Sadly, your words fall on deaf ears. We're in the Age of Information, but the fact that you had to make this initial post is telling about what kind of people you're dealing with.
Just my recent experience. My grandma got a double dose of the flu vaccine. I guess it's double for adults her age. 3 hours later, she was in an ambulance on the way to the ER because she couldn't breath.
First, the microscope requires that the sample be prepared, often by having gold deposited all over it. Almost always, the sample has to have water replaced with a volatile solvent, such as alcohol.
The microscope requires the sample be placed in a super hard vacuum, which dehydrates everything further.
The electrons themselves break chemical bonds and degrade proteins and genetic material.
Finally, the electron beam gives off hard X-rays, which further damage proteins and genetic material.
it's been 'many reads ago' since i read it. the point is, a more appropriate way to word it based on current agreed upon understanding of viruses would be 'active' and 'inactive'
though, I suppose 'dead or alive' could technically apply.. ..it helps your case to stick to a stricter terminology
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
It's not clear where exactly viruses fall on the spectrum of life or non-life. They're not alive in the same sense that cells are, but they're pretty close - it's possible that they are parasitic organisms that evolved from more complex, cellular organisms. Maybe they became what they are by ditching all that they don't need to carry out their lifecycle, such as it is, including equipment we would require prerequisite for life as we define it. It's a matter of gradation, then, not a sharp line.
A dead virus would be one that can no longer carry out its life-like behaviour - reproduction.
Why would you want to fight this on your own if you don't have to?
The flu vaccine is great for weaker people. People who don't eat healthy, exercise or get enough sleep. AKA, the majority of Americans.
My issue is when people want to mandate the population to be vaccinated. Everyone knows how vaccines work. It's not about how they work, it's about forcing someone to do something against their will.
Anecdotally, most people I know who actually get the flu and get sick are the same ones who were vaccinated. I have a suspicion that getting vaccinated against one strand actually creates a vulnerability to other strands.
Either way, I have not been vaccinated against the flu for at least 20 years and I have never had it. I choose to preemptively fight disease by only eating highly nutritious foods and taking care of my body. But, vaccines are great for those who do not take this path or who are weaker humans.
The quality of the gene pool is only going to stay high if the weak are discarded. This is how we got to where we are today and there is no better practice. Vaccines may diminish the quality of the gene pool, by letting the weak survive infections that otherwise would have been fatal to them.
And humans have survived without vaccines for hundreds of thousands of years. That is a fact. Of course the other side of the argument would be, that vaccines could be the key to Humanity becoming immortal and godlike. Who knows?
The point is, that vaccines are not 100% great. There are problems. There will be problems. In everyones mind the upsides outweigh the side effects, except if you or your loved one or (god forbid) child is the one negatively affected by a vaccine.
You know, arguing for freaking social darwinism is not a great argument against vaccination. Also, the survival of the species is not at stake here - the survival of people is. Maybe keep that in mind.
I am torn on the issue. I tried to put that into my words. Sorry if it didn't come through. I am not against vaccinations and was just trying to answer OPs question.
Oh sorry, not a single one of the 86 million Gen X people have ever had any kind of a problem from any kind of medical misadventure? That's what you're saying?
32 comments
6 sliquidsnake 2015-12-10
You're brainwashed. Look up the flu vaccine in VAERS. It's one of the most dangerous vaccines.
4 TheGayMafia 2015-12-10
s
s
s
ss
-2 [deleted] 2015-12-10
[deleted]
7 TheGayMafia 2015-12-10
s
s
2 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
Pro-tip: these folks are looking for validation of their own sense of smug superiority. They give not one shit about life.
You see, that's the standard bit just like a con artist calling you "friend" and questioning your motives.
-2 [deleted] 2015-12-10
[deleted]
5 sliquidsnake 2015-12-10
It's actually brainwashed people like you who suck
4 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
What really "sucks for the rest of us" is the viral shedding and outbreaks caused by dumb, unquestioning vaccine consumers.
3 TheGayMafia 2015-12-10
s
-6 [deleted] 2015-12-10
[deleted]
5 TheGayMafia 2015-12-10
s
x
s
5 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
And then without the slightest sense of irony:
Full retard achieved. Congrats.
-1 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Sadly, your words fall on deaf ears. We're in the Age of Information, but the fact that you had to make this initial post is telling about what kind of people you're dealing with.
3 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
Choose an alt and stick with it lady...
1 sebastiansly 2015-12-10
Don't speak for anyone but yourself.
4 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
"Devil's advocate" is a euphemism for "Histrionic Trolling."
-1 Subzeb8 2015-12-10
Working hard today, I see.
3 agreedis 2015-12-10
Just my recent experience. My grandma got a double dose of the flu vaccine. I guess it's double for adults her age. 3 hours later, she was in an ambulance on the way to the ER because she couldn't breath.
