Social Anti-vax MegaThread

Are flu vaccines beneficial to a population?

  • Total voters
    73
  • Poll closed .
Happy Man said:
Its been proven and proven again that many times they don’t work. And many other times are straight dangerous.

But don’t let that other you. There is money to be made.

Imagine big pharmaceutical going, well just imagine our profit if we forced EVERYONE to put our shitty product in their bodies.

Then some evil person says, hey I got an idea, let’s make our product shitty enough that they have to keep buying it! No one and done. Our profits will skyrocket!
Click to expand...

Can you tell us about your education in chemistry, organic chemistry, biology, and human health sciences?
 
woodguyatl said:
Nobody suggested getting shots for life. Children are more at risk of severe consequences than adults so the vaccine makes more sense for them. Personally, I don't care whether people get vaccinated for minor stuff. It bugs the shit out of me the anti-vaxers act like vaccines don't work.
Click to expand...

Well, technically they don't work for a certain % of the population and this is almost never a part of the "safe and effective" mantra, but I think I get your point. Like the MMR most certainly reduced measles incidence... for me the concern is, at what cost?
 
abiG said:
It isn't even about that. It's about everyone with preconceived notions jumping on the vaccines are safe and proven bandwagon instead of realizing that this came from the vaccinated community.

If no unvaccinated people had the disease, then they could not have started the outbreak which is always the narrative we are presented with.

Everyone might wanna go read the OP so they can understand the topic.
Click to expand...
Sure but lets go back to basic math just to make sure you, in fact do understand it.


If, for example, 1 in 100 people in the populace should catch a disease and you examine 10 people, how many do you expect to find with the disease?
 
PhitePhan said:
Well, technically they don't work for a certain % of the population and this is almost never a part of the "safe and effective" mantra, but I think I get your point. Like the MMR most certainly reduced measles incidence... for me the concern is, at what cost?
Click to expand...
I think you compare the number of people who have died from the MMR vaccine against the number who have died of from measles prior to vaccine and go from there.
 
Happy Man said:
Its been proven and proven again that many times they don’t work. And many other times are straight dangerous.

But don’t let that other you. There is money to be made.

Imagine big pharmaceutical going, well just imagine our profit if we forced EVERYONE to put our shitty product in their bodies.

Then some evil person says, hey I got an idea, let’s make our product shitty enough that they have to keep buying it! No one and done. Our profits will skyrocket!
Click to expand...

What do you mean by “don’t work?” That they don’t reduce the incidence of disease or that sometimes vaccinated people catch the disease anyways.

Regarding big Pharma, I’m no fan of how industries manipulate the Government (my current pet peeve is that TurboTax has paid off enough Congressman from both parties to almost certainly pass a bill that will prevent the IRS from creating free online software to allow people to file taxes. Even most conservatives would, I think agree with AOC that this is straight up BS.) but I am a fan of science and believe that, on balance, vaccines are a good thing. As I said, I don’t care whether people get vaccinated and similarly have no problem if insurance companies adjust rates for unvaccinated people like they do for smokers or that communities require vaccinations for public school etc.
 
MikeMcMann said:
Sure but lets go back to basic math just to make sure you, in fact do understand it.


If, for example, 1 in 100 people in the populace should catch a disease and you examine 10 people, how many do you expect to find with the disease?
Click to expand...

You’re tilting at windmills.
 
HockeyBjj said:
At least this is a valid point here. What good are vaccines that need such repetitive boosts?

In whooping cough's case, it's that it's very deadly for infants and small children. So a "temporary" vaccine until they're older where it becomes near 100% survivable is to me sensible. Discussions should still be had however as that's clearly not a perfect system and needs work.

My arguments with abiG in here have been around him trying to extrapolate that because none of the 18 non vax kids got whooping cough while 50 of their classmates in a school of 1600 did, the non vax kids are better off.

I'm trying to use basic math to show that the odds are actually in favor of 50 kids getting sick with none of any control group of 18 yet contracting it, but math is too complicated I guess and logic and facts gets in the way of a desired emotional response.
Click to expand...

@abiG doesn't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation in that small of sample size. Such a misinformed and ignorant thread. Should be dumped imo.

If he wants to look at actual proper sample sizes there's plenty on vaccines and their effectiveness.
 
PhitePhan said:
I'm not familiar with the elimination of smallpox, however, it is fact that the criteria for a polio diagnosis became much more stringent the same year the polio vax was introduced... sort of the inverse of the oft cited reason for increased autism diagnosis more recently.

In addition, textbooks also recognize sanitation and better understanding of polio as reasons for decline that are independent of the vaccine (makes sense since polio is transmitted oral fecal route). Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the vax has helped (I would assume), although i think it is very clear that the idea that vaccination eliminated polio is not supported by facts. Also, you may be interested to hear about "provocative polio" which has shown that needle pokes leave people vulnerable to polio for some reason.

