Important -- how to in 10 sec shut up a ProVaccine person

a reply to: DJW001

Not everyone can be vaccinated, for one reason or another. Think of people as cottages with different types of roofs. If you do not get vaccinated, you have a thatched roof. The more people who get slate roofs, the less chance there is of fire spreading from one cottage to another. When 94% of the village has slate roofs, the people who cannot afford anything but thatching will stand a better chance of not catching fire. If the fire does spread, even the cottages with slate roofs can become endangered. Does that help?

No it doesn't help because it is a dumb comparison, although it looks pretty clever.

If the fire does spread, even the cottages with slate roofs can become endangered. Does that help?

If it spreads because of people that are unvaccinated the only people that would be endangered(in the vaccinated group) are the 5% in whom the vaccine was ineffective. You make it sound like everyone is suddenly at risk. If this was the case then you might aswell get rid of the vaccine.

I'm going to let my kids live in a hepa-filtered bubble until they're twenty. Then when they contract chicken pox and die at thirty... such is life.

You know, so long as big pharma didn't kill them. /sarcasm

a reply to: Chadwickus

Correlation doesn't mean causation, indeed, but this little tactic of yours is ridiculous.

Comparing to random data sets is just intellectually dishonest.

a reply to: TheNameOfTheGame

There is no causal link between vaccines and autism.

www.tylervigen.com...

a reply to: GetHyped

I didn't say there was. Not saying there isn't either.

originally posted by: TheNameOfTheGame
a reply to: Chadwickus

Correlation doesn't mean causation, indeed, but this little tactic of yours is ridiculous.

It's ridiculous, yet you agree with me?

Comparing to random data sets is just intellectually dishonest.

Nancy Swanson is the one who is being intellectually dishonest here, my example I present shows this, you do understand this, right?

I don't actually believe Chinese energy causes autism.

Can't believe I have to explain this...

I actually do believe that people have the right to make whatever choices they wish so long as those choices effect no one else.

Notice the last part?

Vaccination has been proven as a medical technique in the combating of disease.

Regard the absence of smallpox, polio, etc., for the first time in human history; your "freedom to choose" would end that.

No, you don't have any right to use your children as disease vectors against the rest of us, least of all our children.

Your way of thinking needs to be stopped, at best, you're a representative of a failed line of evolution.

/shrug

a reply to: Chadwickus

Reductio ad absurdum ... lost on many, particularly anti-vaxxers.

Keep up your good work!

Im guessing the same people paroting the measles deadly outbreak where scared because of ebola was going to kill millions of americans. Yea for more un educated replies from the doom porn fans of ats.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Measles is one of the most contagious diseases known to man. As it's vaccine-preventable, it's hardly "doom porn" to point out that lowering vaccination rates below the herd immunity threshold will lead to more outbreaks that can hospitalize and potentially kill people.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Im guessing the same people paroting the measles deadly outbreak where scared because of ebola was going to kill millions of americans. Yea for more un educated replies from the doom porn fans of ats.

Oh dear. I don't think you can compare people who warn about the dangers of losing herd immunity to measles with the people who were spreading rumors that ebola was going to kill everyone on Earth.

a reply to: Chadwickus

It's ridiculous, yet you agree with me?

I agree that correlation doesn't mean causation. It doesn't mean that there is no link either.

Nancy Swanson

Why do you have to bring this "boogieman"? Who mentioned her?

I don't actually believe Chinese energy causes autism.

You don't say.....

You are deliberately comparing autism data to data that is not even remotely related from a logical standpoint, in order to make a suspected correlation between autism and vaccine, look equally ridiculous, which it isn't. Not saying there is a real correlation, but such a hypothesis is not anywhere as ridiculous as it would be with your comparisons. Like correlating the rise of organic food production to autism.

Can't believe I have to explain this...

Can't believe you thought you had to explain anything to me, seems it's the other way around.

a reply to: TheNameOfTheGame

If it spreads because of people that are unvaccinated the only people that would be endangered(in the vaccinated group) are the 5% in whom the vaccine was ineffective. You make it sound like everyone is suddenly at risk.

Everyone is at risk because there is no way of telling who the vaccine was ineffective for.

a reply to: ObeseOgre

Your trolling is not only not funny, it is potentially dangerous. Why don't you go deface Neil Armstrong's obituary pages or something?

a reply to: PizzaAnyday505

It bothers me when you cannot tell exactly the strength of any one person's immune system. They are all different. My child is in the upper limit of the window between his first MMR and his booster. Technically, his immune system should be strong enough that he is protected if you and yours are not vaccinated and get sick, but without doing a titer test to specifically check this to see, I have no way of knowing that with any certainty.

