Post: #101

(03-25-2014 10:08 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  I have not listed any data, because the amount of data showing the negative health effects from vaccines is simply staggering. Aside from the dozen or so books that I already mentioned, just go to Dr. Mercola's web site and search under "vaccine." I stopped counting after 100 articles.

Dr. Mercola? You can't really expect to be taken seriously after you just dropped this gem.

And if the staggering amount of data showing the negative health effects from vaccines come from sources like that then don't bother indeed, because it's meaningless.

Tail Gunner, I do believe you're seriously concerned with this hole vaccination/public health issue and I'm quite sure in real life you're a good guy, so I urge you to look up more credible sources and read on real science, not quackery.

Post: #102

What qualifies you guys to label Dr Mercola a "hack"?

Post: #103

(03-25-2014 10:50 PM)clever alias Wrote:  been warned by the FDA several times for making outrageous claims and misleading information.

Exactly what makes him a good doctor. Thanks for making my point. Entire books have been written about the clueless idiots at the FDA.

Post: #104

(03-25-2014 11:46 PM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-25-2014 10:08 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  I have not listed any data, because the amount of data showing the negative health effects from vaccines is simply staggering. Aside from the dozen or so books that I already mentioned, just go to Dr. Mercola's web site and search under "vaccine." I stopped counting after 100 articles.

Dr. Mercola? You can't really expect to be taken seriously after you just dropped this gem.

And if the staggering amount of data showing the negative health effects from vaccines come from sources like that then don't bother indeed, because it's meaningless.

Tail Gunner, I do believe you're seriously concerned with this hole vaccination/public health issue and I'm quite sure in real life you're a good guy, so I urge you to look up more credible sources and read on real science, not quackery.

As I said, I have an entire bookcase of books devoted to health issues. Do you?

The problem is that we are talking past each other, because I have over a decade of knowledge in areas of health. Before I became interested in holistic health, I caught several colds or the flu every winter. But now, I have not either in about six flu seasons (it has been so long that I have actually lost track).

So I speak from education and experience that not all is what it seems in the health field -- and health care professionals are not to be blindly trusted. You are your own best keeper and advocate of your health. Please act accordingly.

Post: #105

I don't know if this is some tinfoil stuff I don't have the source articles but the last time I looked into the whole anti vaccine thing it seemed like a serious issue. I remember reading up on how one of the major vaccine manufacturers had had a possibly catastrophic mishap by somehow combining the swine flu with the bird flu and in such a way that it could infect humans in a potentially lethal outbreak, that was later remedied by destroying the bad vaccine batch. I don't remember all the details, but that was the gist of it. As for vaccines in general I don't think they're harmless, but I can't say they aren't helpful. Maybe some of the chemicals that weaken the virus to retain their vaccine properties need a revamp so they are less harmful but vaccines in general have done more good then harm that's for sure.

Post: #106

Specifically for those who still question the efficacy of vaccines, especially those that have been around for years and years and have been proven effective.

CNN just published a story that India has 'eradicated polio.'

Some choice quotes.

Quote: Rukhsar, 4, is the final documented case of polio in India….

Her parents, Abdul Shah, 32, and Shobejan Begum, 30, blame themselves for their child's suffering. They had their other children vaccinated, but not Rukhsar. She was a sickly child, in and out of hospital with liver infections and diarrhea. They thought it safer not to subject her to more medication.

It wasn't until little Rukhsar's right foot swelled and twisted in early 2011 that her parents took her to a hospital in nearby Beleghata for tests. She was just 18 months old when doctors confirmed the worst: Rukhsar had polio….

"Everything was our fault," explains her father. "I thought she would never walk again."…

When a global effort to end polio was launched in 1988, the disease crippled more than 200,000 children every year in India. Almost two decades later, in 2009, India still reported half of the world's new cases -- 741 out of 1,604….

The development of the Salk and Sabine vaccines helped lead to eradication of polio in the United States in 1979. In India, too, vaccination was critical.

"There were three keys to our success," Kapur says. "Immunize, immunize and immunize."

