BSN_RN, BSN · Feb 16, 2014

I kind of agree with you and I kinda don't. I don't believe that vaccines are causing autism but something out there is. Something is causing this. What has happened are all of the parents of autistic children are desperate for answers and someone comes along with the magic answer. It's the vaccines and they want the answer so bad they are willing to believe anything. Many of these parents blame themselves and feel like they did something to their baby in the womb. What food did I eat, did I lie in the wrong position, did I have the wrong doctor? They just want to know why. Then Jenny McCarthy comes out and says yes it's true. This is what happened to my son and now I have cured him with this magic diet. They want to believe. So I can understand. I don't think it's a conspiracy as much as it's desperate parents wanting a simple answer so they can put the blame somewhere. I really feel for them. And people like Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy make me very angry.

^^ THIS!!! As the mother of an autistic son, you can bet.....

" What has happened are all of the parents of autistic children are desperate for answers and someone comes along with the magic answer. It's the vaccines and they want the answer so bad they are willing to believe anything. Many of these parents blame themselves and feel like they did something to their baby in the womb. What food did I eat, did I lie in the wrong position, did I have the wrong doctor? They just want to know why."

.....I have thought all this, and more. My son is now 13. He knows he has autism, and he hates it. He'll even tell you he wishes he never had it. Back in the early 2000's there was a rise in autism rates in the state my son was born. Why? I don't know! I sure would like to know, because then maybe I'd have some insight as to why.

My fault? The shots? Hereditary? The environment? No one knows.

MunoRN, RN · Feb 16, 2014

What I find most confusing about the usual opposition to both vaccines and GMO's is that people are will to contradict themselves to such an extent just to be oppositional.

I know many people who are strongly against GMO's, and they are also strongly against the use of pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and wasting water. Yet some of the main reasons why we give preference to certain traits through 'genetic modification' is are to produce plants that need less water, less pesticides, and less chemical fertilizer.

Same goes for vaccines. At least among the anti-vaccine crowd I'm familiar with, the opposition is primarily based on the idea that it is too "unnatural", yet these same people aren't as opposed, are at least aren't anywhere near as vocal in their opposition to medicine in general, even though vaccines are much more "natural" than other aspects of medicine. The term 'homeopathic' has gotten confused with naturopathic, and while homeopathic purists will argue that vaccines aren't diluted enough to be truly homeopathic, they do follow the same basic rules; it treats like with like, using a diluted/weakened form of the cause of an illness. Unlike other medicine which often replaces normal bodily responses, vaccines just teach the body how to protect itself using it's own mechanisms, yet somehow it's vaccines that "replace" your immune system. I had a patient recently with H1N1 who wasn't vaccinated for these reasons, but was totally fine taking the tamiflu, which makes no sense to me.

nurseprnRN, BSN, RN · Mar 15, 2014

I'm an Angela Lansbury fan.

My favorite is Wilfred Brimley. Now that he's hawking diabetic supplies he almost makes it look appealing.

EveUnderConstruction · Mar 16, 2014

I have to chime in because I frequent one of the top international conspiracy sites on a regular basis, albeit one of the reasons is for the sheer entertaining bouts of hilarious drivel. (strange sense of humor I guess) However, like one article said (can't remember off the top of my head) the site is full of some of the worlds most brilliant unemployed. :laugh:

Yes, indeed there is certainly quite a bit of rubbish in the conspiracy world, however real history is more appalling than anything these fellows could cook up which is the foundation of these "theories". I could sit here for a year and write out example after example of horrors induced by governments, medical industries so on and so forth. One theme seems common, that the truth doesn't normally come out until after the fact, many times as long as 30-50 years after. Companies who intentionally kill people are given a slap on the wrist for their behavior which makes it more profitable to actually break the law! Example, how Bayer intentionally dumped AIDS tainted medications overseas to save profit.2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 80's - Riskier One Steered Overseas - NYTimes.com.

