People over at pol are smoking Morbo's Executive Synthetic Marijuana Substitute, brought to you in part by Morbo's Executive Powder, and Charleston Chew

Arooooo!!!

Because Reddit has become a whore for corporate propaganda.

I've found pharma shills to be the most vicious of the shills too.

A mixture of useful idiots and paid shills.

Useful idiots yes, paid shills unnecessary.

Sadly, it’s hive mind at its finest. This isn’t exclusively a Reddit thing though. While sometimes it’s a fallacy, sometimes the truth really is in the middle. All vaccines are not bad or evil, the science itself is quite sound. However, they downplay the shit out of the legitimate cases of vaccine injury, and the lack of accountability in the industry, and ineffective vaccination rates with some of them. There are certainly some case of foulness abound , but to the masses, it’s never “their” Doctor that’s part of the corrupt medical industry. Only other, bad doctors care more for profit than peoples. Sometimes, they’re correct. Other times....well...

Between 60-100 million people dies of the Spanish flu, most in the second wave.

Do you have any primary source evidence for this claim?

What, like 100 million death certificates?

I mean anything.

For the same reason the experts in the field recommend vaccines: they're safe and effective, and save lives.

Yeah, anti-vaxers will scream shill! and run through the talking points they learned on Facebook or YouTube. But the epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists who actually study the issue firsthand overwhelmingly support vaccination. There's a reason for that, and it's not that every expert in the world is corrupt. Vaccines actually work.

I agree. Vaccines are very effective in preventing terrible diseases turning into epidemics. Buuuuuut maybe we could start developing an alternative to trigger auto-immune responses rather than using aluminum and/or mercury. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that that's their only purpose of being in a vaccine.

As a rational person on this topic, this is the only thing that concerns me. That and maybe injecting cocktails of vaccines, not sure immune systems should be overloaded like that.

not sure immune systems should be overloaded like that.

As someone who studies immunology, it by no means "overloads" the immune system. It has the deal with threats 24/7.

Does it often have to fight cocktails of diseases though?

...Yes. Do you have any idea how many potentially infectious agents we come into contact with on a day to day basis? There's a reason why people with SCID rarely get passed the first couple of months. It is a constant, never ending battle.

We're not constantly fighting off cocktails of the deadliest diseases though.

The viruses in vaccines are deactivated and can't spread

They still overload your immune system.

You're not fighting the deadliest diseases when given a vaccine. You're fighting their retarded cousins. We have a whole slew of different types of vaccines (live attenuated, inactivated, toxoid, subunit, conjugate, VLPs, DNA, recombinant etc.) and none of them have you fighting the actual pathogen. They're either weakened to the point where they can't do much, or you're given a LITERAL piece of them that can't replicate by itself. They are sitting ducks against your immune system. An APC will stimulate the formation of memory T and B cells geared towards fighting whatever has the antigen the APC picked up. This whole process occurs all the time.

Yes, but those retarded cousins of deadly diseases still wreck your immune system and keep you down for days at a time for some people. They're not completely benign like we're told.

At this point, I feel my own perspective is not being conveyed and is getting twisted a bit so I'll just say, I don't think vaccines are a conspiracy to kill people or anything like that–– I just sometimes wonder if cocktails should be given to small children all at the same time.

It's not a crazy question to ask.

Yes, but those retarded cousins of deadly diseases still wreck your immune system and keep you down for days at a time for some people.

Key word "some people". The amount of individuals that suffer even slight side effects is incredibly low (this does vary from vaccine to vaccine). You can never guarantee 100% risk free in all cases. People are different. Certain individuals may react differently to certain antigens when compared to the general population. Some individuals could have some degree of immunodeficiency and struggle to take down vaccines involving a live virus (usually these people are not administered the vaccine though). These are still fringe cases though.

You're question is completely fine. Children do have a less developed immune system when compared to adults. However by the same vein of logic, you could argue that they SHOULD be the priority since they would be the most at risk. It's all about balancing the risks.

I just wonder if small children should get individual vaccines at a time, rather than cocktails. That’s all. I know it more convenient to get a single shot every 6 months or whatever but I can’t help but wonder if we’re sacrificing safety for convenience.

Even if you wanted to space them out, 6 months would be overdoing it I would think. B cells begin producing antibodies at around 5-7 days after the addition of the antigen, and the T cells are already out there.

The longer you wait the longer you'd be susceptible. Keep in mind that the intensity of an immune response to an already encountered antigen is not only MUCH faster, but significantly more intense than the first encounter.