I'm happy for India. They made an interesting comment that people believed India would be the last country to eradicate polio because it was so vast, poor, and had unsanitary infrastructure. However, it's not the last country to eradicate polio. This success is due to one thing and one thing only… the large-scale immunization of children through vaccination. They overcame the long odds through science and educating the public.

To those still ranting and raving on this, as far as I'm concerned, dead thread, have at this article. Destroy it as you see fit. 'How can you believe CNN, don't believe what the media tells you, India's a different story, bla bla bla'… have fun arguing with your own paranoia/conspiracy theory hamster.

Post: #107

(03-27-2014 04:04 PM)Rotisserie Wrote:  Specifically for those who still question the efficacy of vaccines, especially those that have been around for years and years and have been proven effective.

As previously stated, no one is talking about polio. Typical straw man argument.

The issue is analogous to gun control. Any common-sense gun control was implemented 50 years ago. Ninety-nine percent of what is now discussed is either useless, restricts liberty for no reason, or politically motivated.

The same with vaccines. Almost any vaccine capable of savings millions of lives and preventing mass illness were invented 50 to 100 years ago. No one questions the societal worth of those handful of vaccines. Ninety-nine percent of what is discussed today has dangerous side-effects, restricts liberty for those who do not wish to be human guinea pigs, and is profit motivated.

Post: #108

Quote:To those still ranting and raving on this, as far as I'm concerned, dead thread, have at this article. Destroy it as you see fit. 'How can you believe CNN, don't believe what the media tells you, India's a different story, bla bla bla'… have fun arguing with your own paranoia/conspiracy theory hamster.

Well, this seems like a straw man to me, but we do have some pretty conspiracy minded-people around here.

So I put the question to the larger group: Is there anyone willing to argue that:
A.) CNN is lying, and India hasn't eradicated polio?
B.) The polio vaccine is ineffective?
C.) The risks of taking the polio vaccine outweigh the benefits?

My guess is that the answer is no, but I'd like to hear what people have to say.

Post: #109

(03-27-2014 04:32 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:To those still ranting and raving on this, as far as I'm concerned, dead thread, have at this article. Destroy it as you see fit. 'How can you believe CNN, don't believe what the media tells you, India's a different story, bla bla bla'… have fun arguing with your own paranoia/conspiracy theory hamster.

Well, this seems like a straw man to me, but we do have some pretty conspiracy minded-people around here.

So I put the question to the larger group: Is there anyone willing to argue that:
A.) CNN is lying, and India hasn't eradicated polio?
B.) The polio vaccine is ineffective?
C.) The risks of taking the polio vaccine outweigh the benefits?

My guess is that the answer is no, but I'd like to hear what people have to say.

It is fine for a country such as India, where the benefits outweigh the risk -- and the right vaccine is used.

On the other hand, did you know:

Quote:In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


It also depends on the type of vaccine used:

Quote:Nigeria and many other poorer nations use an oral polio vaccine that contains a live polio virus. This live virus can not only cause polio in the vaccine recipient, it can mutate into an even more dangerous version that triggers new outbreaks.

For instance, a polio outbreak that occurred in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 was traced to a strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to virulence.

In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

According to a report by Neil Z. Miller of the Global Vaccine Institute, the live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks and in your feces for up to two months. So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease as long as the virus remains in feces.

In 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that the United States replace the live-virus vaccine with an inactivated “killed” virus vaccine, which is what remains in use today.

However, the inactivated polio virus vaccine has not been without its share of serious side effects either.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


People are taking a very simplistic view of the issue. It is not a simple case of "all vaccines are good" or "all vaccines are bad." But very few vaccines are necessary in first world countries where people exercise minimum standards of hygiene. That is why it should be up to each individual to make the decision of whether to take a vaccine. My children would not get any vaccines. The rewards are simply not worth the risk -- at least not while living in the U.S.

Post: #110

(03-27-2014 06:06 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 04:32 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:To those still ranting and raving on this, as far as I'm concerned, dead thread, have at this article. Destroy it as you see fit. 'How can you believe CNN, don't believe what the media tells you, India's a different story, bla bla bla'… have fun arguing with your own paranoia/conspiracy theory hamster.

Well, this seems like a straw man to me, but we do have some pretty conspiracy minded-people around here.

