posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:39 PM
originally posted by: strongfp
Small pox, polio, various Hepatitis, etc.
I guess those are bad vaccines?
You're reading into my comment what you want to believe I'm saying--I used the specific examples for a reason, not to mention I specifically said,
"...gives our bodies natural immunities to things that are not disfiguring or highly life-threatening.
Please, if you're going to respond to me, do so in a way that actually addresses what I said and not what you want me to have said so that you have
something about which you think you can argue. My point was that the vaccines to the diseases you mentioned--if there is a risk involved in the
medication--outweighs the negatives of the disease, implying that people really should stop taking a hardcore stance one way or the other and actually
get vaccinations based on statistical threat to themselves or their children instead of saying, "Well, the CDC says I should, so..."
But saying vaccinations are bad? Get real, it has saved arguably millions, and millions of lives.
I'm looking...and looking...and I don't see anywhere where I said that vaccinations are bad. I did say that the "immunity" that they provide is less
efficient than natural immunities produced by the interaction of the immune system and the actual diseases in my examples, but that doesn't
necessarily mean that they're bad. Again, please see my plea above to not say I said things that I did not.
But, you are right, things like chicken pox, do not need to be vaccinated. But parents can easily just get a doctors note from their family
doctor and say that their child does not need it.
Right--so you projected things into my statement that I did not say, and then you conclude your comment with what is essentially the point I was
What was the point of your response, other than to just start arguing for no reason?