There is much conspiracy facts as there are conspiracy misinformation and disinformation. I wish I could rest at night relying on "peer reviewed studies" but if anyone thinks that whole process has been unscathed by corruption: think again. This is an excellent TEdTalk and is launching a campaign. I urge you to sign his petition after watching.

People have not only a right, but a duty to question what they see. Vaccines come with real risks and choose not to take the gamble, I can understand that. I believe in the benefits, but also have a real problem with these companies lack of accountability, lack of transparency, dirty tactics, greed, and wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw 'em.

allnurses Guide · Mar 16, 2014

I have to chime in because I frequent one of the top international conspiracy sites on a regular basis, albeit one of the reasons is for the sheer entertaining bouts of hilarious drivel. (strange sense of humor I guess) However, like one article said (can't remember off the top of my head) the site is full of some of the worlds most brilliant unemployed.
Yes, indeed there is certainly quite a bit of rubbish in the conspiracy world, however real history is more appalling than anything these fellows could cook up which is the foundation of these "theories". I could sit here for a year and write out example after example of horrors induced by governments, medical industries so on and so forth. One theme seems common, that the truth doesn't normally come out until after the fact, many times as long as 30-50 years after. Companies who intentionally kill people are given a slap on the wrist for their behavior which makes it more profitable to actually break the law! Example, how Bayer intentionally dumped AIDS tainted medications overseas to save profit.2 Paths of Bayer Drug in 80's - Riskier One Steered Overseas - NYTimes.com.
There is much conspiracy facts as there are conspiracy misinformation and disinformation. I wish I could rest at night relying on "peer reviewed studies" but if anyone thinks that whole process has been unscathed by corruption: think again. This is an excellent TEdTalk and is launching a campaign. I urge you to sign his petition after watching.
People have not only a right, but a duty to question what they see. Vaccines come with real risks and choose not to take the gamble, I can understand that. I believe in the benefits, but also have a real problem with these companies lack of accountability, lack of transparency, dirty tactics, greed, and wouldn't trust them as far as I can throw 'em.

Yes, but we are talking about vaccines not other medications. I have pointed this out again and again. The profit margin for older vaccines such MMR etc are very small compared to other medications. Vaccines are subjected to much higher testing guidelines/research and are continuously followed for adverse effects all the time. No other medication undergoes the kind of scrutiny that vaccines go through, and that is what makes vaccines extremely safe when compared to other medications. Also, the majority of post-marketing research on vaccines is not funded by pharmaceutical companies adding another layer of defense against companies that would seek to market a inferior product just for profit purposes.

There will always be people who will put aside safety concerns in order to make a profit, but that doesn't make every product unsafe. There are laws in the works now to make pharmaceutical companies publish all their research, not just the favorable ones, to their products that should provide more transparency to medicinal research done by pharmaceutical companies.

EveUnderConstruction · Mar 16, 2014

No single medication is touted as safe and effective for an entire population, but for some reason vaccines seem to toted that way (with very limited exceptions). I'd like to see what kind of assessment, screening, or information disclosure goes on in every Walmart, CVS, and gazillion other places begging to give me a flue shot.

Now, there are millions of people walking around with no health problems into older age who have had these vaccines, so that does speak to their relative safety. However it is VERY hard to make a injury related claim against any medication, but for vaccine related injuries there are extra special barriers to protect pharmaceutical companies including the right NOT to inform patients.(Learned-Intermediary Doctrine). I don't think anyone could possibly know the real extent of risks and vaccine injuries because all accountability and liability has been taken away. Truth in Media: Vaccine Court and Autism | Ben Swann Truth In Media

The amount of vaccines has tripled for young children and the push for vaccines is overwhelming. Whats even more scary is like when you had politicians trying to push mandatory H1N1 vaccines in 2009 and are still trying to push mandatory yearly flu vaccines on the general public. Many people including myself who got the flu shot ended up with the flu anyway, in my case I was sick more often that year than the previous 5 years combined. The media and CDC address these claims as "being in our heads" chalking it up to mere coincidence. Meanwhile, investigations and lawsuits are pending with the HPV vaccine and it's not looking so hot. It seems like vaccine overkill and no oversight. It's certainly doesn't appear to be a non profit campaign.

