Anti vaxxers a simple question.

a reply to: InconspicuousWhistle

Measles is much more contagious than the flu.

a reply to: Phage

This is getting silly. No. She only knows someone in the waiting room had measles.

Yes you are getting silly. Then why doesn't she blame the infected person?

How is it silly, you just said it could possibly imply that.

a reply to: Phage

Yes, and?

a reply to: InconspicuousWhistle
I provided my speculation previously.
I dislike repeating myself.

a reply to: Phage

You dislike repeating a comment you know is off.

a reply to: InconspicuousWhistle

Okey dokey

a reply to: Phage

Very profound, Phage.

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

Sigh.

I am sorry you almost lost your Grandfather last year. There is no reason for ME to get the flu shot as I am healthy and of good age. But of course those with comprised immune systems (as I mentioned earlier), or with certain health issues like diabetes, or the elderly most likely should. What I am getting at is that it is wise to be vaccinated against known diseases that spread like fire and kill and maim. The flu can be dangerous but it's not something I would call mandatory for every person.

a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

I believe that if someone fails to get a recommended vaccination, and they spread that disease to another person, they should be held liable for it--whether it's polio, measles, or influenza. It's all the same thing. Person makes a choice that puts others in danger, that choice harms someone, they should take responsibility for it.

Wow, aren't you a little vaccinazi.

Stay at home if you don't want to be exposed after getting every shot there is yourself.

Liable for not getting a recommended vaccination.

They would have to make it mandatory first. But that's what you fascists are pushing right.

a reply to: ccseagull

am sorry you almost lost your Grandfather last year. There is no reason for ME to get the flu shot as I am healthy and of good age.

Omg, that is so selffish. You are endangering others. You should be held liable.

a reply to: InconspicuousWhistle

Plenty of links in my OP.
I will ask you then are you saying that smallpox, measles have not killed millions?.
How about Malaria are you denying that also has killed millions and still does today?.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Plenty of links in my OP

There are plenty of links in your op, unfortunately none of them actually offers proof that vaccines eradicated the diseases and saved all those lives.

Please guide me towards the proof if I missed something.

Remember, correlation doesn't mean causation.

I will ask you then are you saying that smallpox, measles have not killed millions?. How about Malaria are you denying that also has killed millions and still does today?.

No, your question was, "did vaccinations save millions of lives?".

Why do you now have to ask these questions after my request for proof of your claims?

a reply to: InconspicuousWhistle

Honestly If you are that ignorant I will just not bother responding to you.
Good day.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: artistpoet

Really? This again?

1) Not all vaccines are 100% effective for 100% of people 100% of the time
2) Not everyone can be vaccinated foe healthy reasons (babies, elderly, immunocompromised, allergies, etc.)

These people are protected by herd immunity:

www.vaccinestoday.eu...

You really haven't done your homework.

But if everyone has airbags, what does it matter if I crash into them?

dont you realize that a lot of people who are immunocompromised do not know they are until after a bad reaction to a shot, that in fact the push to get as many people vaccinating as possible will harm more of these unknowingly immunocompromised then would be harmed by non vaccinated individuals.

you cannot completely predict if someones immune system will be further compromised by a certain vaccine and as you pointed out some people do have their immune system further compromised by some vaccines, whats more in certain stages of infant development if the immune system is compromised it can potentially delay mental development and this has been linked to autism, the link between infant immune system compromise can cause autism was proven in court satisfactory to a judge.

so the courts concluded a vaccine has the same ability to cause an infant autism as would a serious illness even just the flu.

a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

and the "imuno-comprimised " reaction to infections is ?

a reply to: boymonkey74

So you cannot prove it. Thought so.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: artistpoet

The fact is vaccines have saved millions of lives are you trying to say this isn't so?.

it isnt a fact, sure we have graphs which indicate it, but there is a very good reason science does not allow graphs as proof, they are indicators only, not proof. the mechanisms must be understood and proven, vaccines have yet to do that, until they do they are STILL considered experimental, this part is not a debate, the scientific community does consider vaccines experimental, its just one of those experiments they are so confident about they typically dont argue it.

and as for the graphs sure there are things that can be argued against them,

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

like why in the hell would the rates on this following graph be dropping before the vaccine? farmwars.info...
could the cause of that drop off prior to vaccine possibly explain all the other drops we are seeing? HINT: SOAP!

there are hundreds of graphs like this i can use as example, the point is this shows why we cant rely on graphs.

i mean heres one graph that provaxers love to throw at antivaxers whenever an antivaxer uses a graph, www.skepticblog.org...
so now here you are provaxer using graphs also, hypocrite much?

i mean hell if we want to rely on graphs to prove all our science then lets send ourselves into an incredibly confusing cluster # of ignorance with this site here www.tylervigen.com...

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: pryingopen3rdeye

and the "imuno-comprimised " reaction to infections is ?

BAD! RIGHT! however, if you are immunocompromised, you stand only a chance of getting an infection, BUT if you are immunocompromised and choose to get a vaccine, then the chance of getting the vaccine is pretty certain isnt it,

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: InconspicuousWhistle

Honestly If you are that ignorant I will just not bother responding to you.
Good day.

What did I say that you consider ignorant? This?

correlation doesn't mean causation.

So according to you, correlation does mean causation?

Now that is ignorant.

a reply to: boymonkey74


many years ago i was given words of wisdom by a wise man, he said to me, "enlightenment and the truth is always on the middle path".

polarized mindsets are what gets us divided and ignorant,

it is wrong to say vaccines work,
it is wrong to say vaccines dont work,
it is right to say we dont know yet, we are confident they work but not certain, we are still lacking the needed science to prove it.

and then on the topic of do vaccines cause harm, SAME ANSWER.

so when i see all this polarizing being pushed by our MSM and now even our online social media, i feel like pulling my hair out.

why doesnt everyone just step back and let the scientists do their job, they are still to this day actively pursuing that proof of mechanism that shows why and how they work. for us to state they do or dont work before that proof surfaces is unscientific. it is purely a political move being pushed for profit.

after this proof surfaces i believe we should then focus on removing the profit from vaccines and make them a nonprofit process. but this would never happen in our capitalist society, and you know it, knowing that is all you need to see this media blitz on the topic is political and profit driven.