Question for anti-vaxxers

amother

Violet

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 3:22 pm

amother [ Orchid ] wrote:

This is your mistake. There are plenty of immunologists, doctors and researchers with the same exact credentials who are warning of the dangers!

Plenty? You have to consider the number pool you're talking about. A number like 1000 can sound a lot, but when you compare it to let's say 1,000,000, it's a drop in the bucket. (I'm not saying these are the numbers in consideration here, but giving you an idea how easily people can be misled with just a few choice words thrown in for good measure.)

A very large majority of iimmunologists, doctors and researchers all encourage the vaccine. They must have an agenda to wipe out the human race, I guess.

amother

Violet

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 3:36 pm

amother [ Navy ] wrote:

What kind of exemptions are you referring to?

They want to be able to attend school and work and not be discriminated against and bullied. That’s why they try to share their concerns about vaccines, bad experiences with vaccines , and the reasons they don’t do it. It’s mainly to defend themselves, not because they’re interested in “converting” you to their side.

Well, that is the goal of the this vaccination effort. The goal is to get herd immunity, so life, school and work can resume to normal. But until we don't have herd immunity, the restrictions are still in play. But for those who are helping push the herd immunity effort forward, the exemptions are given.

Once the goal is reached, life should return to normal. Until then, everyone has to do their part. You can choose to do your part in either getting vaccinated, or you can choose to do your part by abiding by the restrictions. That is the choice nowadays, regardless of our opinions of it.

small bean

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:00 pm

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

And I'd really really really love to understand that science behind this reasoning - can you explain it to me? The vaccine injects a teeny tiny portion of the virus's DNA and the virus injects the ENTIRE DNA. So how does the science work to be able to say that a teeny portion of the same virus is more potent than the actual entire thing?

The idea is what else is in the vaccine. What happens when you inject these ingredients into you. It is different than ingesting obviously.

They beleive our bodies are designed to fight illnesses. That every illness the longer it exists the less damage it does. They believe that with todays hygene, medical knowledge we are better equiped to treat these illnesses.

They beleive the risk of injecting foreign substances in to our body vs getting the disease, is not worth taking.

amother

Violet

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:06 pm

small bean wrote:

You're telling me what they believe, I'm asking for actual science.

Regardless, what they're injecting in the vaccine is the same contents that were previously used (other than the mRNA, which is a molecule produced by our own bodies). So there's nothing that lends support to their propaganda.

The longer illness exists, the more it can mutate and cause more harm. For example, polio didn't lessen its severity at any time. And while we have the know-how how to treat CV, we don't know how to mitigate its long term effects just yet. We have the know-how how to treat polio, but the treatment is not successful for everyone. etc.

These 'foreign' substances have eradicated small pox, polio, measles, mumps and more from our communities. The diseases have killed and maimed millions. I don't see a comparison.

So I still don't get the science of their beliefs. Sounds like the beliefs are just that - beliefs and not rooted in science or logic.

small bean

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:17 pm

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

You're telling me what they believe, I'm asking for actual science.

Regardless, what they're injecting in the vaccine is the same contents that we're previously used. So there's nothing that lends support to their propaganda.

The longer illness exists, the more it can mutate and cause more harm. For example, polio didn't lessen its severity at any time. And while we have the know-how how to treat CV, we don't know how to mitigate its long term effects just yet. We have the know-how how to treat polio, but the treatment is not successful for everyone. etc.

These 'foreign' substances have eradicated small pox, polio, measles, mumps and more from our communities. The diseases have killed and maimed millions. I don't see a comparison.

So I still don't get the science of their beliefs. Sounds like the beliefs are just that - beliefs and not rooted in science or logic.

We are talking about all vaccines. Antivaxxers don't take any vaccines.

We have something called annimmune sysytem. That's science. The immune sysytem is designed to fight all illnesses. If you're healthy, your body should fight all illnesses well. That means you eat healthy, healthy weight, excercise etc. The immune system works, every minute you have thousands of bacteria and viruses trying to enter your body mad fights it off.

