Quote from Scarecrow

it's much more efficient to give people the means to produce their own antibodies, and let their body naturally identify that shit for them. so, that's why.

This is why, to my knowledge, injecting the 'cure' that simply attacks the pathogen for the human, instantly (but not a lasting treatment as the body never remembers) is only needed for when people are going to die from having already contracted the disease.

Playing catchup with pathogens is stupid, though to people who don't know nearly enough about their own body it seems counter intuitive to give yourself the thing that you're trying to stop killing you, even if there was a chance this could kill you, is still far better than injecting anyone who catches the pathogen with antibodies, and letting anyone you're too slow to help die from neglect.

Quote from Skeletonxf

Playing catchup with pathogens is stupid, though to people who don't know nearly enough about their own body it seems counter intuitive to give yourself the thing that you're trying to stop killing you, even if there was a chance this could kill you, is still far better than injecting anyone who catches the pathogen with antibodies, and letting anyone you're too slow to help die from neglect.

You generally don't get the actual germ that you are being vaccinated for. Vaccines contain a weakened version of the germ, or sometimes they don't even contain the real germ at all. For example, the vaccine for Hepatitis B only contains the protein envelope that surrounds the virus, but not the actual genetic information that drives it.

Quote from Gunnii

You generally don't get the actual germ that you are being vaccinated for. Vaccines contain a weakened version of the germ, or sometimes they don't even contain the real germ at all. For example, the vaccine for Hepatitis B only contains the protein envelope that surrounds the virus, but not the actual genetic information that drives it.

I know :P
It's only the antigen that needs to be the same.

Quote from Miracle

Really. I had no idea that the strands were 100% harmless. By the way my teacher talked about it, he conveyed it as if doctors simply shot you with tiny amounts of the virus, and your body just reacts to it. And my arguement about cures, I assumed that there were cures for all these viruses children were getting vaccines for, since the media only brings up various cancers, as if every other harmful bacteria was non-existent. My apologies if my point came across wrong, I' m a bit limited to only my parent's and media's point of view in this.
And the breast thing isn't from a vaccine, it's from an unknown substance that doctors gave their patients. It's briefly summarized through a government commercial claim.

Tiny amounts of the virus antigens on a harmless thing, but this is already covered on the last page.

The media, being often written by people with vested interest in getting out a good story, and the staff only definitely skilled in writing or communication, are not a good source at portraying science. The majority of fancy 'BREAKING NEW _' and 'NEW _' & 'NEW EVIDENCE _' tend to give a single study on often a small sample and very often go against loads of older evidence on the same topic. Given that few non-their-topic-of-telling-you-about media sources don't know basic science or don't bother caring about it, when they try to explain actual science rather than the over generalised conclusions of a small study, they are not the best place to learn about things at all.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=breaking+new+study+shows

Sites like http://www.howstuffworks.com/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/ are a lot better at explaining things properly, and use the scientific words so you can actually go research specifics if you want more detail. The media aren't necessarily lying to you, just rarely know what they are talking about outside of news and far too often over simplify things past recognisable cause & effect.

Quote from Parasite

Many parents believe that vaccinations can cause developmental disorders in children, such as autism.

This alone is grounds to believe that that the anti-vaccine movement is founded on falsehood. Autism is something you are born with, particularly in the case of High Functioning autism and Asperger's Syndrome. Because vaccines are either dead or weakened cells of the virus they are meant to prevent, they are less potent, but essentially have similar effects. How can autism, which is neither curable nor treatable, be caused by weakened viruses that have nothing whatsoever to do with the human brain?

According to the CDC's website vaccinations can rarely cause seizures, fainting spells, loss of appetite, drowsiness and/or fussiness in children after vaccinations. These are all neurological conditions.

Also a vaccine is much more than just weakened cells. This is the ingredient list for the adenovirus vaccine: Acetone, alcohol, anhydrous lactose, castor oil, cellulose acetate phthalate, dextrose, D-fructose, D-mannose, FD&C Yellow #6 aluminum lake dye, fetal bovine serum, human serum albumin, magnesium stearate, micro crystalline cellulose, plasdone C, polacrilin potassium, potassium phosphate, sodium bicarbonate, sucrose


What makes you so sure these can't possibly affect a developing brain?

I've only been vaccinated as a child for a few things like tetanus "lockjaw" which grows in the soil where I live and on rust. I was supposed to get them redone a decade later, but I never did. I was exposed to a lot of germs and filthy environments growing up and now my immune system stomps ass. Not everyone has such a strong immune system, but a case could be made for natural selection here. There were times where I was on the brink of death and not being able to get medical care *like vaccines* seriously fucking sucked, man.
Passive eugenics aside.
Is there really a way to assess the pros and cons of a world with and without vaccines? Even if that were the case I'm sure we'd come to a compromise where vaccine use would still be possible but restricted.