Overall, I think it's important not to fall into black and white thinking such as: all vaccines are good, effective and necessary or all vaccines are bad, ineffective and unnecessary.

loriangel14, RN · Mar 16, 2014

My oldest sister is an anti vaccine nut and yes, she also byus into all those other conspiracy theories.

allnurses Guide · Mar 17, 2014

No single medication is touted as safe and effective for an entire population, but for some reason vaccines seem to toted that way (with very limited exceptions). I'd like to see what kind of assessment, screening, or information disclosure goes on in every Walmart, CVS, and gazillion other places begging to give me a flue shot.
Now, there are millions of people walking around with no health problems into older age who have had these vaccines, so that does speak to their relative safety. However it is VERY hard to make a injury related claim against any medication, but for vaccine related injuries there are extra special barriers to protect pharmaceutical companies including the right NOT to inform patients.(Learned-Intermediary Doctrine). I don't think anyone could possibly know the real extent of risks and vaccine injuries because all accountability and liability has been taken away. Truth in Media: Vaccine Court and Autism | Ben Swann Truth In Media
The amount of vaccines has tripled for young children and the push for vaccines is overwhelming. Whats even more scary is like when you had politicians trying to push mandatory H1N1 vaccines in 2009 and are still trying to push mandatory yearly flu vaccines on the general public. Many people including myself who got the flu shot ended up with the flu anyway, in my case I was sick more often that year than the previous 5 years combined. The media and CDC address these claims as "being in our heads" chalking it up to mere coincidence. Meanwhile, investigations and lawsuits are pending with the HPV vaccine and it's not looking so hot. It seems like vaccine overkill and no oversight. It's certainly doesn't appear to be a non profit campaign.
Overall, I think it's important not to fall into black and white thinking such as: all vaccines are good, effective and necessary or all vaccines are bad, ineffective and unnecessary.

That are so many half-truths and falsehoods in here I don't know where to start.

13 Flu Myths: Myths About the Flu Vaccine, Treatments, and Prevention WHO | What are some of the myths ? and facts ? about vaccination?

I will start with dispelling the myths first.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/index Here is the website for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. There is no other medication that has this kind of follow up or system available to document adverse reactions. No one is denying there are adverse reactions to vaccines, and there is system in place to document these adverse reactions and to make monetary compensation available to people who have been adversely effected. Again there is no other medication that has this system available.

[h=2]"NCVIA/NCVIP[/h]In October 1986, the U.S. Congress responded to the precarious situation in the vaccine market by passing the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA). The act included a number of regulations related to informed consent and adverse event reporting. For example, the act required that providers administering certain vaccines provide a Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) to the vaccine recipient or a legal guardian. The VIS lists the risks and benefits of a particular vaccine. The NCVIA also established a system for reporting suspected vaccine-related adverse events. This system, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), is described here. Additionally, the act contained provisions for a program that would fairly and efficiently compensate individuals harmed by certain vaccines that were properly manufactured. Such a system, it was hoped, would stabilize the legal environment for manufacturers, allowing them to limit their liability, better anticipate their legal costs, and reduce potential barriers to research into new vaccines.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) established this system, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP), in 1988. NVICP is funded by a tax of $0.75 per vaccine dose, collected from vaccine manufacturers by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The NVICP does not cover all vaccines; however, vaccines routinely given to children as part of the recommended immunization schedule are included, and some adult vaccines are covered as well.