So I put the question to the larger group: Is there anyone willing to argue that:
A.) CNN is lying, and India hasn't eradicated polio?
B.) The polio vaccine is ineffective?
C.) The risks of taking the polio vaccine outweigh the benefits?

My guess is that the answer is no, but I'd like to hear what people have to say.

It is fine for a country such as India, where the benefits outweigh the risk -- and the right vaccine is used.

On the other hand, did you know:

Quote:In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


It also depends on the type of vaccine used:

Quote:Nigeria and many other poorer nations use an oral polio vaccine that contains a live polio virus. This live virus can not only cause polio in the vaccine recipient, it can mutate into an even more dangerous version that triggers new outbreaks.

For instance, a polio outbreak that occurred in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 was traced to a strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to virulence.

In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

According to a report by Neil Z. Miller of the Global Vaccine Institute, the live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks and in your feces for up to two months. So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease as long as the virus remains in feces.

In 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that the United States replace the live-virus vaccine with an inactivated “killed” virus vaccine, which is what remains in use today.

However, the inactivated polio virus vaccine has not been without its share of serious side effects either.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


People are taking a very simplistic view of the issue. It is not a simple case of "all vaccines are good" or "all vaccines are bad." But very few vaccines are necessary in first world countries where people exercise minimum standards of hygiene. That is why it should be up to each individual to make the decision of whether to take a vaccine. My children would not get any vaccines. The rewards are simply not worth the risk -- at least not while living in the U.S.

demonstrably false, once again Mercola uses fear mongering and paranoia to twist truths in a way that are only "technically" correct.
vaccine-derived polio is a thing, but it does not work the way Mercola represents it as working.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/
tl,dr: when someone is given the polio vaccine, that person gains immunity to it, however, the virus still reproduces in the intestines and is excreted before it is ful eradicated in the vaccinated person. if someone who NEVER received the vaccine comes into contact with said excretions, it can cause polio in that new, unvaccinated individual.
So the poilio vaccine did not "cause" an outbreak in Nigeria, an outbreak in Nigeria happened because too few people received the vaccine combined with poor sanitation made for prime polio outbreak conditions. Had more people received the vaccine, there would have been greater herd immunity

Post: #111

(03-27-2014 06:47 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 06:06 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 04:32 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:To those still ranting and raving on this, as far as I'm concerned, dead thread, have at this article. Destroy it as you see fit. 'How can you believe CNN, don't believe what the media tells you, India's a different story, bla bla bla'… have fun arguing with your own paranoia/conspiracy theory hamster.

Well, this seems like a straw man to me, but we do have some pretty conspiracy minded-people around here.

So I put the question to the larger group: Is there anyone willing to argue that:
A.) CNN is lying, and India hasn't eradicated polio?
B.) The polio vaccine is ineffective?
C.) The risks of taking the polio vaccine outweigh the benefits?

My guess is that the answer is no, but I'd like to hear what people have to say.

It is fine for a country such as India, where the benefits outweigh the risk -- and the right vaccine is used.

On the other hand, did you know:

Quote:In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


It also depends on the type of vaccine used:

Quote:Nigeria and many other poorer nations use an oral polio vaccine that contains a live polio virus. This live virus can not only cause polio in the vaccine recipient, it can mutate into an even more dangerous version that triggers new outbreaks.

For instance, a polio outbreak that occurred in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 was traced to a strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to virulence.

In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

According to a report by Neil Z. Miller of the Global Vaccine Institute, the live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks and in your feces for up to two months. So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease as long as the virus remains in feces.

In 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that the United States replace the live-virus vaccine with an inactivated “killed” virus vaccine, which is what remains in use today.

