The problem with this is, however, that there only need to be a sufficient proportion of vaccine-deniers (10-15% of the population at risk) for the principle of herd-immunity to fail. Herd-immunity requires about 85-95% of the populaton to be immune/vaccinated to/against the commutable disease at question to prevent the disease from spreading (just by lowering the chances tremendously to find a susceptible individual). Thus, it protects the remaining part of the population that, for medical reasons (age, immune deficiency disorders) cannot be vaccinated. With a growing number of anti-vaccine movement members, diseases like measles or polio could have a quick comeback and affect members of our societies that could never have utilized vaccination in the first place. Promoting anti-vaccination is irresponsible and dangerous. Smallpox has been eradicated by vaccination completely by the WHO. Polio could have been eradicated a decade ago if not for superstitious country governments and individuals denying mass vaccination.
It's funny that you say that, because most people who are either not vaccinating or more spread out over time and/or not all vaccinations think exactly the same, but the other way around. I'm in Ireland where people run to the doctors for a sneeze and where some prescribe antibiotics five times a year to one person, but of course that's fine, because he is the doctor and has that person's best interest at heart. And I have to trust that same doctor fully when he wants to inject a newborn with 6 different vaccines all in one. Surely even people who are still completely brainwashed could figure out that practice like that can not be good practice?
What evidence would you need to see that would make you change your opinion? I agree that big pharma is bad. I agree that too many antibiotics are bad for the immune system. But believing vaccines are causing harm is toxic and the spread of misinformation can potentially harm you and those around you. If there's no evidence that would convince you otherwise, it's not worth discussing.
My very close friend was the one who had five antibiotics prescriptions from the same doctor in one year. When she then got strep throat, she almost died because they couldn't do anything for her. Yet, there was nothing done by any authority to question the doctors conduct. I don't need any evidence to know what I'm saying is right. I used to get PAID to help cover up lies and deceit by the pharma. Sorry, but if they wouldn't harm anyone, there would be no reason to cover up anything don't you think? I am also the parent of a vaccine injured child but of course, for people like you all those stories would just be coincidences, but they're not. I hope you'll never have to deal with any of that, because I wouldn't wish it on anyone and our case was by far not as bad as some. There are many, many whistleblowers in the field of pharma and the medical world too. And when you say that you don't believe that vaccines can and will harm, you're actually telling me that those HUGE amounts of vaccinations entering a newborn baby's bloodstream (sometimes 6 or 8 at the time) are actually a good thing? Even without a medical degree people could figure out that that can never be ok. Believing what I believe is toxic, but bombarding a young infant with that many vaccines all at once when the child never had the chance to build its natural immunity is not? Maybe you should read that again...Or better even: Read the INSERTS of all vaccines and tell me again that they can't harm. If you would have, you wouldn't say that! Actually, it is mandatory for parents to receive the inserts of the vaccine before they're administered. Now if you know only ONE person who's actually received one without asking, that'll be huge. Because they usually don't give them to people, I wonder why... Look, I'm not here to convince anyone. If people want to vaccinate their family, that's up to them and the other way around. But I'm sure that even when they choose to vaccinate, they'd still want to be informed properly of all pros and cons, read the insert and maybe have the vaccines spread out more instead of all in one go. You have to agree that would be better than what it is now?
Yeah, I know the FAQ from the CDC inside and out. But if you did read the inserts and risks then how can you say that vaccines can't possibly harm? I mean, the makers of these vaccines are even telling you in those inserts that they can, so how can you deny it? Especially since you are all hunky dory about the info they provide.
The problem with this is, however, that there only need to be a sufficient proportion of vaccine-deniers (10-15% of the population at risk) for the principle of herd-immunity to fail. Herd-immunity requires about 85-95% of the populaton to be immune/vaccinated to/against the commutable disease at question to prevent the disease from spreading (just by lowering the chances tremendously to find a susceptible individual). Thus, it protects the remaining part of the population that, for medical reasons (age, immune deficiency disorders) cannot be vaccinated. With a growing number of anti-vaccine movement members, diseases like measles or polio could have a quick comeback and affect members of our societies that could never have utilized vaccination in the first place. Promoting anti-vaccination is irresponsible and dangerous. Smallpox has been eradicated by vaccination completely by the WHO. Polio could have been eradicated a decade ago if not for superstitious country governments and individuals denying mass vaccination.
Totally agree. The anti-vaccination movement is toxic.
It's funny that you say that, because most people who are either not vaccinating or more spread out over time and/or not all vaccinations think exactly the same, but the other way around. I'm in Ireland where people run to the doctors for a sneeze and where some prescribe antibiotics five times a year to one person, but of course that's fine, because he is the doctor and has that person's best interest at heart. And I have to trust that same doctor fully when he wants to inject a newborn with 6 different vaccines all in one. Surely even people who are still completely brainwashed could figure out that practice like that can not be good practice?
What evidence would you need to see that would make you change your opinion? I agree that big pharma is bad. I agree that too many antibiotics are bad for the immune system. But believing vaccines are causing harm is toxic and the spread of misinformation can potentially harm you and those around you. If there's no evidence that would convince you otherwise, it's not worth discussing.
My very close friend was the one who had five antibiotics prescriptions from the same doctor in one year. When she then got strep throat, she almost died because they couldn't do anything for her. Yet, there was nothing done by any authority to question the doctors conduct. I don't need any evidence to know what I'm saying is right. I used to get PAID to help cover up lies and deceit by the pharma. Sorry, but if they wouldn't harm anyone, there would be no reason to cover up anything don't you think? I am also the parent of a vaccine injured child but of course, for people like you all those stories would just be coincidences, but they're not. I hope you'll never have to deal with any of that, because I wouldn't wish it on anyone and our case was by far not as bad as some. There are many, many whistleblowers in the field of pharma and the medical world too. And when you say that you don't believe that vaccines can and will harm, you're actually telling me that those HUGE amounts of vaccinations entering a newborn baby's bloodstream (sometimes 6 or 8 at the time) are actually a good thing? Even without a medical degree people could figure out that that can never be ok. Believing what I believe is toxic, but bombarding a young infant with that many vaccines all at once when the child never had the chance to build its natural immunity is not? Maybe you should read that again...Or better even: Read the INSERTS of all vaccines and tell me again that they can't harm. If you would have, you wouldn't say that! Actually, it is mandatory for parents to receive the inserts of the vaccine before they're administered. Now if you know only ONE person who's actually received one without asking, that'll be huge. Because they usually don't give them to people, I wonder why... Look, I'm not here to convince anyone. If people want to vaccinate their family, that's up to them and the other way around. But I'm sure that even when they choose to vaccinate, they'd still want to be informed properly of all pros and cons, read the insert and maybe have the vaccines spread out more instead of all in one go. You have to agree that would be better than what it is now?
Great. Thank you for your time then.
Just a question: have you read any of the inserts? And of course, if you really have evidence as you described, I'd be more than happy to read it.
I have read the inserts and risks. Here's a good FAQ from the CDC which I'm confident you will dismiss.
Yeah, I know the FAQ from the CDC inside and out. But if you did read the inserts and risks then how can you say that vaccines can't possibly harm? I mean, the makers of these vaccines are even telling you in those inserts that they can, so how can you deny it? Especially since you are all hunky dory about the info they provide.