The common cold used to kill people, now it's no big deal for most people because our bodies have some sort of barrier there. It can borrow similar antibodies.

Do you drink boiling tap water? I assume not because were afraid of ingesting lead. Do you eat aluminum? I assume not, it can cause cancer. Science tells us that certain ingredients are harmful to ingest. Therefor knowing all ingredients that go into vaccines, one can wonder what tge impact is.

I'm not antivax so I have some rebuttals. But there is definitely truth to what they're saying even if I have a different risk assesment.

amother

Violet

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:35 pm

small bean wrote:

If that statement were true in its simplicity, so many of the diseases would be non-existent. We have an immune system, but its very complicated. It works very well for most minor exposures and foreign invaders, but there are a host of pathogens out there that the immune system has very difficulty combatting. Especially when its the first time the body is exposed to that particular pathogen. At that first exposure, it takes a lot of time for the body to put together an army to fight that pathogen. It often ends being a big battle between the body and invader, and unfortunately the invader gains the upper hand all too often, or results in irreversible damage.

If what you say is true about immune system, why the overwhelming need for the medical resources?
(And FTR, you can't borrow antibodies for anything. Antibodies are very specific to the antigen.) If we relied only on our immune system to keep us alive, humanity may not have made it till here.

While there is truth to the concepts behind some statements, the degree they ascertain it to be is not in the truth field. Everything and anything has a risk, so being on the hunt for a risk-free option is not feasible. To take something that has a very low risk and blow it out of proportions, while at the same time taking the larger risk of the disease and downplaying its consequences it misleading and dangerous. Polio was a horrific disease, measles and mumps killed many, or left some deaf and sterilized. The numbers of those affected outweigh the lower risks by far - with monumental numbers & figures. The idea of not vaxxing and risking re-introducing that body-crippling polio disease into our communities is just mind boggling. I don't know how anybody can entertain that based on some minute risks of a particular substance.

amother

Orchid

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:37 pm

amother [ Violet ] wrote:

1,000 who are willing to speak up and risk a lot. There are plenty more who have concerns but are scared to speak up. And then there are plenty plenty who haven’t actually done their own research and are just following what they’re told to. I don’t think there is an agenda to wipe out the human race but I do think there is a tremendous amount of lack of knowledge and lack of long term studies for most doctors to actually have an opinion. You do know that many vaccines were “cleaned up” after being on the market for years? And all the doctors had pushed them originally. Research came out later. Cigarettes were also considered completely safe. So you’re point is very weak. At this point even main stream media is pointing out adverse reactions to the covid vaccine. EVERY vaccine has adverse reactions, how come with this vaccine no one is allowed to say that they had a reaction without being told that it’s not possible? Nothing is perfect on this world except this vaccine?!?

amother

Violet

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:51 pm

amother [ Orchid ] wrote:

Seriously, what a load of hogwash.

To start off with, you're suggesting that the doctors, researchers and scientists are lacking knowledge, but its the laymen who have the deep understanding to know exactly where the vaccine science is going wrong.

Moreover, doctors, researchers and science aren't robots who do what they're told. They're trained to operate in a critical thinking mode, hence why you have so many different modes of treatment for one same issue. Doctors use their knowledge base and tools to come to conclusions, and when they're stuck they do research to see what other options are available to them. There is no rule book they follow.

Vaccines have been around for some time, so there's no lack of long term knowledge for them in the least bit. There are loads and loads of data available - easily and readily. As for the CV vaccine the long term considerations are muted because they've mostly used substances that have been previously used, with the exception of the mRNA. Being that mRNA is a molecule produced by our very own bodies, their is no concern of a foreign substance for it. Hence, the concern is considered lessened for it.

We have made adjustments to every form of medical treatment out there that exists. The antibiotics that we use now are very different than the ones given at its onset. The chemo being administered today is very different than 20 years ago. Should we not have prescribed antibiotics back in the day because we've made it better now? Should we withhold cancer treatment, because the future chemo will be a much more upgraded version? Should the original polio vaccine not have been administered, and allowed polio to continue to propagate throughout society, until we've come up with the cleaned up version that we give nowadays?