Under the NVICP, those claiming a vaccine injury from a covered vaccine cannot sue a vaccine manufacturer without first filing a claim with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Certain medical events are presumed to be side effects of vaccination as long as no other cause is found. The claim filer is reimbursed according to a formula, provided that all the medical records meet NCVIA standards and that review by the U.S. Department of Justice determines that all legal standards have been met. If a claim is denied, or if the claim is approved and the claimant rejects the compensation, only then may the claimant file a civil lawsuit.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act Reporting and Compensation Tables (VIT) list each covered vaccine, its associated adverse events, and the allowable interval from vaccination to onset of event. The table of vaccine injuries has been formulated on the analysis of extensive data collected by the safety system, which includes reports to VAERS, prospective studies in HMOs by CDC, and studies by academic investigators. Examples of compensable injuries are intussusseption within 30 days of receipt of oral, rhesus-based rotavirus vaccine, brachial neuritis within 0-28 days of receipt of tetorifice toxoid containing vaccines, anaphylaxis within 0-4 hours of receipt of a variety of vaccines, and so on. The VIT is subject to review by DHHS, and vaccine injuries may be added to and removed from the tables depending on the best available evidence. Seizure disorder after DPT vaccination, which was the cause of many successful lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers before the NVICP, was removed from the list of compensable events in 1995 because of lack of evidence supporting a link. As new vaccines are added to the childhood immunization schedule, any associated adverse events are added to the VIT as well. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publishes the tableshere.

Compensation payments from NVICP have averaged $782,136 per successful claim through 2011, with an additional $113 million dispersed to pay attorney fees and legal costs (the act awards attorney fees and costs for unsuccessful claims provided that the litigants bring their claims in good faith and upon a reasonable basis, as well as for successful claims). Compensation for a death resulting from vaccination is capped at $250,000. As of December 1, 2011, the program had awarded $2.35 billion in 2,810 separate claims, including compensation for 390 deaths."

Vaccine Injury Compensation Programs â€" History of Vaccines

This hardly appears that anyone is trying to hide anything or prevent compensation.

The changes to vaccine schedule are based on peer-reviewed scientific evidence and expert opinion. Infants are given increased vaccine schedule to better protect them at an earlier age which if you consider that most parents work now and that these infants will be cared for outside of their homes this is understandable since these infants are being exposed to more pathogens at an earlier age.

People that decided to forgo vaccines without valid medical reason IMHO should not work in the healthcare field.

Unvaccinated people are public health threat that is plain and simple and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

allnurses Guide · Mar 17, 2014

[h=2]Stages of Vaccine Development and Testing[/h]In the United States, vaccine development and testing follow a standard set of steps. The first stages are exploratory in nature. Regulation and oversight increase as the candidate vaccine makes its way through the process.

[h=3]First Steps: Laboratory and Animal Studies[/h][h=4]Exploratory Stage[/h]This stage involves basic laboratory research and often lasts 2-4 years. Federally funded academic and governmental scientists identify natural or synthetic antigens that might help prevent or treat a disease. These antigens could include virus-like particles, weakened viruses or bacteria, weakened bacterial toxins, or other substances derived from pathogens.

[h=4]Pre-Clinical Stage[/h]Pre-clinical studies use tissue-culture or cell-culture systems and animal testing to assess the safety of the candidate vaccine and its immunogenicity, or ability to provoke an immune response. Animal subjects may include mice and monkeys. These studies give researchers an idea of the cellular responses they might expect in humans. They may also suggest a safe starting dose for the next phase of research as well as a safe method of administering the vaccine.

Researchers may adapt the candidate vaccine during the pre-clinical state to try to make it more effective. They may also do challenge studies with the animals, meaning that they vaccinate the animals and then try to infect them with the target pathogen. Challenge studies are never conducted in humans.

Many candidate vaccines never progress beyond this stage because they fail to produce the desired immune response. The pre-clinical stages often lasts 1-2 years and usually involves researchers in private industry.

[h=4]IND Application[/h]A sponsor, usually a private company, submits an application for an Investigational New Drug (IND) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The sponsor describes the manufacturing and testing processes, summarizes the laboratory reports, and describes the proposed study. An institutional review board, representing an institution where the clinical trial will be conducted, must approve the clinical protocol. The FDA has 30 days to approve the application.