However, the inactivated polio virus vaccine has not been without its share of serious side effects either.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


People are taking a very simplistic view of the issue. It is not a simple case of "all vaccines are good" or "all vaccines are bad." But very few vaccines are necessary in first world countries where people exercise minimum standards of hygiene. That is why it should be up to each individual to make the decision of whether to take a vaccine. My children would not get any vaccines. The rewards are simply not worth the risk -- at least not while living in the U.S.

demonstrably false, once again Mercola uses fear mongering and paranoia to twist truths in a way that are only "technically" correct.
vaccine-derived polio is a thing, but it does not work the way Mercola represents it as working.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/
tl,dr: when someone is given the polio vaccine, that person gains immunity to it, however, the virus still reproduces in the intestines and is excreted before it is ful eradicated in the vaccinated person. if someone who NEVER received the vaccine comes into contact with said excretions, it can cause polio in that new, unvaccinated individual.
So the poilio vaccine did not "cause" an outbreak in Nigeria, an outbreak in Nigeria happened because too few people received the vaccine combined with poor sanitation made for prime polio outbreak conditions. Had more people received the vaccine, there would have been greater herd immunity

Holy fuck... You are a retard.

Re-read what you posted..... Essentially you are saying all these people got polio because they were not vaccinated

But you are clearly ignoring the fact they would have never come in contact with the polio virus if the person vaccinated didnt shit it out. So yes the vaccine did cause a polio outbreak.

Post: #112

(03-27-2014 08:49 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 06:47 PM)clever alias Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 06:06 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 04:32 PM)Faust Wrote:  

Quote:To those still ranting and raving on this, as far as I'm concerned, dead thread, have at this article. Destroy it as you see fit. 'How can you believe CNN, don't believe what the media tells you, India's a different story, bla bla bla'… have fun arguing with your own paranoia/conspiracy theory hamster.

Well, this seems like a straw man to me, but we do have some pretty conspiracy minded-people around here.

So I put the question to the larger group: Is there anyone willing to argue that:
A.) CNN is lying, and India hasn't eradicated polio?
B.) The polio vaccine is ineffective?
C.) The risks of taking the polio vaccine outweigh the benefits?

My guess is that the answer is no, but I'd like to hear what people have to say.

It is fine for a country such as India, where the benefits outweigh the risk -- and the right vaccine is used.

On the other hand, did you know:

Quote:In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


It also depends on the type of vaccine used:

Quote:Nigeria and many other poorer nations use an oral polio vaccine that contains a live polio virus. This live virus can not only cause polio in the vaccine recipient, it can mutate into an even more dangerous version that triggers new outbreaks.

For instance, a polio outbreak that occurred in Haiti and the Dominican Republic in 2002 was traced to a strain of oral polio vaccine (OPV) that mutated back to virulence.

In the United States, every case of polio that’s occurred since 1979 has been the result of the live-virus vaccine.

According to a report by Neil Z. Miller of the Global Vaccine Institute, the live polio virus from the vaccine can remain in your throat for one to two weeks and in your feces for up to two months. So not only is the vaccine recipient at risk, but he or she can potentially spread the disease as long as the virus remains in feces.

In 1999, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommended that the United States replace the live-virus vaccine with an inactivated “killed” virus vaccine, which is what remains in use today.

However, the inactivated polio virus vaccine has not been without its share of serious side effects either.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articl...geria.aspx


People are taking a very simplistic view of the issue. It is not a simple case of "all vaccines are good" or "all vaccines are bad." But very few vaccines are necessary in first world countries where people exercise minimum standards of hygiene. That is why it should be up to each individual to make the decision of whether to take a vaccine. My children would not get any vaccines. The rewards are simply not worth the risk -- at least not while living in the U.S.

demonstrably false, once again Mercola uses fear mongering and paranoia to twist truths in a way that are only "technically" correct.
vaccine-derived polio is a thing, but it does not work the way Mercola represents it as working.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/64/en/
tl,dr: when someone is given the polio vaccine, that person gains immunity to it, however, the virus still reproduces in the intestines and is excreted before it is ful eradicated in the vaccinated person. if someone who NEVER received the vaccine comes into contact with said excretions, it can cause polio in that new, unvaccinated individual.
So the poilio vaccine did not "cause" an outbreak in Nigeria, an outbreak in Nigeria happened because too few people received the vaccine combined with poor sanitation made for prime polio outbreak conditions. Had more people received the vaccine, there would have been greater herd immunity

Holy fuck... You are a retard.

