Sorry for being an ass but that's anecdotal, do you have any more examples besides that one incident?
And a thought experiment. If you were to have five daughters, not vaccinate any of them, do you think one of them could die to an infectious disease alone?
To my layman's understanding, I feel sanitation and nutrition play a much bigger role in the immune system than exposing your body to certain proteins ever could. The vaccines can certainly help in an alarmist way, to tell the body to "get ready" for infection, but if your whole system hasn't structured itself right in the first place, it's pointless.
Vaccines could be a big scam, I don't know enough to assert. However, I do remain unconvinced of their effectiveness.
It is idiotic, having made up their mind they will not listen to reason.
Doesn't do any good for your cause calling the other side idiotic and not listening to reason... we all have different sets of evidence we know, that leads us to believe one thing or another. You yourself could have made your mind as well.
Could you please elaborate when where and how was thimerosal removed? Why is it illogical to think that after so many years (at least a few decades? idk) of using this preservative, the vaccine makers wouldn't continue using it anyway? Has there been a government mandate, with tough enforcement preventing them from doing so? Were people able to sue them if they found it in the vaccines?
I don't know much about this, am only coming at it deductively, but I'd like to know what you know.
I think it wouldn't be this way if much (all?) of the pharmaceutical oversight wasn't government controlled. The pharmaceuticals do have an incentive to do things right, but when the public has no recourse against any drugs that the FDA has approved already, then they are shielded from any retaliation, and can indeed put out crappy products as long as their lobbyists are in place.
If it's more cost effective to put out crap+lobby than good meds+no lobby, then they go for the former. The more corrupt the regulating agency is, the cheaper it is to lobby, also. The article for me ended where it said that the vaccine makers can't be sued for damage. If they can't be sued.. certainly they will do a crappier job than if they could, at least marginally.
So... down with the FDA and whatever other agencies are involved.
How do you know that is due to vaccines? (or the lack of?)
Couldn't it be due to better sanitation, clean water, better nutrition, and so many things other things that changed in the period of two centuries?
That argument can go both ways. Vaccine proponents do say that vaccines are what stopped many viral epidemics when it could have been something else.
Besides, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, etc.
Don't go at it logically when the whole matter is inductive, it's pointless IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry for being an ass but that's anecdotal, do you have any more examples besides that one incident?
And a thought experiment. If you were to have five daughters, not vaccinate any of them, do you think one of them could die to an infectious disease alone?
To my layman's understanding, I feel sanitation and nutrition play a much bigger role in the immune system than exposing your body to certain proteins ever could. The vaccines can certainly help in an alarmist way, to tell the body to "get ready" for infection, but if your whole system hasn't structured itself right in the first place, it's pointless.
Vaccines could be a big scam, I don't know enough to assert. However, I do remain unconvinced of their effectiveness.
It is idiotic, having made up their mind they will not listen to reason.
Doesn't do any good for your cause calling the other side idiotic and not listening to reason... we all have different sets of evidence we know, that leads us to believe one thing or another. You yourself could have made your mind as well.
Could you please elaborate when where and how was thimerosal removed? Why is it illogical to think that after so many years (at least a few decades? idk) of using this preservative, the vaccine makers wouldn't continue using it anyway? Has there been a government mandate, with tough enforcement preventing them from doing so? Were people able to sue them if they found it in the vaccines?
I don't know much about this, am only coming at it deductively, but I'd like to know what you know.
I think it wouldn't be this way if much (all?) of the pharmaceutical oversight wasn't government controlled. The pharmaceuticals do have an incentive to do things right, but when the public has no recourse against any drugs that the FDA has approved already, then they are shielded from any retaliation, and can indeed put out crappy products as long as their lobbyists are in place.
If it's more cost effective to put out crap+lobby than good meds+no lobby, then they go for the former. The more corrupt the regulating agency is, the cheaper it is to lobby, also. The article for me ended where it said that the vaccine makers can't be sued for damage. If they can't be sued.. certainly they will do a crappier job than if they could, at least marginally.
So... down with the FDA and whatever other agencies are involved.
Not all of that is vaccines, but a lot of it is!
How do you know that is due to vaccines? (or the lack of?) Couldn't it be due to better sanitation, clean water, better nutrition, and so many things other things that changed in the period of two centuries?
That argument can go both ways. Vaccine proponents do say that vaccines are what stopped many viral epidemics when it could have been something else. Besides, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, etc. Don't go at it logically when the whole matter is inductive, it's pointless IMO.