Once the IND application has been approved, the vaccine is subject to three phases of testing.

[h=3]Next Steps: Clinical Studies with Human Subjects[/h][h=4]Phase I Vaccine Trials[/h]This first attempt to assess the candidate vaccine in humans involves a small group of adults, usually between 20-80 subjects. If the vaccine is intended for children, researchers will first test adults, and then gradually step down the age of the test subjects until they reach their target. Phase I trials may be non-blinded (also known as open-label in that the researchers and perhaps subjects know whether a vaccine or placebo is used).

The goals of Phase 1 testing are to assess the safety of the candidate vaccine and to determine the type and extent of immune response that the vaccine provokes. A promising Phase 1 trial will progress to the next stage.

[h=4]Phase II Vaccine Trials[/h]A larger group of several hundred individuals participates in Phase II testing. Some of the individuals may belong to groups at risk of acquiring the disease. These trials are randomized and well controlled, and include a placebo group.

The goals of Phase II testing are to study the candidate vaccine’s safety, immunogenicity, proposed doses, schedule of immunizations, and method of delivery.

[h=4]Phase III Vaccine Trials[/h]Successful Phase II candidate vaccines move on to larger trials, involving thousands to tens of thousands of people. These Phase III tests are randomized and double blind and involve the experimental vaccine being tested against a placebo (the placebo may be a saline solution, a vaccine for another disease, or some other substance).

One Phase III goal is to assess vaccine safety in a large group of people. Certain rare side effects might not surface in the smaller groups of subjects tested in earlier phases. For example, suppose that an adverse event related to a candidate vaccine might occur in 1 of every 10,000 people. To detect a significant difference for a low-frequency event, the trial would have to include 60,000 subjects, half of them in the control, or no vaccine, group (Plotkin SA et al.Vaccines, 5^th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2008).

Vaccine efficacy is tested as well. These factors might include 1) Does the candidate vaccine prevent disease? 2) Does it prevent infection with the pathogen? 3) Does it lead to production of antibodies or other types of immune responses related to the pathogen?

[h=3]Next Steps: Approval and Licensure[/h]After a successful Phase III trial, the vaccine developer will submit a Biologics License Application to the FDA. Then the FDA will inspect the factory where the vaccine will be made and approve the labeling of the vaccine.

After licensure, the FDA will continue to monitor the production of the vaccine, including inspecting facilities and reviewing the manufacturer’s tests of lots of vaccines for potency, safety and purity. The FDA has the right to conduct its own testing of manufacturers’ vaccines.

[h=4]Post-Licensure Monitoring of Vaccines[/h]A variety of systems monitor vaccines after they have been approved. They include Phase IV trials, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

[h=4]Phase IV Trials[/h]Phase IV trial are optional studies that drug companies may conduct after a vaccine is released. The manufacturer may continue to test the vaccine for safety, efficacy, and other potential uses.

[h=4]VAERS[/h]The CDC and FDA established The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System in 1990. The goal of VAERS, according to the CDC, is “to detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines.” (A signal in this case is evidence of a possible adverse event that emerges in the data collected.) About 30,000 events are reported each year to VAERS. Between 10% and 15% of these reports describe serious medical events that result in hospitalization, life-threatening illness, disability, or death.

VAERS is a voluntary reporting system. Anyone, such as a parent, a health care provider, or friend of the patient, who suspects an association between a vaccination and an adverse event may report that event and information about it to VAERS. The CDC then investigates the event and tries to find out whether the adverse event was in fact caused by the vaccination.

The CDC states that they monitor VAERS data to

Detect new, unusual, or rare vaccine adverse events
Monitor increases in known adverse events
Identify potential patient risk factors for particular types of adverse events
Identify vaccine lots with increased numbers or types of reported adverse events
Assess the safety of newly licensed vaccines

Not all adverse events reported to VAERS are in fact caused by a vaccination. The two occurrences may be related in time only. And, it is probable that not all adverse events resulting from vaccination are reported to VAERS. The CDC states that many adverse events such as swelling at the injection site are underreported. Serious adverse events, according to the CDC, “are probably more likely to be reported than minor ones, especially when they occur soon after vaccination, even if they may be coincidental and related to other causes.”