Re-read what you posted..... Essentially you are saying all these people got polio because they were not vaccinated

But you are clearly ignoring the fact they would have never come in contact with the polio virus if the person vaccinated didnt shit it out. So yes the vaccine did cause a polio outbreak.

not really. "not having polio right now this instant means that we will never come into contact with it or need to be vaccinated against it" doesn't really hold up. as far as I know, that's probably one of the worst ways of avoiding a contagion. If you have zero immunity to a virus, it's luck and a matter of time if you get sick. If you don't get vaccinated, that's totally on you.
What you're saying is akin to "antibiotic resistant bacteria comes from us using too many antibiotics and making pathogens more aggressive!" When really, if you use antibiotics correctly and to completion, resistance would not be nearly as widespread.
herd protection only goes so far, as the whooping cough outbreak in America proves. If everyone gets a vaccine, nobody get sick. If half the people get it, that half doesn't get sick. If nobody gets it, everybody gets sick

Post: #113

So your rebuttal to that moronic statement is well if they didnt get the virus now they would have gotten it later ?

And you example of antibiotic resistant bacteria holds no water what so ever in this conversation. You are comparing 2 different things that are not related.

Post: #114

no, we have x system for dealing with a disease. if you can't follow x, and you get fucked up, that's on you.
if you get a vaccine, you won't get sick. If you don't get the vaccine, you might get sick. you don't get the vaccine, you got sick, your fucking fault, especially when you live in an area that is not polio free, and has outbreaks every now and then.
you take antibiotics for an ear infection. your ear starts feeling better. you stop taking the antibiotics, your ear infection comes back, and it takes stronger meds the second time around, maybe a z pack instead of amoxicillin, because you couldn't read the fucking directions.
its retarded to blame a disease on a preventative system when you don't follow the system. Had everyone been vaccinated, nobody would have gotten sick. its not the responsibility of people with common sense to watch out for the morons.
"Hey, can you not get the vaccine that will save your life? I don't want to get it myself and I'd rather put you in danger than get my finger out of my ass. thanks"
jesus

Post: #115

Arguing with the anti vaccination people is the same as arguing with religious fanatics, where the more evidence you show that contradicts their belief system the more they cling to their delusional arguments.

It's hilarious that the world's medical community is wrong, the government is wrong, the drug companies are wrong, the scientists are wrong, basically everyone is wrong, except those lone voices of dissent who are obviously right, they know the truth that everyone else doesn't, they're the ones who we should listen to, but what are their credentials and why should we listen to them? For shits sake, a quack like Dr. Mercola is who they're using as their source for this stupidity and we're supposed to take them seriously? This is obviously a matter of ideology, not science, for this people, and as such it really doesn't matter what you say, they won't care.

Post: #116

(03-27-2014 10:54 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  So your rebuttal to that moronic statement is well if they didnt get the virus now they would have gotten it later ?

Your reading comprehension needs improvement.

Post: #117

(03-28-2014 12:29 AM)clever alias Wrote:  if you get a vaccine, you won't get sick.

That is a blatantly false assumption. A certain percentage of people who take almost every vaccine will get the very disease that they are trying to prevent, from the vaccine itself. That is a major drawback to almost every vaccine, along with frequent contaminants and dangerous additives. That is why everyone must make the choice for himself as to whether to take a vaccine.

Post: #118

(03-28-2014 12:44 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:54 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  So your rebuttal to that moronic statement is well if they didnt get the virus now they would have gotten it later ?

Your reading comprehension needs improvement.

If you bother to read the web link to which he responded, you will see that he was correct. An immunized child produces the virus in his intestines and when he defecates it poses a threat to other children, who would never have caught polio if the first child had never taken the vaccine.

It is like something out of a Kafka novel.

Post: #119

(03-28-2014 01:07 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:44 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:54 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  So your rebuttal to that moronic statement is well if they didnt get the virus now they would have gotten it later ?

Your reading comprehension needs improvement.

If you bother to read the web link to which he responded, you will see that he was correct. An immunized child produces the virus in his intestines and when he defecates it poses a threat to other children, who would never have caught polio if the first child had never taken the vaccine.

It is like something out of a Kafka novel.

. . . unless he also gets vaccinated. then less than 1% of the population will get polio

Post: #120

(03-28-2014 12:59 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:29 AM)clever alias Wrote:  if you get a vaccine, you won't get sick.