If you want you could always ask your doctor or a practicing immunologist. They've been dealing with this stuff for literally decades.

I meant these cocktails are spread out by 6 months right now. But perhaps the individual vaccines within the cocktails should be spread out themselves. So maybe one per week or every 3 days or whatever is determined to be safest (without any thought toward convenience).

P.S. Thanks for a calm, informed discussion.

Ah sorry. Misread your previous comment. My bad.

Thanks for a calm, informed discussion.

No problem. The sad reality is that the public view of vaccines has become tainted in the past 25ish years. Tones of studies have come out showing their safety and beneficial effects, but they don't ever reach the masses. It's starting to have negative effects. Certain diseases are beginning to rear their heads.

The real issue though is that nobody bothers to read the actual scientific literature in general. It's all about blogs, news articles and shitty 30 second video summaries on social media. They rarely ever properly portray what was found out and often twist stories to sound more "clickbaity" or to better suit their political affiliation.

That's the real conspiracy if you ask me. Having people think they've got a handle on a whole subject because they read an article on "NaturalHealthNewsToday" or whatever. ALWAYS check the references and find out where the information is coming from.

It's no more "aluminum and/or mercury" than your salt shaker contains chlorine--they're compounds. And there's no good evidence that they're harmful. After all, thimerosal was taken out of every vaccine on the CDC's recommended childhood schedule, and it had no effect whatsoever on public health. That was no surprise to the experts, who'd been saying all along that thimerosal was harmless.

They do, but injecting newborn babies is unethical.

especially on the current schedule

It's no different than giving babies antibiotics. It's unethical to deprive them of healthcare.

I agree.

Doctors prefer not to give babies antibiotics, if possible. They will prescribe a steroid before an antibiotic. It's even more complicated than that though...

https://m.health24.com/Parenting/Child/First-year/should-babies-be-given-antibiotics-in-their-first-year-20160825

You want to avoid a shit ton of stuff in the first years of a kids life. Lead, flouride, honey, peanut butter, list goes on.

Doctors give kids antibiotics and vaccines when the benefits outweigh the harms. Since the potential harms of vaccines are vanishingly rare, basically every expert recommends following the schedule.

The schedule set by bug pharma?

The same bug pharma that has shown time and time again they'll put profits ahead of risks? Those guys?

No. The schedule set by independent healthcare experts. Big Pharma doesn't set the schedule.

That's naive. Especially considering the kind of regulatory capture big pharma has engaged in over the years. It's just as bad, if not worse than the FCC.

It's naive to not jump to a conclusion?

Naive to think they aren't pushing these, regardless of risks, for profits.

They even pay shills to astroturf their shit.

https://youtu.be/-bYAQ-ZZtEU

Like I said, naive.

When there are essentially no experts who disagree with the schedule, there's no logical reason to assume that corruption is responsible for it. There isn't enough money in vaccines to corrupt every expert.

But the epidemiologists, virologists, and immunologists who actually study the issue firsthand overwhelmingly support vaccination.

and what about those who have been hurt by them? they dont matter?

Are you familiar with the term, "strawman"?

oh ok so the people that get hurt dont matter then?

You should google what "strawman" means. You're constructing a position that literally no one takes and pretending that it's my argument.

Oh I know what it means. It just doesnt fit here. Youre making the claim that because such and such people think vaccines are safe that everyone should not only accept that but ignore the potential dangers associated with them. Thats ridiculous.

No, I'm not. I'm stating that vaccine side effects are extraordinarily rare. You made up a different position and put it in my mouth, because it was easier than responding to that point. Why?

No, I'm not. I'm stating that vaccine side effects are extraordinarily rare

that changes what exactly?

why would anyone promote vaccines that have hurt people? especially when no one seems to know what triggered the adverse reaction.

Would you willingly give your kid (or yourself) a pill that has a chance of ruining their life? Would you force someone else to do it?

No one in their right mind (who has the facts and no ulterior motives) would be promoting vaccines as they stand today.

Every single medicine can have serious side effects. Even antibiotics and vitamin supplements. If there question was, "Are there potential harmful side effects?", then we'd never set a bone or give penicillin or use vaccines or car seats.

That's why we ask instead how common the side effects are, and whether the benefits outweigh the potential harms, given their scarcity. And every expert in the field agrees that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the potential, and vanishingly rare, side effects. Just like with penicillin.

and no one is ostracized for electing to not get those treatments, so why are those who do not want to inject their bodies with a foreign substance ridiculed?

