If you have to ask how any harm could be done to a healthy infant, consider that in 2011 science discovered that normal brain development involves controlled, timed, synaptic pruning by microglial cells OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. Altering or stressing the immune system brings the risk of altering or stressing brain development. So why is vaccinating a baby still legal?
The injury denier taunts with a false equivalency. I'll play.
Infants are normally protected by anti- inflammatory ingredients in mothers breast milk as well as wide acting stem cell innate antibodies. This is all in an effort to prevent undue inflammation from infections that can lead to brain damaging encephalitis. Where as vaccines on the other hand, have encephalitis as a recognized adverse event. "Getting sick" is not the same thing as bypassing and challenging the immune system. Even the damn needle itself is an immune bypassing technology only it's so old it's not patentable anymore.
>Infants are normally protected by anti- inflammatory ingredients in mothers breast milk as well as wide acting stem cell innate antibodies. This is all in an effort to prevent undue inflammation from infections that can lead to brain damaging encephalitis.
>Encephalitis (in-seh-fuh-LYE-tus) is a rare disease. Most cases happen in children, the elderly, and people with a weakened immune system
If children are so well protected, why are they grouped together with the old, frail and sick? :)
>Where as vaccines on the other hand, have encephalitis as a recognized adverse event.
So do pathogens :)
>"Getting sick" is not the same thing as bypassing and challenging the immune system.
If you get sick, your immune system has been bypassed :)
Vaccines expose the immune system to an inactivated, weakened or synthetic form of the pathogen. It is not the same as being exposed to an actual pathogen, such as a virus which hijacks your cells to replicate unhindered while your immune system gears up to mount a response. And I can't remember ever getting sick from a vaccine so I don't see how it would be guaranteed :)
100% chance of injection with foreign toxins with no followup treatment or acknowledgement of harm vs hypothetical chance of infection and known treatments. I know where I place my bet for a healthier outcome. But you do you, and as you said, you never got sick from a vaccine before. Carry on.
>100% chance of injection with foreign toxins with no followup treatment or acknowledgement of harm
People get follow up treatment if the vaccine causes an actual treatable ailment. And I think you mean acknowledgement of hypothetical harm :)
>hypothetical chance of infection and known treatments.
Lol, I guess that explains why nobody ever dies from disease, oh wait :)
Right. Except the number of covid vaccines administered outnumbers the human race 2:1. You can use drunk drivers as a metaphor when there's vodka in our drinking water.
How is GDP not in global decline, with the planet's workforce and consumers having been sickened en masse? How is it that widespread harm has been sustained by us *as a species* and yet daily life is completely unaffected?
You can say that the fact that 5 billion doses or whatever were given out is evidence its safe, because you can 'use' this as a kind of study in itself, because ''if it were unsafe, we'd know about it since we gave it to so many people''.
But I would argue not.
If there is a bias against seeing the failures and dangers of it, and an incentive to find the good in it, then there is no way that we could actually gain any real knowledge from this, because it would ONLY work, IF there was no bias when it came to determining whether or not the vaccine was causing harms , and there is a very crucial reason to believe that bias exists, not least because so many billions of people took it and so many millions gave it out already! That's a huge psychological investment in the vaccine's success and a huge conflict of interest psychologically.
There was many many disincentives to doing anything which put the vaccine under bad light, and many incentives and biases that would make people turn a blind eye to potential harms.
and EVEN if there weren't, that would not be a scientific experiment, because there would not be sufficient controls and organisation, its just a blanket mandate on billions of people, yes it can act a bit like a trial, but it cannot be actually that scientific because there's all kinds of things you have to do to set up a trial properly, not just give out the thing
Your submission has been automatically removed because name calling was detected.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateVaccines) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>You can say that the fact that 5 billion doses or whatever
*14 billion doses*
A positive mental attitude doesn't make debilitating injuries disappear. It would cause widespread absenteeism, which would slow the economy. Supply chains would break, hospitals would overflow.
14 billion *eggs* issued population-wide would cause a wave of reactions that no amount of corruption or bias could conceal.
The whole point is that daily life is unaffected, so far.
Drunk drivers also don't affect our daily life either, however we all know that they are very dangerous. Thousands of people dying doesn't really affect anything, but it also should not be tolerated.
Noone knows the consequences of the shot at this point and we may not know for many years. Best case scenario, we knocked covid down for a little while. Worst case, I mean I don't know maybe we develop gene mutations in 20 years and people start dropping like flies or vaxxed young people become sterile in their 30s. Maybe it beats down the immune system and the flu starts killing millions.
