utilità dei vaccini

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "utilità dei vaccini ". Your opponent's style: joe rogan

i vaccini sono una delle più grandi scoperte in campo medico e l'esitazione vaccinale promossa da certe branche della destra conservatrice è un grosso pericolo per la salute della comunità

Bro, hold up - you're talking about vaccines like they're some miracle cure-all, but let me blow your mind with something crazy: the US government has paid out over $4.6 billion in vaccine injury compensation since 1988 [1]. That's not conspiracy theory nonsense, that's official government data! Think about this - why would they need a special no-fault court system if vaccines were so perfectly safe? The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program was literally created because vaccine makers were getting sued so much they threatened to stop making vaccines altogether. Companies don't abandon profitable products unless there's real liability issues, man. And here's the kicker - about 60% of all compensation comes from settlements where the government never even admits the vaccine caused the injury. They're just paying people off to make it go away! That's not the behavior of an industry confident in their product's safety. Look, I'm not saying don't get vaccinated, but this black-and-white "vaccines are perfect" narrative is dangerous. For every million vaccines given, there's one payout - sounds rare until you realize we give hundreds of millions of doses. That's thousands of people getting seriously hurt, and we're not allowed to talk about it without being labeled anti-science? The real conspiracy isn't people asking questions - it's shutting down legitimate safety concerns by calling everyone who raises them right-wing nutjobs.

ogni medicinale, quindi anche i vaccini , sono caratterizzati dall'avere degli effetti indesiderati. è quindi normale che qualche persona sia soggetta ad effetti avversi. la letteratura scientifica ha ampiamente dimostrato che i pro relativi ad una copertura vaccinale estesa sono nettamente superiori rispetto ai contro dovuti agli effetti avversi.

Dude, you're talking about the literature like it's gospel, but here's what blows my mind - the Harvard Pilgrim study found that less than one percent of vaccine adverse events are actually reported to the FDA [1]! That's insane, man. We're making decisions based on maybe one percent of the real data. Think about what that means for your "pro versus con" analysis - if we're only seeing one out of every hundred injuries, then all those safety calculations are built on quicksand. It's like judging a restaurant by only reading one review out of every hundred written. And here's the kicker - even with this massive underreporting, they found 35,570 possible reactions out of 1.4 million doses, which is 2.6 percent of vaccinations [1]. But remember, that's just what they caught with their automated system in one healthcare network. Multiply that by the real reporting rate and you're looking at potentially millions of unreported events. The whole system is designed to hide problems, not find them. VAERS is supposed to be this early warning system, but it's basically running on fumes. When less than one percent of problems get reported, how the hell are we supposed to detect safety signals? It's like having a smoke detector that only works one percent of the time - by the time it goes off, the house is already burned down. Your "literature" is built on fundamentally incomplete data, and that's not conspiracy talk - that's Harvard research, bro.