There are people who neglect to give their kids medicine, and yes, they're criticized and ostracized.

Herd immunity. Pretty simple concept

we dont bath in dirty water anymore

besides the fact that our world is completely different now, that still isnt a good enough reason to force someone to inject their body with a foreign substance

we dont bath in a communal dirty water toilet bowl anymore

What's your point with this?

illness in the past had a lot to do with the lack of hygiene. herd immunity isnt even about vaccinations anyway though. herd immunity was a term coined to describe the development of natural immunities developed over generations resulting in new generations that wont be susceptible to an illness at all without the use of a vaccine. vaccines only effect the individuals and are not passed down to children so they have nothing to do with herd immunity

I'm not sure where that information came from, but herd immunity is a bit different than that. It basically amounts to having a sufficiently immunised group of people, which makes disease harder to spread, therefore limiting contact with the subgroup of non-immune individuals. It's especially relevant to vaccines.

I'd be happy to back this up with sources but I'm on mobile, so I'd appreciate it if you google "herd immunity" first before you ask me to do it.

no, herd immunity is exactly how i explained it. big pharma has attempted to hijack the term by leaving out the "natural" part that is so important to its definition though.

As more people in a society develop NATURAL immunities less people in the society will be born with the susceptibility of contracting deadly illness since tolerance/immunity is passed down genetically.

Herd immunity (also called herd effect, communityimmunity, population immunity, or social immunity) is a form of indirect protection from infectious disease that occurs when a large percentage of a population has become immune to an infection, thereby providing a measure of protection for individuals who are not ...

nothing in the definition describes vaccinations and although vaccines do provide a sort of immunity it is an unnatural form. It works, but it does not have the effect herd immunity was coined to describe. Children are not born immune to polio or the chicken pox because mom and dad were vaccinated for it. They need to be vaccinated too since the immunity is not genetically passed down.

Herd immunity can happen naturally over time, but it doesn't mean that if it is induced artificially it doesn't qualify. It's two roads to the same end goal.

The risk to everyone of developing very serious complications from the illnesses we vaccinate against, are increased when herd immunity goes down. Vaccination isn't a failsafe in an individual, and some people cannot have vaccinations due to compromised immune systems, so herd immunity is paramount.

Most of these illnesses are unpleasant, but it is the complications which arise do so with far greater frequency than the side-effects of vaccines, and the complications are far more devastating or even fatal.

So whilst I wouldn't want to see anyone ridiculed for being paranoid, the basis of their paranoia absolutely should be ridiculed and demolished with evidence, those who cynically and fraudulently prey on the paranoid via anti-vaxxing "studies" absolutely should be ostracised and ridiculed. Meantime it is 100% understandable to politely but firmly ostracise those who refuse to be vaccinated as they pose a risk to those around them.

So whilst I wouldn't want to see anyone ridiculed for being paranoid, the basis of their paranoia absolutely should be ridiculed and demolished with evidence,

but people do get hurt from vaccines and no one knows how to figure out who will or who wont...its a game of russian roulette. if i gave you a revolver loaded with one bullet would you play? Probably not. There is no difference here.

You take a shot to the arm and pray you dont get hurt from it or worse.

the real problem is that the uninformed think they're the ones who are most informed and ridicule people who understand what this deadly game actually is.

those who cynically and fraudulently prey on the paranoid via anti-vaxxing "studies" absolutely should be ostracised and ridiculed.

bottom line is that people do get hurt and no one knows how to identify them before they pull the metaphorical trigger though.

Meantime it is 100% understandable to politely but firmly ostracise those who refuse to be vaccinated as they pose a risk to those around them.

how is it acceptable to shame them for putting others at danger while expecting them to discard their own safety and self preservation?

They all have a much greater risk of being hurt, and being hurt to a much greater degree, if they do not vaccinate. If they are thinking of their safety, and are fearful of random risk they would vaccinate.

One can have sympathy with those who experience adverse effects, and aim to reduce the impact and frequency of that, but accepting an unwillingness to take routine vaccinations as a reasonable stance would be absurd.

This don't have to shame them - just radically reduce your physical exposure to them.

They all have a much greater risk of being hurt, and being hurt to a much greater degree, if they do not vaccinate. If they are thinking of their safety, and are fearful of random risk they would vaccinate.

how are you able to justify making this decision for someone else? Would you be ok with me deciding that you and your kids should not be vaccinated? my guess is no, so why the hypocrisy?

