Any Anti-Vaccine People on MyBB?

[alloytoo]

You don't want to argue the case? You have to argue the man instead? You know what I meant.

Did you mean you don't consider children people?

or

You do consider children people, but you just consider their deaths unimportant?

You have statistics for that? You forget that there has also been a lot of wars before 60 years ago where people regularly lost their lives. Co-morbidities taken into account your chances of dying from disease don't show as being less today.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Actually it has quite a big effect.

It has no effect on diseases that are not spread through poor sanitation. (though selective vaccinations may well prevent help prevent diseases in situations where sanitation is unavoidably poor)

Nope. These people acquired the disease and survived it. Sure they were immunised by the disease and that's how they became carriers of it but it was their natural immunity that enabled them to survive it. When they came into contact with nations that didn't have this natural immunity they almost wiped them out as practically everybody they infected died.

And vaccinations had they been available might well have saved those populations.

Without natural immunity they were at risk. Look it up. It's real.

It's called evolution, specifically natural selection.

The human genome is not homogeneous across the population, there is variation with the human genome. Those better suited to survive infection will survive and pass on their survival traits to the next generation.

This opens unique avenues for health research, if we can find a way of making the evolved immunity to a more general remedy.

 

[Swa]

Hey Swa instead of posting how arrogant I am and misunderstanding everything you mention, why don't you just post the documented cases that stipulate that the vaccines can cause viruses in your body, then that will put your point across.




Again I asked for the documents that point to the fact that Vaccines can give you secondary infections (or even first infections), so I can peruse the information and see if want you are saying is actually factual or just what you assume to be correct

show me your proof brother!!

It's recognised. You keep asking for cases while I keep telling you there are no studies as it's not in the interest of the industry to do any studies.

oh i know that and the fact that he keeps coming back with just how arrogant I am because I misunderstand what he says although he keeps changing his notion from "flu vaccines cause flu virus" to "Vaccines cause viruses in the body" to "vaccines cause secondary viruses" is astonishing and then he wonders why I don't understand what he is on about.

At least if he posts the articles I can see what he is on about

Not my problem if you have a comprehension problem.

It is one-sided because it isn't actually a debate. To have a debate both sides need to have a valid argument. In this case however one side has valid science, well over a century of the strongest epidemiological evidence ever assembled, while the other side has Youtube videos and blog articles written by known charlatans.

So you see there aren't 2 sides to this coin. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community has made its mind up over 100 years ago and the evidence just continues to grow in favour of how effective and safe vaccines are. Deal with it loon.

So they made up their minds before even collecting evidence? LOL. And then they don't actually have scientific evidence today because that would require doing an unethical and impossible study. Seems both sides has its loons.

 

[Swa]

Did you mean you don't consider children people?

or

You do consider children people, but you just consider their deaths unimportant?

Neither. You are just trying to turn this into a versus the man argument instead of arguing the facts.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

LOL. Confirms what I said. Did you miss the part about co-morbidities? Also what wiki says:

Life expectancy differs from maximum life span. Life expectancy is an average,[85] computed over all people including those who die shortly after birth, those who die in early adulthood in childbirth or in wars, and those who live unimpeded until old age, whereas lifespan is an individual-specific concept and maximum lifespan is an upper bound rather than an average.

It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the period after childhood to get a better handle on life span.[86] Life expectancy can change dramatically after childhood, as is demonstrated by the Roman Life Expectancy table where at birth the life expectancy was 21 but by the age of 5 it jumped to 42. Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life expectancy once adulthood was reached.

It has no effect on diseases that are not spread through poor sanitation. (though selective vaccinations may well prevent help prevent diseases in situations where sanitation is unavoidably poor)

All diseases can be spread through poor sanitation. Sanitation is also a broad concept and there are preventative measures that prevent the spread of diseases. Poorer nations don't have a lot of understanding of how diseases spread as the Ebola outbreak has shown with bodies left in the streets and people handling them with their bare hands.

And vaccinations had they been available might well have saved those populations.

Trying to subvert the issue.

It's called evolution, specifically natural selection.

The human genome is not homogeneous across the population, there is variation with the human genome. Those better suited to survive infection will survive and pass on their survival traits to the next generation.

This opens unique avenues for health research, if we can find a way of making the evolved immunity to a more general remedy.

So now you suddenly recognise it where previously you denied it and claimed it all due to having survived the disease in childhood. It doesn't matter what you want to call it it remains real. I am sorry to burst your bubble but science will do nothing of the sort unless it alters our genes. By treating people who get sick and preventing them from getting sick the genes that have no immunity, for lack of a better way to explain it, will stay dominant in the population making us actually reliant on such treatments.

 

[alloytoo]

Neither. You are just trying to turn this into a versus the man argument instead of arguing the facts.

No, I'm trying to determine whether you consider child mortality important. Clearly not.

