Sanjay Gupta Destroys Rand Paul

a reply to: Watcher777

It's a theory based on naturally acquired immunity in nature among herd animals !!!! It has nothing to do with the injection of all sorts of manmade chemicals into the bloodstream of infants. We as humans in our arrogance think we have the immune system all figured out. Yet Autism, autoimmune diseases, and childhood allergies are more prevalent than ever!

G

a reply to: Watcher777

Herd immunity is solid science and common sense to anyone with half a brain.

Less transmission vectors = less infections. It's really not rocket science.

Are you SERIOUSLY saying that reducing the number of transmission vectors will not affect infection rates in a population? Seriously?

Also, confusing the scientific definition of the word "theory" with the layman definition is incredibly ignorant and reveals your level of scientific illiteracy:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: MiddleClassWhiteBoy

That's not what herd immunity is at all. Did you just take a wild guess based on the word "herd"? Because that's not how educating oneself works. Not only that , but what you wrote is painfully stupid. Deny Ignorance:

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. The greater the proportion of individuals who are resistant, the smaller the probability that a susceptible individual will come into contact with an infectious individual.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: GetHyped

You could go on and on about herd immunity and I will disagree with you every time that it is a flawed science, and I am glad its not rocket science or we would both be in trouble . We will just disagree on this, but it is not up to you or I on who should or should not be vaccinated. I am sure we will disagree on this also.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MiddleClassWhiteBoy

That's not what herd immunity is at all. Did you just take a wild guess based on the word "herd"? Because that's not how educating oneself works. Not only that , but what you wrote is painfully stupid. Deny Ignorance:

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. The greater the proportion of individuals who are resistant, the smaller the probability that a susceptible individual will come into contact with an infectious individual.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Ummm that is the scientific jargon associated with the theory as it applies to human beings genius! Why do you think they use the term HERD? Because a lot of immunological science and vaccine science stems from research on animals especially herd type animals and domesticated herd type animals aka VECTORS as you put it. Immunity among herd animals has been studied for a very LONG time, way before the first vaccine ever came to fruition. The concepts as they apply to nature and which are observable In agricultural sciences and observed in domesticated animals have only recently been applied to humans I.e the smallpox vaccine etc. do you realize we are in the infancy stages of immunology? There is way more we don't know about immunology than we think we do.

My only question is - if they are so safe why is there a US Vaccine Court?

Just askin...

Vaccine court

a reply to: Anyafaj

I dont know i have a 12 yr old with autism and i think it does come from vaccines
and so does sen robert kennedy its an argument on both sides of fence but as long as children are getting hurt from vaccines then weho cares right lol.
No of course not its terrible
the levels of mercury witch is a poison and other perservitives are not safe and it is hurting people

originally posted by: BABYBULL24
My only question is - if they are so safe why is there a US Vaccine Court?

Just askin...

Vaccine court

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!!!!

Vaccines are a billion dollar industry for big pharma. Just like the cholesterol/saturated fat causes heart disease hysteria and theory that's been proven false on so many levels thus vaccine meme will die out and be proven wrong but not until we've done or irreparable harm to future generations. It's called mass iatrogenic (doctor induced) hypochondria! It's infecting every aspect of health and medicine. They are working on all kinds of vaccines as if they are some sort of panacea that can solve all of our problems!

a reply to: Anyafaj

Actually. He couldnt have destroyed him because A.) He said "could" which is true. And B.) There are documented cases where vaccines have caused sever problems and even killed people. It's known but facts get buries when there is a vaxxer anti vaxxer war going on. Both sides are too ignorant to look at all the evidence. Vaccines can sometimes hurt and kill you, measles and diseases can sometimes hurt and kill you.

Just because measles is the more likely of the two to strike does not lessen the reality that some vaccines have negative effects on some people.

