Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Inactivated is incapable of hurting you with measles.

Says who?

Says the definition of "inactivated"

Which is basically a corpse...

[GavJ]

No, inactivated means it is not doing the full extent of what a virus normally does. I.e. it won't go through the full "life cycle" of the virus.

It does not mean it does nothing or causes no harm. It is in fact designed to still intentionally cause lesser harm that the body will react to to build an immunity. it's just supposed to be less harm than the live virus to make it relatively safer (or ideally pose a threatening looking image to the immune system, but more commonly still doing a bit of harm to cells). In the wrong people, that lesser amount of harm can still be too much potentially, though, if they have [unknown factors] making their body prone to overreact dangerously to a typical dose.

OR even if it does literally zero harm to cells, the intended immune response of the body itself can still potentially damage the patient if they are the type of person to react much more strongly than average.

[Neonivek]

No, inactivated means it is not doing the full extent of what a virus normally does. I.e. it won't go through the full "life cycle" of the virus

As in... it is harmless.

A virus cannot do anything against you, it cannot tangibly harm you in anyway... if it cannot do that.

Also no, an inactivated means they cannot do squat. They are literally floating corpses. There is no method they can harm you as Measles.

Whenever they have been, in the past, it is because someone botched it and used a live virus.

[GavJ]

If it "cannot do squat," please explain what the purpose of injecting them into your arm is.

[Skyrunner]

Immune response is triggered by the protein shell's characteristics. It has nothing to do with the virus itself. It can be gutted and dead and still work as vaccine if the shell is still there.

[GavJ]

Immune response is triggered by the protein shell's characteristics. It has nothing to do with the virus itself. It can be gutted and dead and still work as vaccine if the shell is still there.

^ Yup. And that immune process that is triggered, if it is in a rare subset of people who potentially have immune systems that vastly overreact to the threat, can harm or even kill a person via their own response.

People's immune systems killing them is not mysterious or controversial at all. Happens every day. Type 1 diabetes is probably the most common autoimmune death cause. But also things like multiple sclerosis, asthma, lupus, etc.

And, entirely consistent with this hypothetical mechanism of damage -- nearly all of the reported adverse events for vaccines are of the type that would make sense for an overly aggressive immune response.

[Neonivek]

In otherwords they died because their immune system had to work at all.

Since a inactivated Virus isn't anything special to the body.

In fact it isn't unusual for an inactivated virus to simply... not work.

[GavJ]

In otherwords they died because their immune system had to work at all.

A normal, live virus introduced via mucus membrances by itself is extremely different than an artificial bunch of virus bits appearing suddenly in the middle of your arm muscle, along with half a dozen immune system-triggering chemicals that your body would never encounter there in nature. It IS potentially VERY special to the body. It is also potentially not special. Depending on the person. But it doesn't have to be most people for us to have a major possible problem to consider.

Assuming that the immune response will be of the exact same type and magnitude in every member of the population between those two events is very unwise.

[Neonivek]

The attenuated virus cannot do that on its own.

And of those additives you are talking about, we actually do have a good idea of which ones cause what reactions and not all vaccines carry those symptoms. Aluminum Salt for example.

And your statement sort of has a different tune when we could just pay more money with more injections.

Also no, the body doesn't treat a virus any differently depending on the location. It will treat the virus as if it was JUST AS DEADLY in the mucus membrane as it does if it was inside your heart.

[GavJ]

The attenuated virus cannot do that on its own.

It doesn't HAVE to.

The REASON they inject it in your arm is to stimulate your body's immune system to perceive a threat and kick into action. And in fact the entire point of it is that your body OVER-reacts to the threat (otherwise it wouldn't work unless you were actually infected full out).

I'm explaining how precisely the thing that the vaccine is engineered to do can be the mechanism of damage or death to a patient. In most people, no, because the dose is measured to be safe for most people. But some people will react more aggressively than average to that very special set of circumstances (not necessarily the same people to natural virus situations). And possibly some of those people so aggressively, that their immune system can do major harm.