That is a blatantly false assumption. A certain percentage of people who take almost every vaccine will get the very disease that they are trying to prevent, from the vaccine itself. That is a major drawback to almost every vaccine, along with frequent contaminants and dangerous additives. That is why everyone must make the choice for himself as to whether to take a vaccine.

no, nobody gets the virus FROM the vaccine. vaccines are around 97-99% effective. you can have a reaction to the vaccine, but you will not contract the illness. I had a bad reaction to pertussis vaccine, it did not give me pertussis, it made me feel tired and sore for a day. I have never had whooping cough

Post: #121

(03-28-2014 01:13 AM)clever alias Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:07 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:44 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-27-2014 10:54 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  So your rebuttal to that moronic statement is well if they didnt get the virus now they would have gotten it later ?

Your reading comprehension needs improvement.

If you bother to read the web link to which he responded, you will see that he was correct. An immunized child produces the virus in his intestines and when he defecates it poses a threat to other children, who would never have caught polio if the first child had never taken the vaccine.

It is like something out of a Kafka novel.

. . . unless he also gets vaccinated. then less than 1% of the population will get polio

So, you agree that BigInJapan's reading comprehension was correct. We're finally making some progress. I can see you busy at the controls -- trying to figure this thing out. I know you can do it!

Post: #122

(03-28-2014 12:59 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:29 AM)clever alias Wrote:  if you get a vaccine, you won't get sick.

That is a blatantly false assumption. A certain percentage of people who take almost every vaccine will get the very disease that they are trying to prevent, from the vaccine itself. That is a major drawback to almost every vaccine, along with frequent contaminants and dangerous additives. That is why everyone must make the choice for himself as to whether to take a vaccine.

Care to share that certain percentage?

Vaccines are made either with dead pathogens, which are impossible to cause illness, or weakened pathogens, who MAY cause illness, but this is only a problem to people with weakened immune systems, like aids or cancer patients, which is a very minute percentage of the population, so this is NOT a major drawback to ALMOST every vaccine.

Also, please share which frequent contaminants and dangerous additives vaccines contain, as I'm curious to know what they are.

Post: #123

(03-28-2014 01:22 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:59 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 12:29 AM)clever alias Wrote:  if you get a vaccine, you won't get sick.

That is a blatantly false assumption. A certain percentage of people who take almost every vaccine will get the very disease that they are trying to prevent, from the vaccine itself. That is a major drawback to almost every vaccine, along with frequent contaminants and dangerous additives. That is why everyone must make the choice for himself as to whether to take a vaccine.

Care to share that certain percentage?

Vaccines are made either with dead pathogens, which are impossible to cause illness, or weakened pathogens, who MAY cause illness, but this is only a problem to people with weakened immune systems, like aids or cancer patients, which is a very minute percentage of the population, so this is NOT a major drawback to ALMOST every vaccine.

Also, please share which frequent contaminants and dangerous additives vaccines contain, as I'm curious to know what they are.

Google is your friend. Mercury and aluminum are two, off the top of my head. If they put mercury in your mouth, why not put it in your blood stream!

Also off the top of my head, if you get the flu shot annually for a number of years (I forget how many) your risk of dementia in your old age increases eight-fold or ten-fold (I forget which).

Post: #124

(03-28-2014 01:07 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  If you bother to read the web link to which he responded, you will see that he was correct. An immunized child produces the virus in his intestines and when he defecates it poses a threat to other children, who would never have caught polio if the first child had never taken the vaccine.

It is like something out of a Kafka novel.

Like I said before, your reading comprehension also sucks and your reasoning is becoming more and more ridiculous.

Post: #125

(03-28-2014 01:28 AM)Teutatis Wrote:  

(03-28-2014 01:07 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  If you bother to read the web link to which he responded, you will see that he was correct. An immunized child produces the virus in his intestines and when he defecates it poses a threat to other children, who would never have caught polio if the first child had never taken the vaccine.

It is like something out of a Kafka novel.

Like I said before, your reading comprehension also sucks and your reasoning is becoming more and more ridiculous.

The information is right in the study cited in the article. You make many claims, but you provide no substance.