VAERS has successfully identified several rare adverse events related to vaccination. Among them are

An intestinal problem after the first vaccine for rotavirus was introduced in 1999
Neurologic and gastrointestinal diseases related to yellow fever vaccine

Additionally, according to Plotkin et al., VAERS identified a need for further investigation of MMR association with a blood clotting disorder, encephalopathy after MMR, and syncope after immunization (Plotkin SA et al. Vaccines, 5^th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2008).

[h=4]Vaccine Safety Datalink[/h]The CDC established this system in 1990. The VSD is a collection of linked databases containing information from large medical groups. The linked databases allow officials to gather data about vaccination among the populations served by the medical groups. Researchers can access the data by proposing studies to the CDC and having them approved.

The VSD has some drawbacks. For example, few completely unvaccinated children are listed in the database. The medical groups providing information to VSD may have patient populations that are not representative of large populations in general. Additionally, the data come not from randomized, controlled, blinded trials but from actual medical practice. Therefore, it may be difficult to control and evaluate the data.

Rapid Cycle Analysis is a program of the VSD, launched in 2005. It monitors real-time data to compare rates of adverse events in recently vaccinated people with rates among unvaccinated people. The system is used mainly to monitor new vaccines. Among the new vaccines being monitored in Rapid Cycle Analysis are the conjugated meningococcal vaccine, rotavirus vaccine, MMRV vaccine, Tdap vaccine, and the HPV vaccine. Possible associations between adverse events and vaccination are then studied further.

[h=2]In Conclusion[/h]Vaccines are developed, tested, and regulated in a very similar manner to other drugs. In general, vaccines are even more thoroughly tested than non-vaccine drugs because the number of human subjects in vaccine clinical trials is usually greater. In addition, post-licensure monitoring of vaccines is closely examined by the Centers for Disease Control and the FDA.

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation

EveUnderConstruction · Mar 17, 2014

Wow, thanks for all that. I will have to take some time to go over all of that tomorrow and respond more thoroughly. While I do have concerns,suspicions,and questions, I think I will follow the devils advocate path in the sake of a good, learn worthy conversation. Be back tomorrow to compile a list of worthwhile conspiracy theories for ya. :)

allnurses Guide · Mar 17, 2014

Wow, thanks for all that. I will have to take some time to go over all of that tomorrow and respond more thoroughly. While I do have concerns,suspicions,and questions, I think I will follow the devils advocate path in the sake of a good, learn worthy conversation. Be back tomorrow to compile a list of worthwhile conspiracy theories for ya. :)

I would just as soon you read through my old posts where I have already pretty much debunked all the vaccine conspiracy theories with sound scientific evidence.

EveUnderConstruction · Mar 18, 2014

Thank you. Yes I have taken quite a bit of time to read through the forums and explore this issue a little further. Although I'm sure I could sepnd months/years digging through everything. Here's just a few things I wanted to point out.

I want to start off with my personal concern on the amount of vaccines given so I'll begin with a personal anectdote. Long story short, I had all of my childhood vaccinations. I didn't have the chicken pox though because It wasn't part of the regimen then, but I DID have chicken pox. For reasons I won't divulge now, I didn't have access to those records and had to go and get a blood titer. I have read from the CDC site that blood titers may not be sensitized enough, but it did make me wonder about how titers fit into the vaccine scheduling. I haven't found that answer yet, but I did find interesting study.

new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine* by Oregon Health & Science University researchers suggests that timelines for vaccinating and revaccinating Americans against disease should possibly be reevaluated and adjusted. The study shows that in many cases, the established duration of protective immunity for many vaccines is greatly underestimated. This means that people are getting booster shots when their immunity levels most likely do not require it.