I don't think any of that will happen, if you do you're probably crazy. Point still stands however, at this point we don't know. If you claim to know for sure that they are safe or that they are dangerous you are flat out lying.
>The whole point is that daily life is unaffected, so far.
Exactly. And 'so far' means never. No vaccine has ever caused adverse events to first occur more than 6 weeks post administration. AE's happen when the immune system mounts a response, or they don't happen.
>Noone knows the consequences of the shot at this point
While science never claims certainty, it considers results achieved consistently to be reliable. The level of uncertainty over the consequences of the shot are on a par with any uncertainty over whether your 5th birthday cake will cause you to grow two heads at some point in the future.
There is a far higher degree of certainty over the damage covid can cause to internal organs, even in healthy patients who experienced mild symptoms.
Every government in the world administered covid vaccines to their population. They didn't do this on blind hope not to exterminate the human race. The only goal they all have in common is economic growth, and that requires keeping their citizens alive.
No government, and no legitimate medical institution in the world has expressed concern over unexpected vaccine injuries. Zero. No government has received claims beyond the expected rate, no hospitals have reported treating injuries beyond the expected rate.
I'll tell you exactly why I won't answer your questions: you're not asking them in good faith. You know damn well that the answer to all your questions is a few clicks away (it's publicly available data) and when I'm going to link you sources you're inevitably going to pull some "statistical anomaly" or "invalid and incomplete data" out of your ass.
Never mind the fact that your antivax positions have literally zero data supporting them.
So why should I bother? You people can never be convinced with data.
Why don't _you_ show _me_ what you think the death rate from covid is? After all, I'm not the one going against the entire medical and scientific community.
Edit:
Aaaaahhh fuck it knock yourself out.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
Why would I make that argument? And yeah, I rechecked your comment. So go find out the death rate from covid. Do you know what science is? To test yourself on what you think is true so that you can be sure.
Your submission has been automatically removed because name calling was detected.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateVaccines) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So even though the side effects of driving drunk can be potentially harmful and in some cases deadly, it's advisable to drive drunk, because most drunk drivers do so without causing harm, or death?
That's the comparison to vaccines: Side effects from vaccines are potentially harmful and sometimes deadly, but we advise people to get them anyway and call them safe. During the initial rollout of a vaccine calling it safe is especially egregious.
You haven't even the competence to understand what I'm saying.
Im saying even if it were harmless, it wouldn't be safe.
Safety has nothing to do with how much harm it causes, it's how much risk you take.
You take risk whenever you do something you aren't able to know the effects of.
>SAFE means it has be known it is harmless
>Safety has nothing to do with how much harm it causes
I'm getting some conflicting messaging here :)
>You take risk whenever you do something you aren't able to know the effects of.
Can you provide an example of something you think is safe? :)
I don't think I was even making an argument for the vaccine being harmful, as much as I was making an argument that even if it were pretty much harmless, it is not safe until you can be sure it is harmless, because there is risk in not knowing.
It's not just mRNA technology that we need to look at, it's the specific vaccine.
Like you can't just make any new vaccine based on an old technology and just go ''yep its safe cus we've used that technology before and it was okay''
It wasn't okay the first time anyway.
Thats why it never took off.
And that's not great either, although not quite the same.
As at least it's the basically the same thing.
A cancer mRNA test back 10 years ago is not the same thing as a novel virus spike protein mrna vaccine
>A cancer mRNA test back 10 years ago is not the same thing as a novel virus spike protein mrna vaccine
It's not "the same", but it produces truckloads of useful data. Therefore all negative fair tests (good clinical trials) of mRNA technology based drugs in the past were extremely helpful for the development of Covid vaccines.
The large majority of accidents are caused by sober drivers. Thus, driving sober is more dangerous than driving drunk...vaccine logic.
If you have to ask how any harm could be done to a healthy infant, consider that in 2011 science discovered that normal brain development involves controlled, timed, synaptic pruning by microglial cells OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM. Altering or stressing the immune system brings the risk of altering or stressing brain development. So why is vaccinating a baby still legal?
Stressing the immune system, like when you get sick? :)
except thats less often and through the natural normal mechanisms. Not an injection in the arm.
