You fucked up. One more dead kid, the world moves on. Walk it off.

congratulations on being a shitty parent and live with the fact you ruined your kids life. Pat yourself on the back and try to make the next one normal.

yeah you really arent biased one way or another..

ayyyy parents with dead kids walk it off but fuck parents who have retarded kids

joking?kinda sucks how it chips away at the post.

serious? thats not the main message i received;its not even important is it?

"But it’s hilarious when vaccinated people think unvaccinated people are a threat. Well, your kids are vaccinated, what are you worried about?"

This.

Another thing that blows my fucking mind is that everyone seems to think that the people in charge actually have the peoples safety, security and health in mind.

"here, give us your guns.. WE will protect you.." "here take this vaccine, it is good for you.." "here, drink this fluoride, we really care about your teeth" "Here let us spray DDT all over your children, it will protect them.."

Anyone who believes that shit is stuck in "white picket fence, golden retriever, 1950's eternal utopia america"..

I mostly agree with you. However, some kids are too young for certain vaccines, and can then be exposed to an unvaccinated kid. Just saying. I do agree that those in charge don't always have our best interests in mind. That much is certain, sadly.

Unvaccinated kids don't spontaneously spawn new disease, but we do know that the recently vaccinated will shed the the virus for a couple of weeks

What are you gonna do whenever a crime happens? Form a posse? Your logic is flawed. You You should move to Somalia if you don't like governments including law enforcement and public health. This isn't the fucking wild wild west man. You're not some lone ranger you are part of a civilized society.

See where your boys are when shit goes down.

Let me help you, they will be in their personal bunkers they built with our money.

Obviously me and you see two totally different worlds.

Yes, obviously. One of us lives in constant fear and is ready to hide when shit goes down while the other is not afraid and if something goes down will respond accordingly.

I don’t live in fear. I live not dependent on water coming from the faucet. I live without needing food from the grocery. Good luck responding accordingly.

This isn't about food or water. You're the one who started talking about survival and you are also the kind of person who assumes that everyone else is unprepared except for yourself. I gave you not even a hint of information regarding how I live my life yet you assume so much. We live in the 21st century but if you want to live like you're still in the Stone age that's your prerogative.. but that doesn't mean you have to live in a life of fear like it seems you do. You are afraid of disaster and you are afraid of needing to rely on other people. I get that. But that has made you selfish and probably think that just because you don't need anyone else to survive they are screwed and you are not. You should not look down on people who use faucets or don't grow their own food. We have an economic system where as a society everyone works together to form a web of goods/services and are able to enjoy the fruits of everyone's labor. You will only get to enjoy the fruits of your labor because you prefer to cut yourself off from the modern day way of life. Why are you so afraid of catastrophe? Why do you feel the need to belittle others who like being part of an economic team and not run solo? What kind of disasters are you afraid of? I'm honestly asking you these questions with the hope that you will answer them because people like you boggle my mind.

The first thing you said was that I live in fear... and I’m the one making assumptions? The only one doing that is you.

I’m not afraid of catastrophe. I just prefer to not be dependent on the system. I don’t look down on anyone, I just like to make the best choices for myself and my family that I can, just like anyone else. I really didn’t think I was making an outlandish claim.

I wouldnt call a society in which many people get ahead by screwing people over and the majority of people are considered livestock "a team".

That's one pessimistic way to see it. I'm against capitalism too btw but I get your point. There are many different economic models out there but everyone fending for themselves without any cooperation is not one of them. Even anarcho systems have cooperation where everyone isn't fending for themselves.

Uhhh i am VERY pro capitalism. You seem to be very misinformed about economics. Socialism and government collusion with business is why vaccines are fucked.

Corporatism is bad, capitalism is good, and the only system that has worked to build good things throughout history, without slave labor.

That's a horrible argument because you can't scale modern day technology with past technology with regard to economic prosperity. Also you are the one that is misinformed because whenever someone says capitalism is bad you immediately tag about socialism. That is a false dichotomy. There are many other forms that exist.. It's not as simple as socialism and capitalism and nothing in between.

Thats extremely vague and "scale modern day technology with past technology" is meaningless gibberish. The underlying principles are either applicable or not, and either beneficial or detrimental.