America May Over-vaccinate, According To New Research -- ScienceDaily

Another point to make on this, is why do we have double to triple the amount of vaccines than most countries? I have to investigate that further. As far as multi-dosing, I know that the Representative for CDC Dr. Boyle in the congressional hearing on autism, stated the rationale was to ensure that kids were actually given all the necessary vaccines. In the article you posted, Paul Offit related it to stress in regards to frequency. What isn't being said is anything regarding to efficacy.

Speaking of Dr. Boyle and the congressional hearing on Autism, I highly recommended watching it. I sat through all four hours with sheer nerdy enjoyment because It was quite the spectacle; watching a unanimously angry panel of congressmen rip the CDC to shreds and hand them their ars. Many very good points and questions came up. One interesting highlight that intrigued me was that one Representative asked what was being done to peruse Dr. Thorton, a key researcher on 21 out of the 24 research studies conducted that is now being indicted for fraud. This may or may not have any bearings on the research, however the rates of autism in the US are grossly disproportionate to the majority of the world. Fourteen Studies Mixed with the highest vaccination rates in the world, it's understandable why people are drawing these conclusions. Either way, the hearing is an interesting gauge on where we're at with Autism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zGqUfvFDI4

Anyway, I digressed. So, I think an interesting point on over vaccination is overstimulating the immune system. It's a good question, and I'm sure there are studies on both sides of the fence such as this study done in Japan.

We therefore conclude that systemic autoimmunity necessarily takes place when host's immune ‘system’ is overstimulated by external disturbance, i.e., repeated exposure to antigen, to the levels that surpass system's self-organized criticality, and propose here ‘self-organized criticality theory’ explaining the cause of autoimmunity.

PLOS ONE: Self-Organized Criticality Theory of Autoimmunity

I know that with majority of vaccinations, the benefits outweigh the cost. I think most people would be correct to speculate at how far would Institutions go in the sake of "the greater good"? It certainly doesn't help when you have one of developers of the Guardisil vaccine speaking out and saying that because the manufactures didn't properly test the vaccine, their actions are on par with conducting a mass experiment on the general public. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gardasil-researcher-speaks-out/ She also says that it's not any more effective than yearly pap screening, so do the costs really outweigh the benefits?

Speaking of Merck and their integrity, it's terrible. When people are injecting their bodies with anything, I see how the integrity of the manufacturer is important. It's interesting when I came across court case of two whistle blowers against Merck that is accused of committing fraud on the effectiveness of their MMR vaccine. And why not? Merck Whistleblower Suit A Boon to Vaccine Foes Even As It Stresses Importance of Vaccines - Forbes

As far as mandatory,yearly flu vaccines go; I don't know how many countless of people state they get sick anyway or get sick from it. To have someone tell a patient "well studies suggest this isn't so" is really a slap in the face to good practice and suggests that researchers simply aren't listening.Also I doubt that this kind of rhetoric and behavior is isolated to just the flu vaccine. One poster did an excellent job of explaining the doublespeak of distinguishing between "flu-like" symptoms and being sick. The CDC issues a report that casts a shadow for me. In summation:

Moreover, the report’s authors concluded, federal vaccination recommendations, which have expanded in recent years, are based on inadequate evidence and poorly executed studies.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/reassessing-flu-shots-as-the-season-draws-near/
*Getting flu shots yearly for decades hasn't been studied as far as I could tell, so aren't these mandates just another mass experimentation?
*The safety studies on vaccines usually takes years to complete, yet flu shots are different on a yearly basis, so doesn't that cause a possibility that safety and efficacy can't fully be measured?
I'm sorry my post is scrambled and all over. I believe that vaccines are inherently are good. I think there's things to look into and things we could be doing better, especially looking into alternative vaccine schedules and reducing the amounts of vaccines given. I don't beleive we're being presented with the entire picture but I suppose that will have to remain speculation on my part.