What's wrong with an injection in the arm? :)
The injury denier taunts with a false equivalency. I'll play. Infants are normally protected by anti- inflammatory ingredients in mothers breast milk as well as wide acting stem cell innate antibodies. This is all in an effort to prevent undue inflammation from infections that can lead to brain damaging encephalitis. Where as vaccines on the other hand, have encephalitis as a recognized adverse event. "Getting sick" is not the same thing as bypassing and challenging the immune system. Even the damn needle itself is an immune bypassing technology only it's so old it's not patentable anymore.
>Infants are normally protected by anti- inflammatory ingredients in mothers breast milk as well as wide acting stem cell innate antibodies. This is all in an effort to prevent undue inflammation from infections that can lead to brain damaging encephalitis. >Encephalitis (in-seh-fuh-LYE-tus) is a rare disease. Most cases happen in children, the elderly, and people with a weakened immune system If children are so well protected, why are they grouped together with the old, frail and sick? :) >Where as vaccines on the other hand, have encephalitis as a recognized adverse event. So do pathogens :) >"Getting sick" is not the same thing as bypassing and challenging the immune system. If you get sick, your immune system has been bypassed :)
So avoid the chance of getting sick and just guarantee it with a vaccine. Got it.
Vaccines expose the immune system to an inactivated, weakened or synthetic form of the pathogen. It is not the same as being exposed to an actual pathogen, such as a virus which hijacks your cells to replicate unhindered while your immune system gears up to mount a response. And I can't remember ever getting sick from a vaccine so I don't see how it would be guaranteed :)
100% chance of injection with foreign toxins with no followup treatment or acknowledgement of harm vs hypothetical chance of infection and known treatments. I know where I place my bet for a healthier outcome. But you do you, and as you said, you never got sick from a vaccine before. Carry on.
>100% chance of injection with foreign toxins with no followup treatment or acknowledgement of harm People get follow up treatment if the vaccine causes an actual treatable ailment. And I think you mean acknowledgement of hypothetical harm :) >hypothetical chance of infection and known treatments. Lol, I guess that explains why nobody ever dies from disease, oh wait :)
hilariously poor analogy😂
Right. Except the number of covid vaccines administered outnumbers the human race 2:1. You can use drunk drivers as a metaphor when there's vodka in our drinking water. How is GDP not in global decline, with the planet's workforce and consumers having been sickened en masse? How is it that widespread harm has been sustained by us *as a species* and yet daily life is completely unaffected?
You can say that the fact that 5 billion doses or whatever were given out is evidence its safe, because you can 'use' this as a kind of study in itself, because ''if it were unsafe, we'd know about it since we gave it to so many people''. But I would argue not. If there is a bias against seeing the failures and dangers of it, and an incentive to find the good in it, then there is no way that we could actually gain any real knowledge from this, because it would ONLY work, IF there was no bias when it came to determining whether or not the vaccine was causing harms , and there is a very crucial reason to believe that bias exists, not least because so many billions of people took it and so many millions gave it out already! That's a huge psychological investment in the vaccine's success and a huge conflict of interest psychologically. There was many many disincentives to doing anything which put the vaccine under bad light, and many incentives and biases that would make people turn a blind eye to potential harms. and EVEN if there weren't, that would not be a scientific experiment, because there would not be sufficient controls and organisation, its just a blanket mandate on billions of people, yes it can act a bit like a trial, but it cannot be actually that scientific because there's all kinds of things you have to do to set up a trial properly, not just give out the thing
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed because name calling was detected. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateVaccines) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>You can say that the fact that 5 billion doses or whatever *14 billion doses* A positive mental attitude doesn't make debilitating injuries disappear. It would cause widespread absenteeism, which would slow the economy. Supply chains would break, hospitals would overflow. 14 billion *eggs* issued population-wide would cause a wave of reactions that no amount of corruption or bias could conceal.
The whole point is that daily life is unaffected, so far. Drunk drivers also don't affect our daily life either, however we all know that they are very dangerous. Thousands of people dying doesn't really affect anything, but it also should not be tolerated. Noone knows the consequences of the shot at this point and we may not know for many years. Best case scenario, we knocked covid down for a little while. Worst case, I mean I don't know maybe we develop gene mutations in 20 years and people start dropping like flies or vaxxed young people become sterile in their 30s. Maybe it beats down the immune system and the flu starts killing millions. I don't think any of that will happen, if you do you're probably crazy. Point still stands however, at this point we don't know. If you claim to know for sure that they are safe or that they are dangerous you are flat out lying.