Your last statement is totally false. Every vaccination location has a list of side effects and makes the patient aware of it. The side effects are being closely monitored and studied to apply to this and future vaccines. The VAERS is fielding all this information, as are the respective manufacturers. If your statement were true about side effects, how did we become aware of the clotting issue with the J&J vaccine when only SIX out of over a million people were affected.

If its as you say, nothing in this world is perfect, why are people villifying vaccines that have a 99.99997% safety record?

amother

Plum

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:58 pm

amother [ Cerulean ] wrote:

Not interested to get sucked into a debate here but I will give you a few short answers:

#1. I initially chose to fully vax but on delayed schedule. Then shifted to selectively vaxing (delaying some, entirely skipping others). Eventually landed on no vax at all. That said, I don't consider myself anti-vax, but rather pro-medical freedom. Just as I have so far been able to make choices for my family along with my doctor's guidance, so should every person and parent have medical freedom to do what is right for their family.

#2. I'm no evangelist. We lay low. I only discuss my feelings about this topic among like-minded people or someone who is very open and asking questions already. Most of my friends and neighbors do not have the slightest clue where we stand on the vax issue or how much or little any of my children have been vaxxed. Nor should they know. It's a private matter.

#3. I don't believe others vaxxing are keeping the non-vaxed safe. If there was a great shift and suddenly 50% or more of kids were no longer being vaxxed, it would be of no worry to me. I'd be glad for those kids. So while I'm too cowardly to speak out about what I believe IRL for fear of my children being ostracized and friendless, I admire those with the courage to do it.

So do you believe that the measles vaccine and polio vaccine are worse than measles and polio?

small bean

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 4:59 pm

smss wrote:

So, we can talk about aluminum and mercury and all that stuff another time.

But it seems like you're talking about the covid vaccine. Besides for mRNA, the other ingredients in the Pfizer vaccine are sugar, salt, and lipids (fat). Moderna is similar.

How can your immune system simultaneously be so powerful and invincible that no illness can get past it, and so weak and fragile that a vaccine will destroy you?

I'm not talking about covid vaccine. This thread was about antivax.

I think you're not understanding what I wrote.

Obviously things make us sick. The question is what we do about it.

The immune system is part one, why were not always sick. Taking care of our bodies for a strong immune sysytem is very important in the antivax world. That was point one.

Point 2 was severity of illness. The severity of illness is based on how we treat our body, past immune responses and the health of our immune system, natural remedies, and cureent medicine.

And to amother vilot. What our bodies knows from a. mutated virus, helps fight a new viruss.

And the longer an illness hangs around thr less it effects our bodies, which is why measels today or any similar illness would be different than measels 75 years ago. The same for a cold. And in 50 years for covid.

Again I'm explaining why antivax people will think the risk of injecting things into our body is greater than the risk of fighting an illness.

amother

Violet

Tue, Jun 01 2021, 5:10 pm

small bean wrote:

And to amother vilot. What our bodies knows from a. mutated virus, helps fight a new viruss.

And the longer an illness hangs around thr less it effects our bodies, which is why measels today or any similar illness would be different than measels 75 years ago. The same for a cold. And in 50 years for covid.

Again I'm explaining why antivax people will think the risk of injecting things into our body is greater than the risk of fighting an illness.

Not necessarily true. Antibodies are very specific to an antigen. If a mutation changes the specificity, then that antibody is rendered pretty useless. Hence the discussion if we will need booster shots if there is a significant mutation in CV.

The second statement is also not true in its entirety. Some pathogens eventually mutate to become less harmful, but some mutate to become more severe. It's a rolling of the dice. Once a pathogen is loose, the reason it would lose its severity is because we're able to stop it in its track by medical treatments or herd immunity. Measles today is not as severe because we slowed down its progression with treatment and immunity. If let untouched, it would really ravage the population.

All that you've told me regarding antivax is rooted in beliefs or in a lack of scientific knowledge. I haven't seen anything substantial to explain what makes injecting a weakened or deadened virus less dangerous than an all out pathogen attack on a human body.