LogFAQs > #936650919

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, Database 6 ( 01.01.2020-07.18.2020 ), DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Would you take part in a COVID-19 vaccine trial?
adjl 04/02/20 12:25:39 PM #37:	Demellic posted... My point is that it isnt safe behavior to inject a literal neurotoxin into a human or animal. And my point is that the "safe/unsafe" distinction is almost entirely dependent on dosage. You eat C. botulinum spores - the dormant form of a bacterium which produces the most toxic substance known to mankind - every time you eat honey, but do you end up dying of botulism? No, because the dose is too small to have an adverse effect. Well, at least in non-newborns, which is why you shouldn't give newborns honey. Demellic posted... How do you figure that, exactly? Our immune system actually has a lot to do with protecting our body from toxins. Our immune system protects us from infections and foreign bodies. Toxins are processed and eliminated by the liver and kidneys, not the immune system. Exceptions exist, but they're usually more complex molecules that have some kind of identifiable antigen that the immune system can identify and attack, not simpler molecules or naked atoms like heavy metals. Demellic posted... Youre assuming that the mercury within vaccines is actually made safe, but in reality its not. Which you're basing on...? Demellic posted... In addition to mercury, how would you explain the inclusion of formaldehyde, MSG, and aborted animal and human fetal cells into vaccines that are also being injected into humans out of curiosity? Stabilizers and preservatives, mostly. These things do cost money, and there's no money to be made by throwing them in there if they don't provide some benefit. That'd just be silly. Demellic posted... Vaccines have a long history of debilitating and incapacitating people by giving them the very thing they were supposed to protect from. Not really. Not under modern production standards, anyway (which is why modern production standards are what they are). Even the vaccines that do include live viruses use attenuated forms that are physically incapable of causing their respective diseases. You get plenty of people insisting that their flu shot gave them the flu, but that's always a matter of them confusing inflammatory side effects (which often include fevers and aches) or separate illnesses (the number of people that say they got "stomach flu" from their flu shot...) with actual influenza, because flu shots do not contain live viruses. Demellic posted... There have been a very great many vaccine damage lawsuits lost by pharmaceutical companies, forcing them to admit they did damage the victim. Oh, sure. Any medical procedure has potential side effects, and pharmaceutical companies don't always disclose all of them. That doesn't mean people are being given the vaccine's disease, though, nor does it mean that protection from the disease isn't worth the risk in the vast majority of cases. Demellic posted... Sounds like you avoided the original question of how unvaccinated people pose a health risk to vaccinated people. Can you explain that one? No vaccine is 100% effective. Even somebody who's been vaccinated against something can still potentially get it if they're exposed to a large enough pathogen load, though usually a milder case (example: I had pertussis when I was 9 and didn't die or end up hospitalized by it because I was vaccinated). Having a larger proportion of the population vaccinated means you're much less likely to experience the higher pathogen load of being around an actual infected person, meaning you're less likely to end up with the infection. Furthermore, because I'm not a piece of shit that only cares about myself, being vaccinated doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't be concerned about the people who can't be. Even if I were being vaccinated did mean I was perfectly immune to everything, I'd still be calling anti-vaxxers selfish, misinformed idiots for endangering those who can't be vaccinated for whatever reason (to say nothing of endangering their children). You ask how anti-vaxxers pose a health risk to vaccinated people? I don't really care about that (except as outlined above, but that's a fairly minor concern). I care about the risk they pose to unvaccinated people, which is very significant and not something anyone can argue. So let's flip that question around on you: Why don't anti-vaxxers care about the health risks they pose to unvaccinated people? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:936650919] in Would you ... [t:78527372]...</cite> <quote>Demellic posted... </cite> <quote>My point is that it isnt safe behavior to inject a literal neurotoxin into a human or animal.</quote> And my point is that the "safe/unsafe" distinction is almost entirely dependent on dosage. You eat C. botulinum spores - the dormant form of a bacterium which produces the most toxic substance known to mankind - every time you eat honey, but do you end up dying of botulism? No, because the dose is too small to have an adverse effect. Well, at least in non-newborns, which is why you shouldn't give newborns honey. Demellic posted... </cite> <quote>How do you figure that, exactly? Our immune system actually has a lot to do with protecting our body from toxins.</quote> Our immune system protects us from infections and foreign bodies. Toxins are processed and eliminated by the liver and kidneys, not the immune system. Exceptions exist, but they're usually more complex molecules that have some kind of identifiable antigen that the immune system can identify and attack, not simpler molecules or naked atoms like heavy metals. Demellic posted... </cite> <quote>Youre assuming that the mercury within vaccines is actually made safe, but in reality its not.</quote> Which you're basing on...? Demellic posted... </cite> <quote>In addition to mercury, how would you explain the inclusion of formaldehyde, MSG, and aborted animal and human fetal cells into vaccines that are also being injected into humans out of curiosity?</quote> Stabilizers and preservatives, mostly. These things do cost money, and there's no money to be made by throwing them in there if they don't provide some benefit. That'd just be silly. Demellic posted... </cite> <quote>Vaccines have a long history of debilitating and incapacitating people by giving them the very thing they were supposed to protect from.</quote> Not really. Not under modern production standards, anyway (which is why modern production standards are what they are). Even the vaccines that do include live viruses use attenuated forms that are physically incapable of causing their respective diseases. You get plenty of people insisting that their flu shot gave them the flu, but that's always a matter of them confusing inflammatory side effects (which often include fevers and aches) or separate illnesses (the number of people that say they got "stomach flu" from their flu shot...) with actual influenza, because flu shots do not contain live viruses. Demellic posted... </cite> <quote>There have been a very great many vaccine damage lawsuits lost by pharmaceutical companies, forcing them to admit they did damage the victim.</quote> Oh, sure. Any medical procedure has potential side effects, and pharmaceutical companies don't always disclose all of them. That doesn't mean people are being given the vaccine's disease, though, nor does it mean that protection from the disease isn't worth the risk in the vast majority of cases. Demellic posted... </cite> <quote>Sounds like you avoided the original question of how unvaccinated people pose a health risk to vaccinated people. Can you explain that one?</quote> No vaccine is 100% effective. Even somebody who's been vaccinated against something can still potentially get it if they're exposed to a large enough pathogen load, though usually a milder case (example: I had pertussis when I was 9 and didn't die or end up hospitalized by it because I was vaccinated). Having a larger proportion of the population vaccinated means you're much less likely to experience the higher pathogen load of being around an actual infected person, meaning you're less likely to end up with the infection. Furthermore, because I'm not a piece of shit that only cares about myself, being vaccinated doesn't mean I can't or shouldn't be concerned about the people who can't be. Even if I were being vaccinated did mean I was perfectly immune to everything, I'd still be calling anti-vaxxers selfish, misinformed idiots for endangering those who can't be vaccinated for whatever reason (to say nothing of endangering their children). You ask how anti-vaxxers pose a health risk to vaccinated people? I don't really care about that (except as outlined above, but that's a fairly minor concern). I care about the risk they pose to unvaccinated people, which is very significant and not something anyone can argue. So let's flip that question around on you: Why don't anti-vaxxers care about the health risks they pose to unvaccinated people? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1