LOL. Confirms what I said. Did you miss the part about co-morbidities? Also what wiki says:

Life expectancy after age 10,

In Roman times an additional 35-37 years (total 45-47)
(ironically lower than in the Paleolithic, I personally blame grass)
in 1850, 48 years (Total 58) (increase of 10 years)
in 2011 67 years (total 77) (further increase of 19 years, 29 years over Roman)

All diseases can be spread through poor sanitation. Sanitation is also a broad concept and there are preventative measures that prevent the spread of diseases. Poorer nations don't have a lot of understanding of how diseases spread as the Ebola outbreak has shown with bodies left in the streets and people handling them with their bare hands.

A phronist use of sanitation, expanding it to include medical isolation.

To the rest of us soap and water.

Trying to subvert the issue.

Do you know what soldiers, diplomats, doctors, nurses, aid workers and yes even missionaries do when they travel to exotic destinations?

They get vaccinated.

So now you suddenly recognise it where previously you denied it and claimed it all due to having survived the disease in childhood. It doesn't matter what you want to call it it remains real. I am sorry to burst your bubble but science will do nothing of the sort unless it alters our genes. By treating people who get sick and preventing them from getting sick the genes that have no immunity, for lack of a better way to explain it, will stay dominant in the population making us actually reliant on such treatments.

You are deliberately conflating two issues.

The first, natural immunity, is an evolutionary advantage conveyed through random mutation and natural selection. The immunity, is in the form of a neutral mutation which happened sometime in the past and made it's way into a proportion of the population. The mutation becomes a positive one due to the change in the environment IE: the disease manifesting. Those exhibiting the trait are survive (IE are selected).

Immunity or resistance thus acquired is hereditary and passes from one generation to another.

This is an evolutionary advantage (immunity) prevailant within SUB-SETS of the NON-HOMOGENEOUS human populations.


Acquired immunity on the other hand is an individual trait which develops as a result of exposure (infection by) to a disease. Once an individual has fought off a disease their immune system is in a far better position to respond to another infection by the same disease.

This observed phenomena has allowed us to develop medicines which cause our immune systems to think we've been infected, but without the life threatening symptoms. As a result when the real disease pops up our immune systems recognize it and kick it into touch.

The obvious advantage of vaccines is that they allow us to reliably make large NON-HOMOGENEOUS human populations immune to a wide variety of diseases irrespective of your genetic inheritance.

Downside is that the immunity is not hereditary and sometimes needs boosters.

(Edited to complete reply, as I didn't have time before)

 

[Swa]

No, I'm trying to determine whether you consider child mortality important. Clearly not.

If that's what you get out of it you are clearly not listening and just making up your own stuff.

Life expectancy after age 10,

In Roman times an additional 35-37 years (total 45-47)
(ironically lower than in the Paleolithic, I personally blame grass)
in 1850, 48 years (Total 58) (increase of 10 years)
in 2011 67 years (total 77) (further increase of 19 years, 29 years over Roman)

You are still ignoring co-morbidities like war which was a big pastime of Rome. You don't even know that there were people in the paleolithic era let alone their lifespans.

A phronist use of sanitation, expanding it to include medical isolation.

to the rest of us soap and water.

No it doesn't include medical isolation and I didn't claim it to. It is more than your idea of soap and water though. Keeping your environment clean and hostile towards germs is also a big part of it. Europe wasn't a very sanitary place during the black plague with all those rats running around.

 

[semaphore]

you said you have had your HPV shots... which are to prevent cervical cancer.
Do you have a cervix? So you have had your shots for this?? I call BS and thus want proof.
Calling me an 8 year old changes this not.

I'm trying to ascertain your point for these HPV shots, my gf and I had them last year. We're still breathing?

 

[noxibox]

Studies Prove Without Doubt That Unvaccinated Children Are Far Healthier - See more at: http://www.naturalblaze.com/2014/02/studies-prove-without-doubt-that.html#sthash.pqnrLn3x.dpuf

I'm surprised the vaccinated sample size is so small. To be representative of the population it would be much bigger.

also from the article:

I find it amazing that despite mainstream media and leading government agencies stressing repeatedly that studies comparing vaccinated children to unvaccinated children cannot take place for ethical reasons, groups around the world are taking it upon themselves to do these studies anyway.

Actually no, they're not. This little survey isn't even remotely similar to the unethical research demanded by anti-vaccine crackpots.

 

[PhleeBag]

.

helper T cells:

http://www.vaccinedecision.info/cgi-bin/viewcontent.cgi?article_id=18


read about it .

 

[alloytoo]

If that's what you get out of it you are clearly not listening and just making up your own stuff.

Oh I'm listening, the reduction of child mortality in part due to vaccinations doesn't suit your narrative.

You are still ignoring co-morbidities like war which was a big pastime of Rome.

But not the past time of citizens of the capital for whom the actuarial tables were intended.

You don't even know that there were people in the paleolithic era let alone their lifespans.

Yes we do, we have their bones, their tools and even their art.

No it doesn't include medical isolation and I didn't claim it to. It is more than your idea of soap and water though. Keeping your environment clean and hostile towards germs is also a big part of it. Europe wasn't a very sanitary place during the black plague with all those rats running around.

And yet the rats weren't to blame.

The point remains the childhood diseases we immunize against are not preventable by anything short of complete medical isolation.