If you bring up technology, be specific. Which technology makes specific moral principles incompatible with which economic systems?

Our species is uniquely hubristic in believing that the rules of nature do not apply to us. Its pitiful and disgusting really.

It's not meaningful gibberish just because you don't understand it. You can't say capitalism is the cause of our current prosperity because you're not taking into consideration technology in the equation. It's impossible to scale back today's tech to historical economies to make comparisons so your argument that capitalism is the reason we are so great today is fallacious. You don't know that and there is no way you can prove it. Just don't use that argument it's old and tired and not to mention ethnocentric. Not only that.. you are too argumentative and needing to be right to make this conversation worth both our times so we should just stop.

Typical response when someone cant argue their point: "its not worth the time im done here". Horseshit.

Technology does not change the fundamental nature of morality.

Capitalism, or more specifically, ethical competetion, is the reason shit gets done and advancements are made. Always has been and until we have Dyson Spheres and so much overabundance that everyone can have their own spaceship, all the food and medical care to be basically immortal, then you need advancement.

What drives advancement? Competition or laziness? Answer that and youve figured it out. But really, explain to me what technology really complicates it. I know the answer, but do you? Simple human slaves are the technology that drives nonadaptivity. Slaves run by authoritarian dictatorships and exploited by sell outs like Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook.

I did argue my point you just fail to see it. Stop being so immature if you want to be taken seriously. I already know your case you don't need to keep repeating it. I believe your argument is fallacious and I explained why already. I already knew that you disagree with me you don't need to keep repeating it. You are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.. this will keep going on in circles.

Unearned? 😂😂😂😂

But it’s hilarious when vaccinated people think unvaccinated people are a threat. Well, your kids are vaccinated, what are you worried about?

Ugh, this again?

Herd immunity.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 157311}

Ah, the good ol' "herd immunity" lie.

"Is Herd Immunity Real?

In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason for this is that naturally-acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. The vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But, there was one major problem – vaccine-induced immunity lasted for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they began, silently, to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella.

Then they discovered an even greater problem, the boosters were lasting for only 2 years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those which they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done.

That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. In essence, at least 50% or more of the population was unprotected for decades.

If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95%. Yet, we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50% or less of the population having vaccine protection. That is, herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations.

When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines protective immunity was 30 to 40%, meaning that 70% to 60% of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30% to 40% vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us were without the magical 95% number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95% effectiveness rates.

Without the mantra of herd immunity, these public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was, and still is, all a myth."

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/02/18/the-deadly-impossibility-of-herd-immunity-through-vaccination-by-dr-russell-blaylock/

In summary, we have shown that the benefits of many current vaccines extend beyond the direct benefits to indirect benefits, i.e. through the herd effect extending beyond targeted groups to other populations at high risk for complications. Nevertheless, gaps in our knowledge exist about how best to achieve herd immunity. For example, it is unclear whether there are particular formulations that confer better herd immunity than others; a prime example is whether herd immunity achieved through live attenuated influenza vaccine is superior to that achieved with inactivated vaccine. Another area where gaps in our knowledge exist is the optimal use of new vaccines. For example, there are several candidate vaccines for dengue in clinical trials and strategies for how best to use them to establish herd immunity need to be developed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/

No, it's actually pretty bad in reality. If herd immunity actually worked, cases like this would not occur:

"An outbreak of measles occurred in a high school with a documented vaccination level of 98 per cent. Nineteen (70 per cent) of the cases were students who had histories of measles vaccination at 12 months of age or older and are therefore considered vaccine failures. Persons who were unimmunized or immunized at less than 12 months of age had substantially higher attack rates compared to those immunized on or after 12 months of age. Vaccine failures among apparently adequately vaccinated individuals were sources of infection for at least 48 per cent of the cases in the outbreak. There was no evidence to suggest that waning immunity was a contributing factor among the vaccine failures. Close contact with cases of measles in the high school, source or provider of vaccine, sharing common activities or classes with cases, and verification of the vaccination history were not significant risk factors in the outbreak. The outbreak subsided spontaneously after four generations of illness in the school and demonstrates that when measles is introduced in a highly vaccinated population, vaccine failures may play some role in transmission but that such transmission is not usually sustained."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

That’s really not so bad. Yeah, the vaccines failed, but they still mitigated the spread of the outbreak. That vaccine was probably flawed and insufficiently researched, as many are when the primary motive is profit.

