It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanjay Gupta Destroys Rand Paul

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Watcher777
a reply to: GetHyped

How do you come to the conclusion I am a science denier? Because I claim herd immunity is a flawed science?



Yes. That and the way you confuse the scientific and layman definitions of the word "theory".

Got any evidence to back up your claim that herd immunity is flawed? It's basic science.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MiddleClassWhiteBoy

Nope, you're wrong yet again. It has nothing to do with "naturally acquired immunity". It's about reducing transmission vectors, nothing more.


Not only that but the medical scientific community refuses to do random controlled trials comparing vaccinated kids to unvaccinated kids because it would be unethical to keep children from getting vaccines. What a bunch of crock!!!!


It's unethical to do use ANY control group with a serious disease for which medicine is available. You can't say "Ok, let's deny these children life-saving treatment and see how they do".


It's debatable and science cannot 100% prove beyond reasonable doubt vaccines actually decrease transmission etc.


You can't prove a negative in science. However, we do have lots of POSITIVE evidence for a whole range of things, vaccines and herd immunity included. You can't prove there isn't a little green gremlin orbiting the Alpha Centauri using the scientific method but no sane person would give any weight to such a claim.

All you're doing is parroting the usual ignorant and long debunked anti-vax talking points.


Lol where do you think immunological research stems from Mr. Scientist? You spout science and medical concepts whose historical roots you know nothing about! Agricultural science has been studying "herd immunity" concepts including military research long before any of it was applied to modern day vaccine theory and applications.

Your arrogance about immunological concepts you are clueless about are embarrassing! You're an amateur trying to regurgitate what you dont really understand.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MiddleClassWhiteBoy

How many times must it be said?


Herd immunity or herd effect, also called community immunity, describes a form of immunity[1] that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.[2] Herd immunity theory proposes that, in contagious diseases that are transmitted from individual to individual, chains of infection are likely to be disrupted when large numbers of a population are immune or less susceptible to the disease.


en.wikipedia.org...

And again:


Herd immunity is a form of immunity that occurs when the vaccination of a significant portion of a population (or herd) provides a measure of protection for individuals who have not developed immunity.

It arises when a high percentage of the population is protected through vaccination against a virus or bacteria, making it difficult for a disease to spread because there are so few susceptible people left to infect.


www.vaccinestoday.eu...

And again:


When a critical portion of a community is immunized against a contagious disease, most members of the community are protected against that disease because there is little opportunity for an outbreak. Even those who are not eligible for certain vaccines—such as infants, pregnant women, or immunocompromised individuals—get some protection because the spread of contagious disease is contained. This is known as "community immunity."


And again:


Just as a herd of cattle or sheep uses sheer numbers to protect its members from predators, herd immunity protects a community from infectious diseases by virtue of the sheer numbers of people immune to such diseases. The more members of a human "herd" who are immune to a given disease, the better protected the whole populace will be from an outbreak of that disease.

There are two ways an individual can become immune to an infectious disease: by becoming infected with the pathogen that causes it or by being vaccinated against it. Because vaccines induce immunity without causing illness, they are a comparatively safe and effective way to fill a community with disease-resistant people. These vaccinated individuals have protected themselves from disease. But, in turn, they are also protecting members of the community who cannot be vaccinated, preventing the chain of disease from reaching them and limiting potential outbreaks. Every vaccinated person adds to the effectiveness of this community-level protection.


www.pbs.org...

And again:



And again:



And again:


edit on 5-2-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)


It's about reducing transmission vectors. Not actual herds or "naturally acquired immunity". Transmission vectors. That's it.
edit on 5-2-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Baby dying of whooping cough (a vaccine-preventable disease): Hey, tough luck kiddo, that's life! DOn't worry, there's a "reason", and that reason is you're vulnerable because you're young.


*sigh*



Let's break down the Pertussis numbers in the U.S., shall we?

In total, for the years 2000-2012, there were 255 death attributed to Whooping Cough. Repeat: Two-Hundred and Fifty-Five.

CDC Source

In that exact same time span--2000-2012--there was a total of 239,058 cases of Pertussis reported to the CDC. Repeat: Two-Hundred and Thirty-Nine Thousand and Fifty-Eight total cases.

Other CDC Source (must do own math...)

Now, looking at those numbers, you have an average death-rate percentage for that time span at...wait for it...: 0.1066686745476%. Yes, you are seeing that correctly. The percentage of cases that resulted in death over 13 years is equivalent to One-Tenth of One Per Cent.

This, sir, is exactly why I can't take arguments like your seriously. Yes, it is sad that 0.1% of cases end in death, mostly for infants less than 3 months old, but to use this your-baby's-gonna-die-OMG-vaccinate-now! argument is just plain silly.

I wish people could refrain from using emotion as the basis for an argument and actually do some calculations, and they'll figure out that these deadly epidemics aren't quite the bubonic plague that they're being led to believe.
edit on 5-2-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Your fallacy is: The Fallacy Fallacy. Crying "fallacy!" instead of addressing the argument.

So you're ok with 255 deaths a year from vaccine preventable diseases? Because it's "nature's way" or some BS?
edit on 5-2-2015 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Your fallacy is: The Fallacy Fallacy. Crying "fallacy!" instead of addressing the argument.


Wrong, but okay.


So you're ok with 255 deaths a year from vaccine preventable diseases? Because it's "nature's way" or some BS?


Please disregard my sarcastic tone, here...I can't hold it in.

Either actually read my posts and understand the information, or get out of the conversation. The 255 deaths was a total over the thirteen years of statistics. I'll break it down for you: 255 divided by 13 equals 19.61538461538462. For simplicity's sake--which is obviously needed, here--we'll call that an even 20 deaths.

The average number of outbreaks--using the same crazy math formula as before (a/b=c)--gives us an average of 22,542.92307692308 cases of Whooping Cough. We'll round that to 22,543.

Now, with those two numbers, we'll figure out the percentage of cases (22,543) that the deaths (20) is equivalent to--let's be crazy and divide the deaths number by the cases number, just for fun. We get...(drumroll)...0.00088719336379blahblahblah. Now, we take that number...we'll just call it 0.00089...and multiply it by 100 to get the percentage.

Survey says!...the percentage of average deaths to average cases during that timefram is 0.089%, or rounded, gives you 0.1% for simplicity's sake.

So, yes, I'm okay with a less-than 0.1% death rate as an acceptable thing in life, because that is part of nature.

Hopefully that clears things up for you. Now, quite misconstruing what I say, please. I don't have the time or desire to keep correcting you.
edit on 5-2-2015 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

How many vaccine-preventable deaths do you think is acceptable?



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Here's something interesting. It certainly is something to consider. This article is saying that the real reason they're going after Rand isn't his stance on vaccinations but that they're afraid he'll work toward stopping wars.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join