 

[PhleeBag]

"Th2 cells help regulate humoral immunity which help deal with pathogens that present a threat outside of cells. One of the main weapons of the Th2 response are antibodies, which can attach to specific invaders and help to be more easily identified by other cells of the immune system such as macrophages and aid in their elimination.
The production antibodies are present in both the Th1 and Th2 responses, as they can also attach to pathogens such as viruses and prevent their entry into cells. However, the antibody response is substantially higher with a Th2 response as there is no threat of the pathogen getting into the cell.
Therefore the normal response of the immune system to pathogens such as viruses would be a Th1 response where there would be antibodies produced to prevent viruses from getting inside of cells, and also a significant amount of killer T cells (CTL) to destroy virus infected cells.
The normal response to pathogens that offer no threat to get inside of cells would be a Th2 response, in which there would be a high antibody response to most efficiently deal with the pathogen."

 

[PhleeBag]

"The fact that vaccines still elicit an improper immune response today is confirmed in this article below admitting not only that vaccines produce an incorrect immune response, but also that the vaccines we use today were developed with a poor understanding of how the immune system works in the first place.

“Although vaccination has been used for centuries, the technologies are largely empirical with little understanding of the underlying immunological principles and physiological mechanisms.”

“As researchers gain knowledge of these principles and regulatory authorities become more stringent in their requirements, changes in empirical approaches have become necessary; rational vaccine design is now essential.”

“The articles in this special feature introduce research on a new generation of vaccines which are logically designed and evaluated. Of particular interest is a new wave of vaccines that induce CD8+ T cell responses — in contrast to the traditional mechanism of eliciting a protective antibody response — and how they may be used therapeutically.”

The Journal of Immunology and Cell Biology, May/June 2009, Volume 87, No. 4, July 2009, Volume 87, No. 5 - http://www.nature.com/icb/focus/vaccine_web_focus/index.html"

quoted from : http://www.vaccinedecision.info/cgi-bin/viewcontent.cgi?article_id=18

There are many more balanced scientific articles there.

 

[PhleeBag]

keep reading... its educational

 

[TofuMofu]

If and when I have kids, I will vaccinate them, because history and science have shown that vaccinations are better then not having it.



Not vaccinating your children does a huge injustice to them and to everything science has fought for.

 

[PhleeBag]

the picture says so! I will believe.

If and when I have kids, I will vaccinate them, because history and science have shown that vaccinations are better then not having it.

View attachment 199988

Not vaccinating your children does a huge injustice to them and to everything science has fought for.

 

[PhleeBag]

the picture says so! I will believe.

 

[Pox]

From your link:

Summary
So what does this really mean? Many vaccines may be effective in preventing disease, but since vaccines cause an abnormal immune system response, it hinders the development of the immune system, resulting in inappropriate responses to normal environmental stimuli.


So...you won't die from polio, measels, reubela, but you might get hayfever? Not sure of the details. Far to much being beaten over the head with biology and not enough coffee. Someone else can decipher all of it to check if it's right.

But once again, your own article, says vaccines are effective in preventing disease.

So once again it is clear you are not reading what you post.

ie. You are a troll.

 

[PhleeBag]

View attachment 199994

 

[porchrat]

keep reading... its educational

I note you chose not to quote this part:
"Vaccines are one of the most effective methods of controlling infectious disease."

OK now Phleebag is trying to imply something the article doesn't say, that vaccines have basically not changed in 100 years and that they are ineffective. The article of course clearly demonstrates in the first line that the latter is not at all what is being said (you know, the part Phlee dishonestly didn't quote). The truth is that there are plenty of new technologies in vaccines today that simply weren't around 100 years ago. 100 years ago something like a conjugate vaccine was unheard of, now it is commonplace. Recombinant vaccines? Yup those are new too.

These newer vaccines involve a process of identifying the leading variations of a pathogen responsible for disease. Considering the cost of manufacturing these vaccines ensuring that the right variations are covered in the vaccine is an obviously essential planning step.

 

[porchrat]

View attachment 199996

You know what the hilarious part of this infographic is? It demonstrates how unvaccinated people can start an outbreak. Those outbreaks are pretty much always traced back to unvaccinated people. Even with the unvaccinated morons running around the large scale vaccination of people has helped to prevent these outbreaks from even close to approaching what it was like before large scale vaccines were implemented. It demonstrates exactly why vaccines are necessary

Oh BTW another lie implied here is that measles was declared eliminated from the entire world. It was actually declared eliminated from the U.S. in all practical senses. Looking at those numbers one can understand why. They went from just under 1000 cases to 37 in just 10 years. Well done vaccines.

 

[PhleeBag]

seriously, that is what you deduced?
have you read the whole page on the site or is it too much to take in?

From your link:

Summary
So what does this really mean? Many vaccines may be effective in preventing disease, but since vaccines cause an abnormal immune system response, it hinders the development of the immune system, resulting in inappropriate responses to normal environmental stimuli.


So...you won't die from polio, measels, reubela, but you might get hayfever? Not sure of the details. Far to much being beaten over the head with biology and not enough coffee. Someone else can decipher all of it to check if it's right.

But once again, your own article, says vaccines are effective in preventing disease.

So once again it is clear you are not reading what you post.

ie. You are a troll.