That doesn’t mean “vaccination” is a bad thing, though it does make me curious about what “vaxxers” interpret “anti-vaxxers” motivation to be. Who stands to benefit from the anti-vax movement?

To be clear, I agree that vaccines are insufficiently researched and in many cases dangerous. I think things like the flu vaccine may be especially harmful. But I also see that vaccinations are in some cases necessary to prevent major outbreaks of more deadly illnesses.

Which diseases are sufficiently dangerous enough that we are vaccinating for currently?

If you take into account that vaccines actually shed the virus for sometimes months after vaccination, you could make the argument that the outbreak would never had happened in an unvaccinated school population.

I know I'm in /r/conspiracy so I try to lower my expectations regarding good math and sound scientific reasoning. But I still feel let down. For example:

Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases.

The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections.

We're talking about herd immunity, yes? Somebody needs to tell this guy that Tetanus isn't contagious.

“The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood diseases”

..... ?

'It doesn't matter that he blows his credibility by saying something manifestly idiotic - in the next sentence he says something I think is true so he's still right.'

Sheesh...

He never said tetanus is contagious. He is using the example of the tetanus vaccine and it's non-existant immunity as a comparative example to contagious disease vaccines. Both were said to give lifetime immunity, both were discovered to not give lifetime immunity and in fact gave waning immunity if any at all, and both tetanus and the contagious diseases being vaccinated for were in decline and basically non-existant in regards to mortality before the vaccines were introduced.

He doesn't have to say it's contagious for this to be a moronic non-sequeter.

Who cares if fewer people are being infected by a non-contagious disease that's typically the product of rusty nails and animal dung? How is that a conclusive sign of the ineffectiveness of the vaccine for the disease?

And even if it were, what does that have to do with herd immunity in contagious diseases? How does situation one map to the other?

If the link seems 'obvious' to you, try actually spelling out the logic in explicit terms. A common trick of lesser conspiracy theorists is to bury their central premises. Sympathetic readers subconsciously fill in these deliberate blanks with vagaries and assume it all works out while critical readers have to do a ton of work just to attack the author's weakest points.

How so? The tetanus vaccine is ineffective, and even if it were effective, tetanus was so rare it didn't need vaccination to begin with.

Comparitively, measles, mumps, rubella, etc. were on the decline and mortality rates fell drastically before the introduction of vaccines. Thus using ineffective vaccines for diseases that were not deadly or rampant to begin while providing less effective immunity than one would recieve by getting the diseases naturally makes no sense.

The two situations are very similar and the comparison is quite effective whether you want to see it or not.

Russel Blaylock – A retired neurosurgeon who became a scam artist. Despite having no experimental foundation for any of his claims, he promotes himself as an expert from vaccination to chemtrails. He charges ($48-$54) for his opinion pieces and sells a supplement called the Brain Repair Formula to exploit money from people who are at risk or have Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. He’s also into cancer quackery.

So instead of disproving what he said, you attempt to discredit the man? In case you haven't heard, neurosurgeons are pretty damn smart.

Since you don't like Dr. Blaylock, here is another source stating the same.

"There are three critical factors that must be true in order for the Herd Immunity Theory to work.

Vaccines must be 100% permanent.

They must provide complete immunity for life. The only way to catch a disease must be directly from another person that has the illness.

Vaccinated people must not be able to transmit the disease."

https://www.kitchenstewardship.com/herd-immunity-theory-lie/

There are three critical factors that must be true in order for the Herd Immunity Theory to work.

Bull....

See: Yes, herd immunity works

That article proved absolutely nothing. The author obviously missed these (as well as many other) cases where outbreaks occur in highly (>95%) vaccinated populations, which should never happen if herd immunity actually worked.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646939/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2015.20.1.20998

In my opinion, vacs are much less dangerous than the mass prescribed drugs that people are encouraged to consume. It would not surprise me if vacs and pain pills are scapegoats for other meds.