Where my husband works they have equine encephalitis on campus, and anyone who works with it must take part in an experimental encephalitis vaccine program. Once a year, they fly out to Maryland where they are titer tested. Some need to have a booster and some do not. You never know who will and won't need that shot. It's an individual thing based on their highly individual immune systems.

Similarly, my husband worked in the state rabies testing labs for several years and needed to receive boosters every six months. His own recent titer test just showed that his immune system recently fell to below acceptable levels for rabies antibodies after almost 20 years, so if he were to be bitten now, he would need shots again. But another person might have different results.

This is where different accounts of vaccine effectiveness comes from. Everyone has a different immune system.

And don't bring up getting immunity the "natural" way from the disease. You immune system functions the same. This is why you hear accounts of people who get diseases twice when others will usually only get them once. Your immune system really doesn't care where the exposure comes from; it doesn't know. It reacts the same.

So in every crowd, there will be those who have an immune response that is eroded even if they provoked it with a shot or got the disease the "natural" way, and they will be at risk the next time the disease comes around right alongside the ones who cannot yet be vaccinated and those whose immune systems are compromised and cannot offer any protection.

I a person who chooses not to vaccinate needs to take it all into consideration.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Honest question related to your statement and to all who feel vaccines should be mandatory.

How will you enforce that? Send armed SWAT to the homes of people who don't vaccinate their children?

What happens between a patient and their doctor is none of the Government's business. The decision is up to the parents. That is all people like Rand Paul are saying.

I get vaccinated as does my wife who works with kids, but growing up I had an immuno-deficiency (hypogammaglobulinemea) and I couldn't get vaccinated for everything until I was older. Point being every individual is different and we have to keep in mind that the "herd immunity" logic is a dangerous logic that can be applied elsewhere for more nefarious reasons.

a reply to: SonOfThor

I don't think everyone should be forced to be vaccinated, and there are vaccinations we don't choose to get.

But I do think the line of reasoning that "I am an island and if I don't get vaccinated it shouldn't affect you" isn't exactly always true in this case either. And when we don't get a vaccination, we are well aware of what that means for not just us but everyone around us.

a reply to: SonOfThor

How will you enforce that? Send armed SWAT to the homes of people who don't vaccinate their children?

First, educate the public on the dangers of not vaccinating, then, make a "proof of vaccination" certificate from a doctor necessary for registration at school. Home-schoolers should be licensed anyway, and certificates checked. If people go "off the grid," they are no longer part of the herd, and are a danger to no-one but themselves and their families.

What happens between a patient and their doctor is none of the Government's business. The decision is up to the parents. That is all people like Rand Paul are saying.

Insofar as the government is elected by the people to protect the commonwealth, what happens between a doctor and a patient is the government's business if the safety of the public is at risk. Remember the "Ebola Nurse?" Wouldn't you rather the government be more thorough when it comes to infectious diseases than less?

I get vaccinated as does my wife who works with kids, but growing up I had an immuno-deficiency (hypogammaglobulinemea) and I couldn't get vaccinated for everything until I was older. Point being every individual is different and we have to keep in mind that the "herd immunity" logic is a dangerous logic that can be applied elsewhere for more nefarious reasons.

It is because some people cannot get immunized themselves that herd immunity is important for their sake. Can you provide an example of "herd immunity logic," and how it could be applied elsewhere for nefarious reasons?

a reply to: PizzaAnyday505

What would the rabies risk be if there weren't laws requiring pets to be vaccinated?

Now show me a link that proves Rover gets autism from vaccines.

I looked at the evidence over the years that was used to show vaccines worked. If you went to the doctor with an illness, doctors would not check you if you were vaccinated for a disease before. This distorted the results of the vaccinations making them look like they worked better than they actually did being that feedback from doctors was used to evaluate the efficiency.

If the doctors do not write down the actual illness, what has the CDC got to show they work. You can cut down the numbers of cases of measles if the doctors do not acknowledge the measles are measles. You can show a big improvement with flu vaccines if the doctor calls the virus something other than the flu.

The whole basis of this research is messed up. How do I know this? I knew doctors who had denied that people did not have the flu just because they had been vaccinated. The government is trying to fix this but when you train people to ignore the disease is there because the person was vaccinated it is hard to get proper results.