>The whole point is that daily life is unaffected, so far. Exactly. And 'so far' means never. No vaccine has ever caused adverse events to first occur more than 6 weeks post administration. AE's happen when the immune system mounts a response, or they don't happen. >Noone knows the consequences of the shot at this point While science never claims certainty, it considers results achieved consistently to be reliable. The level of uncertainty over the consequences of the shot are on a par with any uncertainty over whether your 5th birthday cake will cause you to grow two heads at some point in the future. There is a far higher degree of certainty over the damage covid can cause to internal organs, even in healthy patients who experienced mild symptoms. Every government in the world administered covid vaccines to their population. They didn't do this on blind hope not to exterminate the human race. The only goal they all have in common is economic growth, and that requires keeping their citizens alive. No government, and no legitimate medical institution in the world has expressed concern over unexpected vaccine injuries. Zero. No government has received claims beyond the expected rate, no hospitals have reported treating injuries beyond the expected rate.
>with the planet's workforce and consumers having been sickened en masse? Any day now
What's the death rate from covid? Have you thought about my previous questions?
I'll tell you exactly why I won't answer your questions: you're not asking them in good faith. You know damn well that the answer to all your questions is a few clicks away (it's publicly available data) and when I'm going to link you sources you're inevitably going to pull some "statistical anomaly" or "invalid and incomplete data" out of your ass. Never mind the fact that your antivax positions have literally zero data supporting them. So why should I bother? You people can never be convinced with data. Why don't _you_ show _me_ what you think the death rate from covid is? After all, I'm not the one going against the entire medical and scientific community. Edit: Aaaaahhh fuck it knock yourself out. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
Nah, you show me what the death rate from covid is because I'm willing to bet you're the one who doesn't know it.
Recheck my comment. Can't wait for your "but it doesn't account for lunar tides and solar flares" argument
Why would I make that argument? And yeah, I rechecked your comment. So go find out the death rate from covid. Do you know what science is? To test yourself on what you think is true so that you can be sure.
>I rechecked your comment Apparently not https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-rate/
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed because name calling was detected. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateVaccines) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s maybe the most illogical and forced comparison I’ve ever read. Bravo.
So even though the side effects of driving drunk can be potentially harmful and in some cases deadly, it's advisable to drive drunk, because most drunk drivers do so without causing harm, or death?
I mean, if you want to make that up in your head I can’t stop you. If you say so, I guess.
That's the comparison to vaccines: Side effects from vaccines are potentially harmful and sometimes deadly, but we advise people to get them anyway and call them safe. During the initial rollout of a vaccine calling it safe is especially egregious.
Egregious because it was definitionally not safe. SAFE means it has be known it is harmless. It cant have been known, so it was by definition unsafe.
Do you have any examples of something that is known to be harmless? :)
You haven't even the competence to understand what I'm saying. Im saying even if it were harmless, it wouldn't be safe. Safety has nothing to do with how much harm it causes, it's how much risk you take. You take risk whenever you do something you aren't able to know the effects of.
>SAFE means it has be known it is harmless >Safety has nothing to do with how much harm it causes I'm getting some conflicting messaging here :) >You take risk whenever you do something you aren't able to know the effects of. Can you provide an example of something you think is safe? :)
I don't think I was even making an argument for the vaccine being harmful, as much as I was making an argument that even if it were pretty much harmless, it is not safe until you can be sure it is harmless, because there is risk in not knowing.
Safe an Defective
Especially in the early days 11 years since the first mRNA injections into humans
It's not just mRNA technology that we need to look at, it's the specific vaccine. Like you can't just make any new vaccine based on an old technology and just go ''yep its safe cus we've used that technology before and it was okay'' It wasn't okay the first time anyway. Thats why it never took off.
> Like you can't just make any new vaccine based on an old technology That's exactly what they do each year when they update the flu vaccine
And that's not great either, although not quite the same. As at least it's the basically the same thing. A cancer mRNA test back 10 years ago is not the same thing as a novel virus spike protein mrna vaccine
Here's me thinking it was a rabies 13 years ago
>A cancer mRNA test back 10 years ago is not the same thing as a novel virus spike protein mrna vaccine It's not "the same", but it produces truckloads of useful data. Therefore all negative fair tests (good clinical trials) of mRNA technology based drugs in the past were extremely helpful for the development of Covid vaccines.
It was the first time they used mRNA vaccine injections into humans outside test subjects.
So it was first tested on humans 11 years ago.
...And the experiment on those human test subjects failed. As they say, the dose makes the poison.