"The application of epidemiological surveillance and statistical methods enabled researchers to trace the steady rise in polio incidence along with the expansion of immunisation programmes for diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus... The impressive volume of literature on polio provocation by the 1950s fuelled changes in health policy. US health organisations and charities, including the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Public Health Association, accommodated the possibility of polio provocation and encouraged health professionals to avoid “indiscriminate” injections and “booster shots” during epidemics." https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61251-4/fulltext
Click to expand...

Sanitation prevents the spread of every disease and I don’t disregard it, but fewer than half of the residents of India today have access to toilets and proper sanitation but polio has been eliminated there. Given that sanitation is unlikely to be the whole reason we must look to something else.

Regarding the change in Polio diagnosis I agree that played a role in the number of paralytic polio cases but not polio as a whole. Please note I am not speaking directly about you, but I have heard that point before from people who don’t support vaccines who won’t on the other hand admit that the expanded definition autism and more detailed diagnosis of the condition may be contributing to the increased number of kids diagnosed with autism more than side effects from vaccines are. For instance in retrospect I know that a friends father was “on the spectrum” and his brother was autistic back in the late ‘70’s but the father was just called “odd” and the kid was “retarded” and that was that. Never once did anyone mention autism.

This shit is complicated and multifaceted and absolutes are hard to come by.
 
Once again aDick needs his own source explained to him. This is becoming a regular occurence on this forum.

I guess we should abolish all vaccine programs. Go back to millions of dead from preventable diseases.

Anti-vaxxers are dishonest scum and should be labelled "menace to society"
 
woodguyatl said:
Nobody suggested getting shots for life. Children are more at risk of severe consequences than adults so the vaccine makes more sense for them. Personally, I don't care whether people get vaccinated for minor stuff. It bugs the shit out of me the anti-vaxers act like vaccines don't work.
Click to expand...
The point of whooping cough vax is to prevent babies from infection, not for the people that get the disease, so there is an implication of getting it for life if effectiveness is poor
 
chardog said:
The point of whooping cough vax is to prevent babies from infection, not for the people that get the disease, so there is an implication of getting it for life if effectiveness is poor
Click to expand...

Good point. I guess the reliance on herd immunity will differ from disease to disease.
 
Happy Man said:
Its been proven and proven again that many times they don’t work. And many other times are straight dangerous.

But don’t let that other you. There is money to be made.

Imagine big pharmaceutical going, well just imagine our profit if we forced EVERYONE to put our shitty product in their bodies.

Then some evil person says, hey I got an idea, let’s make our product shitty enough that they have to keep buying it! No one and done. Our profits will skyrocket!
Click to expand...
Except you don't have to keep buying it for life.
 
Prutfis said:
Once again aDick needs his own source explained to him. This is becoming a regular occurence on this forum.

I guess we should abolish all vaccine programs. Go back to millions of dead from preventable diseases.

Anti-vaxxers are dishonest scum and should be labelled "menace to society"
Click to expand...
The outbreak came from the vaccinated community. They are "the scum" here and the menace to society.
 
MikeMcMann said:
Sure but lets go back to basic math just to make sure you, in fact do understand it.


If, for example, 1 in 100 people in the populace should catch a disease and you examine 10 people, how many do you expect to find with the disease?
Click to expand...

japman40 said:
@abiG doesn't understand that correlation doesn't equal causation in that small of sample size. Such a misinformed and ignorant thread. ...
Click to expand...

@abiG, a reply to the above would be appreciated. It is good to know a person understands the basic underpinnings of his position if it can be debated properly.
 
abiG said:
The outbreak came from the vaccinated community. They are "the scum" here and the menace to society.
Click to expand...
Willfull ignorance or just plain dishonesty? You don't even comprehend your own sources despite having them explained to you at toddler level.
 
Prutfis said:
Once again aDick needs his own source explained to him. This is becoming a regular occurence on this forum.

I guess we should abolish all vaccine programs. Go back to millions of dead from preventable diseases.

Anti-vaxxers are dishonest scum and should be labelled "menace to society"
Click to expand...
You seem like a nice bloke. Surely everyone should trust you to inject them with your magic potion. For the good of humanity, I'm sure.
 
Anti vaxxers, flat earthers, anti science folks, info wars type people all belive in the same stuff.

It’s incredible how many morons post on this website. Like flat out morons
 
georges snipierre said:
You seem like a nice bloke. Surely everyone should trust you to inject them with your magic potion. For the good of humanity, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Yes vaccines are for the good of humanity. Fairly common knowledge. Wait maybe we should trust a playboy model and a completely discredited "medical paper" and just say fuck it. Go back to millions of dead each year from preventable diseases.

Make Polio Great Again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,097
Messages
55,467,361
Members
174,786
Latest member
plasterby

Share this page

Back
Top