Vaccines do not stop the spread of viruses!

The ugly truth about flu vaccines is that they do not stop the spread of flu viruses.

All the flu vaccines do, is make the symptoms of the flu less harsh. You still get the flu, and you can still spread the flu, vaccinated or not.

Vaccines do not make you "immune" to the flu. You still catch the flu, and your body still has to fight the flu. However, the vaccines do get your body "prepared" for the flu.

So this means, if there is a mandatory vaccination, well, it's total bullcrap. People are being fooled into thinking vaccinations will stop the spread of the flu, and that is not true!

[edit on 27-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

What is the source of your information?

Polio and measles are caused by a virus and the vaccines have worked very well to combat both viruses.

So, what makes the flu vaccine not work properly?

Exactly, and the antivax crowd should be charged with attempted murder & MURDER WHERE APPLICABLE. Baby just died in Aus the other day from catching crap from an unvacinnated antivax kid. Antivaxers hands are drenched in blood. They believe whatever they read and ignore scientific facts putting our children in danger who are too young to fight certain common viruses..

conservativesforscience.blogspot.com...

R.I.P. Dana McCaffery

"Dana died of whooping cough. This innocent infant wasn’t eligible for vaccination yet, but the lack of herd immunity — that region has lower-than-average vaccination rates — sealed her fate. "

THANKS A LOT ANTIVAXERS.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by contemplator]

You don't need a source for the information, it is common sense...

If you are vaccinated, you can still get the flu in your body. However, your immune system will recognize the flu, and already know how to kill it (in theory). Your immune system doesn't kill the flu instantly, and if you come into contact with someone who doesn't have the flu, you can still pass it to them, vaccinated or not. You won't carry the flu for long, but you can still carry it, and spread it.

I'm not saying the vaccine doesn't work, I am saying that the flu still has the possibility of spreading.

Clarification;

I am not "antivax", and I understand that vaccination does help people from carrying the virus, but it is not fool proof, and does not prevent the flu from spreading 100%.

[edit on 27-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

the way a vaccine works is it introduces your body to the virus (in a dead or otherwise ineffective form) so it knows what to look for when you catch the real virus. This in turn helps your immune system fight it off more quickly. So, while you may still catch the virus, you won't be spreading it if it doesn't have a chance to replicate inside of your body.

Yes, I understand, but the part I am trying to emphasize is this part;

"while you may still catch the virus"

Even if it doesn't have a chance to replicate in your body, it still has the ability to replicate outside your body, and around your house. And the short amount of time that your body is fighting it, you can still cough and spread it to someone else.




..and you need to stop putting people in categories.



[edit on 27-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

you have any information or proof to back your claim up?
or is this just a rant?

Let me say that while I have taken vaccines in the past and believe that a properly developed and administered vaccine can work, I won't be taking the H1N1 vaccine. There's just too much controversy and doubt surrounding it. Let me qualify that by saying that I'm not married, I don't have kids, and don't plan on giving advice to anyone else on whether or not they should have the vaccine.

You dont' know anything about this child or the situation. They could of had a compromised immune system that would of allowed them to have died from the common cold. The mother could of done horrible things during the pregnancy to compromise the child. You have no idea.

en.wikipedia.org...


Once again, I am not anti-vaccination. I am just pointing out that it is not a perfect solution to stopping the spread of the virus. It can still spread by other means...

Maybe miniature purple elephants came out at night and smacked the baby around with their trunks making the baby weak and susceptible to disease due to poor sleep. That is likely what happened.

Contemplator, if you think the "anti-vax" crowd should be charged with attempted murder.... how about the "pro-vax" people get charged for increasing the rate of virus mutation?

You talk about "anti-vax" people not doing research, well the "pro-vax" people are totally ignoring the FACT that vaccines will increase the rate of virus mutation. So I guess the "pro-vax" people should be charged for attempted murder too?

When everyone is vaccinated and our bodies successfully fight the virus, the virus will "know" what it is up against, and mutate in order to survive. So if everyone is vaccinated, then that increases the amount of potential chances that viruses will evolve.



[edit on 28-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

Compare that with how many children have contracted autism from the mercury and deaths related to guillian barre syndrome?

Then calculate the percentage of how many deaths there were from guillian barre syndrome compared to the one baby who had a compromised immune system.
The only fault of antivaccers is that they still dont address their own immune systems by eating from anature and taking natural remedies as alternatives. So yes diseases could be strife if people do not address those problems with proper maintenance of their bodily temples.

Unfortunately we have created a lazy society where we need fast fixes and remedies instead of allowing proper nutrition and effective natural remedies and the allowing of ones own immune system to kick in.




[edit on 28-6-2009 by Applesandoranges]

Though I agree with the point that it doesnt keep you from catching whatever the vaccine was designed for, I do still see how it helps prevent most people from dying from the virus because there bodies were given the ability to develop the tools to defend itself.

I thought everyone new most vaccines dont keep you from catching the viruses it was designed for. It still doesnt mean you shouldnt get one, but if you want to raise your chance of dying by not getting one then so be it.

reply to post by grapesofraft

---

I agree with you. Vaccines will save people from dying, but it will not stop the virus from spreading.

It will slow down the rate of which it spreads, but it will not stop it. That's the point I am trying to get out.

Also, I have not recommended anyone to avoid vaccination, that is not my point of the thread. I am just saying "mandatory vaccination" is pretty pointless in efforts to "stop the spread". It won't stop the spread, it will only protect people from dying.

[edit on 28-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

reply to post by 0nce 0nce

---

Yeah I see your point, but I would think if this flu starts spreading to nearly everyone then it would be wise to get the vaccine. It is only going to help you and your families chances of survival.

I am not sure where people are hearing bad stuff about this vaccine yet, because to my knowledge it is not fully developed, let alone tested, yet.

Things are more advanced than in the 70's so I would take the vaccine if necessary without much fear. All vaccines have some risk, but it doesnt mean there isnt a benefit to the majority of people who take them.

Also, I'll note that they prevent natural selection/survival of the fittest.

They help us as individuals ensure we won't get a disease.

But, all outbreaks would have went away on their own eventually (after taking their toll on human life).

I guess the problem that lies with this is the fact that what works for some does not work for others which can create controversy. So we get 2 sides looking at life differently. Then coming to a conclusion is what seperates the thoughts of many. So what is the truth if dominance is the precursor to much questionings of todays society.

reply to post by Applesandoranges

---

I am not totally sure of your point, but there would most likely only be a small percentage that this vaccine wouldnt work on or would have negative side effects. Even the one from the 70's only had negative consequences on a tiny percentage of the people that took it.

So there is no two sides unless you mean one side is 99% and the other is less than 1%. I mean if I was gambling and you gave me a 99% chance of winning I would definitely take that bet over and over again.