Quote: (01-15-2019 01:44 PM)Tail Gunner Wrote:
Quote: (01-15-2019 10:46 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:
Quote: (01-15-2019 01:37 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:
Quote: (01-15-2019 01:23 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:
Quote: (01-10-2019 06:33 PM)king bast Wrote:
Polio and smallpox have been eradicated almost globally, so it makes absolutely no sense to continue mass vaccinating against them.
However small a risk the vaccines present, it's greater than the risk of catching a non-existent disease.
This is patently wrong.
Do a simple Google search next time
http://polioeradication.org/news-post/sy...k-stopped/
Take a guess how they stopped it. And it wasn't with clean water and better hygene.
It happened in Syria, a war-torn country without clean water and proper hygiene.
OK, so if you are in a war-zone it might make sense to take a vaccine. Otherwise, it is not worth the risk to shoot vile sh_t into your healthy body.
Well lookie here now! We have proof that vaccines work and an admittance to their efficacy in a war torn place.
Engaging in a formal fallacy does not advance an argument.
If you bothered to read any portion of this 18-page thread, you would see that even most people opposed to vaccines agree that they can work (while there are certainly some vaccines that do not work or that sometimes actually cause the disease that they are designed to prevent in some people). So, you claim victory over a rather obvious point that is not at issue.
The real issue is whether vaccines are worth the risk,i.e., cost-benefit analysis. For most people, they are absolutely not worth the risk -- unless you are forced to go into a third-world area with a rampant disease vector.
Oh please, I have and this thread was primarily the reason I took a hiatus from this forum for a while. Prima facia evidence of the red pill going way too damn far.
So here's the question for you: when does the risk start to get tilt in favor of the costs of taking the vaccine? Is an outbreak in a 1st world country of an otherwise preventable disease outweigh the cost of the so-called increase in borderline autism?
The historical evidence is there for all to see. Whether or not you guys decide to take it is really up to you. Did you see my citation of do I need to post it in the largest caps possible?
Let me reiterate it again for you:
Kew O, Sutter R, de Gourville E, Dowdle W, Pallansch M (2005). "Vaccine-derived polioviruses and the endgame strategy for global polio eradication". Annual Review of Microbiology. 59: 587–635. doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.58.030603.123625. PMID 16153180.
The fact is, you won't. No matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
And from one borderline autist to the rest in this thread that have taken the so called "red pill" to the obnoxious extreme: want to know why autism seems to have exploded?
It's exploded because of a massive lack of tough love. If parents put their kids in their damn place and punished anti-social behavior, kids would grow out of it by adulthood.
I have evidence of autistic behavior in a distant relative of mine from the 19th century. You know what happened to him? He was banished from his community in Europe because of his weirdness. He moved to the United States, became homeless, and eventually through hard knocks grew out of his crap to become a successful business owner.
Really, the only way for this movement to disappear is a wholesale epidemic of an otherwise cure-able diseases killing off the progeny of people who think like yourself. Until that happens, this nonsense will continue unabated.
This movement is on par with Christian Scientists thinking they can pray away illness. I will continue to sit here and while my kids will enjoy the magic of modern medicine.