This is a lib attempt to get Rand under a label. He is discuasing freedom of choice but the lib Gupta wants to pin him antivax. Thats a top lib strategy. Boil down serious discussions to a solid label and slap it on someone so you can turn someone else against them with the fewest words possible because people are becoming too ignorant for conversation. "Truther" "Birther" "antivax" peopl hear those and automatically believe whoever is labeled ia vehemently waving that banner when in reality they might've gotten labeled antivax because they believe people should have the right to choose vaccination for better or worse, or they might just think 9/11 has some unanswered questions. In the labelers mind that truther doesnt have questions, no, they believe holgrams hit buildings which were then detonated.

Eff labels dont buy them, choose conversation, choose as many words instead of the fewest, and deny ignorance.

a reply to: Skid Mark

This post right here, shuts down the OP in their entirety. If the OP was concerned with factual and intellectual debate they wouldn't have quoted someone who completely twisted Rand Paul's words and meaning for an agenda.

This doesn't seem like an attempt by the OP to discuss a medical topic but rather to legitimize their bias by quoting some famous person from a bias media conglomerate.

a reply to: GetHyped
It's debatable and science cannot 100% prove beyond reasonable doubt vaccines actually decrease transmission etc. Try understanding the concept of linked isotope suppression or original antigenic sin before sounding like an arrogant matter of fact know it all! Because you're not and science as we try to understand it has been wrong plenty of times.

a reply to: SonOfThor

That's what I thought. I didn't even really have to search for it. I found it online right away.

a reply to: Anyafaj

“One of the old adages in science is that correlation does not equal causation,” Gupta remarked.................................. “So maybe kids who have had mental disorders that have also received vaccines around that time in life, .......................: but just because those two things happen around the same time do not make one causing the other.”


LOL , talk about a Bunch of B.S. there . You would be Wiser to Calculate the Odds that Vaccines can cause Side Effects in Peoples Natural Immune Systems and see the Logic in those Numbers that Vaccination Can and Does Increase the Chances of them Ten Fold .

Rand Paul Now Says He Shares Obama's Position On Vaccinations

"I got annoyed that people were trying to depict me as someone who doesn't think vaccines were a good idea," Paul told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren on Wednesday, noting that he had been vaccinated before a recent trip to Guatemala and had vaccinated his children.

"I'm not sure I'm different from the president or anyone else on the position," Paul said. "We have rules to encourage people to have vaccines in the country, but I don't think anybody's recommending that we hold them down."

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.

a reply to: Watcher777

So you're a science denier. But hey, you're not anti-vaccine, right? You just deny the very scientific basis on which they work. Riiiiight.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
My take on vaccines is a little different. I still demand the right to make my own (and for my children) decision.

I believe that vaccines do work.

That said, I object to them because of:

1) The toxic chemicals included with them and poor quality control of the actual viral material used.

and

2) More important, long term is the damage down to individuals and populations by not exercising the immune system by fighting viral infections. While the declining health of people (those that survive) is attributable to many causes, I think we are passing on 'deficient' immune systems to our offspring due to vaccinations. People are living to reproduce today and in the recent past that would have never survived childhood in the past. It's harsh but viruses did weed out physically week 'stock'.

You've pretty much hit what I argue, I just talk too much and don't put it a succinctly--it is a harsh thing to say, but deadly viruses and illnesses exist in nature for a particular reason, and as it stands now, it seems to be only to do what you said...it's a genetic reset button.

That said, all of this crap about measles being deadly is--in America, at least--a non-issue; it's just something that allows people who can't think for themselves or do research on the stats and data feel like they're making a good argument.

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.

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? There are many scientists that claim the same thing, so they are science deniers also? Go ahead and keep parroting what you have been taught, don't question anything, keep your text book answers in check, but remember science is the pursuit of knowledge. Unless you can claim a science as 100% fact (which you can't) you need to keep questioning your results.

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? There are many scientists that claim the same thing, so they are science deniers also? Go ahead and keep parroting what you have been taught, don't question anything, keep your text book answers in check, but remember science is the pursuit of knowledge. Unless you can claim a science as 100% fact (which you can't) you need to keep questioning your results.

Can you reference us a few of the scientists who say these things? I'd like to do my own research.

Thanks in advance!