I repeat -- Their immune system can do major harm. Not the attenuated virus. So what? Dead is dead.

Aluminum Salt for example.

Alum is widely considered the safest of the commonly used options, and IIRC, it is the only adjuvant legal in all countries.

[Neonivek]

The virus is no different in either situation.

It wouldn't matter how you got infected by it.

some people will react more aggressively than average to that very special set of circumstances (not necessarily the same people to natural virus situations). And possibly some of those people so aggressively, that their immune system can do major harm

Right, but these are people who are time bombs who would have been triggered no matter what... Because it being in their arm versus it being in their nose or eyeball, isn't something the body cares about.

There was no saving them, the vaccine is just the one thing that managed to do it.

No different then people who discover they are deadly allergic to milk or wheat. The only way to find out they will have a terrible reaction, is for them to have a reaction.

[Cheeetar]

<'funny meme images'>

That doesn't really add anything to the discussion, man.

[GavJ]

Also no, the body doesn't treat a virus any differently depending on the location. It will treat the virus as if it was JUST AS DEADLY in the mucus membrane as it does if it was inside your heart.

One of the main reasons you HAVE mucus is to protect you against microbes... the very fact that it exists in your sinuses but not in your arm muscle is evidence against this ridiculous claim

The virus is no different in either situation.

It wouldn't matter how you got infected by it.

Right, so you're claiming that the evolutionary response to like 99% of infection threats coming in through the mouth and 0.0001% through the arm muscle or whatever is.... nothing. Absolutely no difference in lines of defense in either location.

..Lol?? I'm gonna go get some groceries now.




For other people just checking in on the thread -- the last major post prior to this tangent was at the top of the page exactly one page back from this one.

[Neonivek]

Right, so you're claiming that the evolutionary response to like 99% of infection threats coming in through the mouth and 0.0001% through the arm muscle or whatever is.... nothing. Absolutely no difference in lines of defense in either location

For immune response? nope

Your body usually cannot tell it is infected with the G-virus until after it is already extensively infected.

It is why you can be infected and not have symptoms for a week.

[Leafsnail]

1) I don't recall ever saying once in this entire thread that anybody should ban vaccines.

Well yeah but you're saying we should try and enforce an "optimum vaccination percentage".  So tell you what, I say we should try and enforce an Optimum Cheese Eating Level.  Obviously since there's no data we should assume that the level is 0%.  If anyone goes against our advice and eats cheese while the number of cheese eaters is above the target level we'll deny them healthcare for all cheese-related illnesses (and as we have no evidence to the contrary we should assume that's all of them).

2) I'm not aware of any laws that mandate you eat cheese in order to be allowed to attend public school.

Well maybe there should be laws that specify whether or not you should eat cheese (obviously until proven otherwise they should specify that you shouldn't).

3) Do you have a citation from the CDC citing a rate of 1.1 deaths per million people eating cheese in the 1960s that we need to consider whether or not we have improved on since then? Do you have a cheese reporting system with dozens of vague, plausible cheese-related deaths reported every year and estimates from the CDC that >10x as many would be reported with full participation? Do you have admissions from cheese manufacturers that their products may cause deaths?

No, but all of those things are just guesses.  You shouldn't base government policy on guesses.  I mean as we all know, even if there are no confirmed reports of deaths from something we should assume the maximum possible death rate (which is 1 in however large the largest study on them was).  As you've prevented no evidence that cheese is safe we must assume the maximum possible death rate (of 100%).

4) Cheese has an entirely different and vastly more complicated benefits side to the equation. So even if it does kill a bunch of people, how are you quantifying whether its benefits outweigh that or not?

It is up to you to prove the benefits of cheese.  I have no looked at any evidence regarding these benefits, therefore they should be assumed to be nil until you prove otherwise.