Actually it's the other way around, vaccines skip through testing, we are told they don't need to be tested because they "save lives". Big Pharma know how dangerous they are, so refuse to make them unless they are exempted from having to pay out compensation for damages

This subject is so conspiracy. Taboo worthy of massive disinformation.

You say that, but I don't believe it. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html Do you have any information that supports your claim?

My biggest problem with vaccines is informed consent.

informed consent

permission granted in the knowledge of the possible consequences, typically that which is given by a patient to a doctor for treatment with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits.

Mandatory vaccines do not allow for informed consent. If you decide to read up on vaccines and refuse based upon reformed consent, you risk a variety of state enforced repercussions.

Your child will not be able to attend school. You risk losing your child to CPS and your child may be taken from you and vaccinated against your will.

Also, the vaccine makers are not liable for damages so it does not factor into their decision to push vaccines onto our children.

The Vaccine Court (subsidized by tax payers) has paid out over $3 billion in damages to children harmed by their vaccines.

Gotta have those African Green Monkey Heart Cells injected man. It’s for your health.

Pfft

Anti-vaccine is a term to turn everything black and white, and shut down the argument. As Big Pharma know if the real argument is allowed to play out, they lose, as vaccines seriously need fixing. Problem is, they profit more when they make people sick with vaccines, creating new lifetime customers, so it is not in their interest to fix vaccines.

Here's the question I have with vaccines. What is causing the explosion of autoimmune diseases? With all the research and the supposedly best of medical care, shouldn't our population be getting healthier instead of sicker? I raised dogs for awhile and I saw first hand what happened after generations of dogs were vaccinated. This is just now happening in humans. Animals have 4 or 5 generations in just a few years. It takes decades in humans. We are now on our 4th generation of vaccinated humans. The health problems are exploding. Baby boomers will be dying younger than our parents and grandparents. They are also struggling with health issues. Something isn't right and we had better figure it out before it's to late.

We are now on our 4th generation of vaccinated humans. The health problems are exploding

Autism is 1 in 28 boys now, they can palm that off as just better screening but with autoimmune, asthma, allergies etc all rising they have no excuse.

I go to my granddaughters elementary school and I see so many children with health problems. It's unreal. It's scary.

Working as designed. The US is a cancer farm - most profitable way I can think to genocide a middle class.

"You fucked up. One more dead kid, the world moves on. Walk it off."

Sigh, little joey died. Guess I'll go for a walk...

to the liquor store.

In summary, we have shown that the benefits of many current vaccines extend beyond the direct benefits to indirect benefits, i.e. through the herd effect extending beyond targeted groups to other populations at high risk for complications. Nevertheless, gaps in our knowledge exist about how best to achieve herd immunity. For example, it is unclear whether there are particular formulations that confer better herd immunity than others; a prime example is whether herd immunity achieved through live attenuated influenza vaccine is superior to that achieved with inactivated vaccine. Another area where gaps in our knowledge exist is the optimal use of new vaccines. For example, there are several candidate vaccines for dengue in clinical trials and strategies for how best to use them to establish herd immunity need to be developed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3171704/

I know I'm in /r/conspiracy so I try to lower my expectations regarding good math and sound scientific reasoning. But I still feel let down. For example:

Then, I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections – one sees no rise in tetanus cases.

The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections.

We're talking about herd immunity, yes? Somebody needs to tell this guy that Tetanus isn't contagious.

I don’t live in fear. I live not dependent on water coming from the faucet. I live without needing food from the grocery. Good luck responding accordingly.

Russel Blaylock – A retired neurosurgeon who became a scam artist. Despite having no experimental foundation for any of his claims, he promotes himself as an expert from vaccination to chemtrails. He charges ($48-$54) for his opinion pieces and sells a supplement called the Brain Repair Formula to exploit money from people who are at risk or have Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. He’s also into cancer quackery.

“The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood diseases”

..... ?

He never said tetanus is contagious. He is using the example of the tetanus vaccine and it's non-existant immunity as a comparative example to contagious disease vaccines. Both were said to give lifetime immunity, both were discovered to not give lifetime immunity and in fact gave waning immunity if any at all, and both tetanus and the contagious diseases being vaccinated for were in decline and basically non-existant in regards to mortality before the vaccines were introduced.