Quote from Jutsu

Not everyone has such a strong immune system, but a case could be made for natural selection here.

what are you suggesting?

Quote from Jutsu

Is there really a way to assess the pros and cons of a world with and without vaccines?

yes. for example, the flu vaccine has a low risk of serious side-effects, but they're significantly lower than the risk of serious complications from the flu. smallpox used to kill up to 1 in 7 children in Europe, it's now eliminated from the planet. if there are any examples of vaccines causing net harm to the world population in any capacity, I can't find them.

Quote from Exilement

According to the CDC's website vaccinations can rarely cause seizures, fainting spells, loss of appetite, drowsiness and/or fussiness in children after vaccinations. These are all neurological conditions.

Also a vaccine is much more than just weakened cells. This is the ingredient list for the adenovirus vaccine: Acetone, alcohol, anhydrous lactose, castor oil, cellulose acetate phthalate, dextrose, D-fructose, D-mannose, FD&C Yellow #6 aluminum lake dye, fetal bovine serum, human serum albumin, magnesium stearate, micro crystalline cellulose, plasdone C, polacrilin potassium, potassium phosphate, sodium bicarbonate, sucrose


What makes you so sure these can't possibly affect a developing brain?

well off the top of my head the bolded ones are generally harmless. not 100% sure about the rest. i have no fucking idea why they included dye

I'm playing devil's advocate against his claim that a vaccination is just "dead or weakened cells" and the argument he based on it. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.

What I meant is that vaccines may be seen as conflicting or interfering with natural selection. By allowing people with weak immune systems, that wouldn't survive otherwise to survive and subsequently reproduce.

To be fair, modern society let's many incapable survive.

Quote from Jutsu

vaccines may be seen as conflicting or interfering with natural selection.

Sure. And the police may be seen as interfering with serial killers.

I'm not stating my personal opinions on the matter.

I think the subject of natural selection/survival of the fittest could stimulate it's own debate.

I'm merely saying that some could perceive this as a con in regards to vaccines.

Quote from Jutsu

I'm not stating my personal opinions on the matter.

I think the subject of natural selection/survival of the fittest could stimulate it's own debate.

I'm merely saying that some could perceive this as a con in regards to vaccines.

Well not really. It's not like natural selection needs to happen, humans are doing fine on their own. All the problems we have are mainly caused by us; most of our problems aren't necessarily bound by physical limitations we could get via natural selection. And even if we needed such things, natural selection would itself go through a long and arduous process before anyone sees any helpful or necessary "edits." It's too preemptive to say that we need natural selection when whatever it has in store for us in the future is mostly ambiguous. Besides, vaccines are the closest things we have to an artificial version of natural selection, so I don't see why people would be against it. In addition, this type of natural selection you're talking about would only weed out those who are unable to resist them. It wouldn't necessarily give way to any other edits, so there's no real objective in the first place.

This is really just a small part of the argument against something like natural selection. The bottom line is, its a very ambiguous solution for a problem we don't really have to begin with, so it's not a great debate.

Quote from Raptor

Well not really. It's not like natural selection needs to happen, humans are doing fine on their own. All the problems we have are mainly caused by us; most of our problems aren't necessarily bound by physical limitations we could get via natural selection. And even if we needed such things, natural selection would itself go through a long and arduous process before anyone sees any helpful or necessary "edits." It's too preemptive to say that we need natural selection when whatever it has in store for us in the future is mostly ambiguous. Besides, vaccines are the closest things we have to an artificial version of natural selection, so I don't see why people would be against it. In addition, this type of natural selection would only weed out those who are unable to resist them. It wouldn't necessarily give way to any other edits, so there's no real objective in the first place.
This is really just a small part of the argument against something like natural selection. The bottom line is, its a very ambiguous solution for a problem we don't really have to begin with.

Like I said, I wasn't stating my own opinion or against vaccines here. But I have heard it as an interesting argument against vaccines, albeit from a wacky nature nut.
Though I must say that humans "doing fine on their own" is equally preemptive. As we've been outside the natural cycle for a very short time now, or perhaps we're still in it, depending on the perspective.

And you simply cannot convince me that some of the mouth breathing breeders that shuffle amuck in modern day like over medicated zombies with their inept retard spawn would have survived otherwise. This part is my opinion, and is also extremely judgmental of me.

I think if you want to discuss this you should make a new thread for it. Instead of encouraging me to continue off topic posting.