You are the one who raised fear of risk of side effects as a reason for rejecting vaccinations. This is a bogus reason as the risks associated with going unvaccinated are much greater and much more prevalent.

Nobody can make someone else be vaccinated, but they also don't have to pretend that the decision to go unvaccinated is valid. They also don't have to expose themselves to those who wilfully refuse to be vaccinated or admit them into spaces where they will pose a risk to others.

This is a bogus reason as the risks associated with going unvaccinated are much greater and much more prevalent.

if you're one of the unlucky few you have a 100% chance of being hurt by taking the vaccine.... problem is that you don't know if you are one of these people till you take it... and people like you don't care that people aren't willing to pull that trigger to find out

Why would anyone care when the same person has a much higher risk of far more severe consequences if they do not get vaccinated. People care about the much more serious and frequent risk those who fear vaccination are exposing themselves to.

I don't know how many times I can say the same thing in different ways, only for you to continue to misrepresent an extremely simple concept. I do not believe you are conversing in good faith.

i don't believe you have the right to make that decision for someone else

Nor do I. Forcing someone to get a vaccination would be assault.

But I do have the right to not pander to the view.

Except that it's not Russian Roulette. There aren't six chambers and one bullet, but ten million chambers and one side effect. And while there are some serious side effects, they're even scarcer--most adverse reactions are rashes and temporary soreness.

so the russian roulette comparison is valid then

It's also valid for crossing the street, eating food, and driving a car. Literally every action has potential risks.

Here’s to never having the flu and never having a flu shot!

Yep, and here's to the eradication of Smallpox and (soon) Polio. Wonder how that happened.

Wonder how that happened.

Well let's look at the evidence. Do you have evidence, or just appeals to authority?

I gotchu bro.

http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/39485

Here is a 1370 page long overview of Smallpox and the history concerning it's eradication by the World Health Organization. You've also got ~50 of references. Enjoy.

Username does not check out

tl;dr Mass vaccinations alone didn't eradicate smallpox; surveillance and containment did.

Containment meant isolation of patient and vaccination of those who were in contact with them.

Isolation in a separate dwelling while being cared for by someone who previously had the disease is noted as being particularly effective.

/u/Step2TheJep

Clearly a lot of vaccination happened and the disease was eradicated.

Clearly a lot of vaccination happened and the disease was eradicated

Correlation does not equal causation.

Causation will always result in correlation though.

Gee, I've had the flu shot every year for about 10 years now and I haven't gotten the flu, either. So here's to getting my vaccine and never having the flu!

You seem to think the flu is the worse thing that can happen to you? Ever seen a kid with whooping cough? Ever seen someone suffer from shingles? Any of your older relatives contract polio as a child? Ever known anyone who had to endure treatment for hepatitis? I've seen all those things, and I don't want them for myself or my children. You can have them! I'll get the vaccines, thanks.

Ever seen a kid with whooping cough? Ever seen someone suffer from shingles? Any of your older relatives contract polio as a child? Ever known anyone who had to endure treatment for hepatitis?

No, that's the problem. Once eradicated these things are no longer scary because there is no first hand experience and folks then get it in their heads that it's a bad thing because their snowflakes might get autism (/s) and it spreads virally and now we have new cases of these once tamped down diseases.

So hopefully when a bunch of people die this time, the lesson is learned for a few more decades into the future but, I'm not counting on anything.

I had shingles a couple of years ago had to have 3 weeks off work on strong opiates. Even with the opiates the pain was agony I was just to fucked to care. I wouldn't wish them on my worse enemy and I'm really scared that I could get them again.

I’m so sorry. I know several people that get them and it’s just awful. I hope you stay healthy and don’t have another episode.

I've never had the flu vaccine. I'm 49. I've had the flu one time.

because most people are sheep

I like getting the flu, it reminds me I’m a champion and not a pussy, give me that flu and stick your shots up your ass. I breath in people’s flu ridden sneezes like a fine perfume.

reddit is corporate. money is involved.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/topmindsofreddit] “Why is Reddit pushing Vaccines?”

 ^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

Every single medicine can have serious side effects. Even antibiotics and vitamin supplements. If there question was, "Are there potential harmful side effects?", then we'd never set a bone or give penicillin or use vaccines or car seats.

That's why we ask instead how common the side effects are, and whether the benefits outweigh the potential harms, given their scarcity. And every expert in the field agrees that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the potential, and vanishingly rare, side effects. Just like with penicillin.