2 herbalpurple 2015-12-10
I've honestly never gotten the flu, so I don't worry about it!
1 Vailhem 2015-12-10
How is a virus 'dead' when it's debateably not ever 'alive' to begin with?
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-10
[deleted]
4 sliquidsnake 2015-12-10
That's nonsense. Viruses cannot even be seen in optical microscopes, and electron microscopy requires processing that renders all viruses inert.
People like you are prone to making stuff up.
1 MyFavoriteLadies 2015-12-10
Can you expand on how electron microscopy renders viruses dead?
2 sliquidsnake 2015-12-10
There are a few reasons.
First, the microscope requires that the sample be prepared, often by having gold deposited all over it. Almost always, the sample has to have water replaced with a volatile solvent, such as alcohol.
The microscope requires the sample be placed in a super hard vacuum, which dehydrates everything further.
The electrons themselves break chemical bonds and degrade proteins and genetic material.
Finally, the electron beam gives off hard X-rays, which further damage proteins and genetic material.
3 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
So much fucking lol.
You don't feel this way as often as you should. :)
2 Vailhem 2015-12-10
going with the title-alone, 'adds evidence' ...but doesn't prove conclusively
it's been 'many reads ago' since i read it. the point is, a more appropriate way to word it based on current agreed upon understanding of viruses would be 'active' and 'inactive'
though, I suppose 'dead or alive' could technically apply.. ..it helps your case to stick to a stricter terminology
/r/virome /r/vaccinenews /r/VaccineMyths
edit 2: note how they use the quotations around "killing" in the last sentence of the intro of this link. it's open for debate.
edit 3: apologies for the edits
2 AutoModerator 2015-12-10
While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2 Roarian 2015-12-10
It's not clear where exactly viruses fall on the spectrum of life or non-life. They're not alive in the same sense that cells are, but they're pretty close - it's possible that they are parasitic organisms that evolved from more complex, cellular organisms. Maybe they became what they are by ditching all that they don't need to carry out their lifecycle, such as it is, including equipment we would require prerequisite for life as we define it. It's a matter of gradation, then, not a sharp line.
A dead virus would be one that can no longer carry out its life-like behaviour - reproduction.
1 Vailhem 2015-12-10
So, it's 'inactivated'.
1 tv_executive_nj 2015-12-10
The flu vaccine is great for weaker people. People who don't eat healthy, exercise or get enough sleep. AKA, the majority of Americans.
My issue is when people want to mandate the population to be vaccinated. Everyone knows how vaccines work. It's not about how they work, it's about forcing someone to do something against their will.
Anecdotally, most people I know who actually get the flu and get sick are the same ones who were vaccinated. I have a suspicion that getting vaccinated against one strand actually creates a vulnerability to other strands.
Either way, I have not been vaccinated against the flu for at least 20 years and I have never had it. I choose to preemptively fight disease by only eating highly nutritious foods and taking care of my body. But, vaccines are great for those who do not take this path or who are weaker humans.
-1 JKJ420 2015-12-10
The quality of the gene pool is only going to stay high if the weak are discarded. This is how we got to where we are today and there is no better practice. Vaccines may diminish the quality of the gene pool, by letting the weak survive infections that otherwise would have been fatal to them.
And humans have survived without vaccines for hundreds of thousands of years. That is a fact. Of course the other side of the argument would be, that vaccines could be the key to Humanity becoming immortal and godlike. Who knows?
The point is, that vaccines are not 100% great. There are problems. There will be problems. In everyones mind the upsides outweigh the side effects, except if you or your loved one or (god forbid) child is the one negatively affected by a vaccine.
2 Roarian 2015-12-10
You know, arguing for freaking social darwinism is not a great argument against vaccination. Also, the survival of the species is not at stake here - the survival of people is. Maybe keep that in mind.
0 JKJ420 2015-12-10
I am torn on the issue. I tried to put that into my words. Sorry if it didn't come through. I am not against vaccinations and was just trying to answer OPs question.
-1 [deleted] 2015-12-10
[deleted]
2 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
That would be funny except that the patent falsity of it hits home. You see, I lost both my baby boomer father and stepfather to hep C.
I'm not blaming the thumbnail shaped scars on their arms. They kind of did though...
1 MyFavoriteLadies 2015-12-10
Not a single one of the 76 million baby boomers has any problems?
-2 [deleted] 2015-12-10
[deleted]
1 MyFavoriteLadies 2015-12-10
Oh sorry, not a single one of the 86 million Gen X people have ever had any kind of a problem from any kind of medical misadventure? That's what you're saying?
2 yo_me_paspali 2015-12-10
Pro-tip: these folks are looking for validation of their own sense of smug superiority. They give not one shit about life.
You see, that's the standard bit just like a con artist calling you "friend" and questioning your motives.