Print

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

[Neonivek]

Actually with the more we learn about dairy there is a decent argument to make about banning it outright.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

<'funny meme images'>

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

If you can point me to where this topic is worth taking seriously past the first few pages, go ahead.

[Neonivek]

While we are often WAAAAAY too harsh on GavJ (and believe me GavJ I've been there...) we do take this somewhat seriously.

[Cheeetar]

If you can point me to where this topic is worth taking seriously past the first few pages, go ahead.

If you personally dislike a discussion, it's fine to spam stupid images in it?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

:/ Clinking the link would show you about how seriously the comment is worth taking. I'm sorry..?

And Neon, yeah, obviously, it's a shame the OP is more of an expert than all the parade of folks who've struck down all the repeated arguments. This cheese argument is more scientific than less vaccines = better for public health because these vaccines kill so many more people than an almost extinct disease it's meant to end. Which would be a good argument if there were evidence of this catastrophe of vaccines causing deaths untold that are simply ignored by medical science. Except no, not really, increasing the chance of disease resurgence and outbreak at all is against public welfare. But hey, let's encourage just some people to not get vaccinated and become the next patient zero.

[GavJ]

Well yeah but you're saying we should try and enforce an "optimum vaccination percentage".

I've only said we should enforce that if/when we know what it is. The immediate action I'm suggesting is not enforcing anything blindly (we should enforce some/any amount higher than 60% or whatever current data proves, but that's not blindly -- that's based on data. And I am NOT saying we should discourage any number higher than 60 for being too high based on current data). I'm suggesting funding more research to potentially figure out that percentage for now, then acting accordingly.

In a situation where you don't have any data at all, you should enact exactly ZERO policies other than perhaps spending some money on getting more data. Even then, not just willy nilly, but only if you have at least some reasonable circumstantial evidence (such as VAERS and a history of other predecessor medications causing concerning death rates) and/or a plausible mechanism of operation (such as a medicine doing exactly what it's designed to, but a uniformly sized dose being too much for potential rare highly reactive individuals to the unnatural context of vaccine-derivatives and adjuvants introduced in strange ways into the body).

All of your silly cheese examples are addressed by the above two paragraphs. "We should assume 100% death rate and make laws accordingly and blindly and blah blah" none of which reflects what i've said in this thread. If you have zero data on cheese, then you should have zero policies on cheese, other than perhaps funding more research on cheese safety if you have circumstantial evidence and/or a plausible biological mechanism of it being deadly.

^ Exact same set of rules applied in both situations. And if you provide me some circumstantial evidence and/or mechanisms of cheese being a deadly threat at levels plausibly within consideration range of its benefits, then yes by all means lets throw a bit mroe safety research funding at it *shrug*





Fun side story:

I myself have actually participated in a single blind random assignment safety test of cheese consumption versus sham cheese. I shit you not, a few years ago, my department bought a bunch of pizzas from a place downtown for interview weekend for new prospective grad students, and they included some vegan ones, but forgot to actually announce that. So we actually had an accidental random assignment cheese safety experiment with about 40-50 participants, about the number sufficient to significantly disconfirm a 1/10 cheese death rate suggested earlier (nobody died).

(edit: appreciate it, Neonivek)

[Neonivek]

Wait GavJ

So this is hypothetical.

Where we know that Vaccines have some sort of toxin that kills one in a certain amount of people...

Should we attempt an optimal coverage rate?

My issue is no... because there is no way to enforce optimal coverage rate.

[GavJ]

because there is no way to enforce optimal coverage rate.

So instead, you propose to support the current government policy of attempting to enforce a specific coverage rate?
...

[Neonivek]

because there is no way to enforce optimal coverage rate.

So instead, you propose to support the current government policy of attempting to enforce a specific coverage rate?
...

They have a target number they are trying to go for. Which they will try to do through government programs.

Though as usual what will be the dent in the armor is that coverage isn't uniform. 90% spread out through the general population would actually be pretty dang resistant.

But generally speaking it is pockets of 50% or lower that ends up being where the outbreaks occur.

My advice is start school programs and require care workers to be vaccinated.

[GavJ]

They have a target number they are trying to go for. Which they will try to do through government programs.

I'm glad to hear that you agree about the ability of government to use programs to aid in meeting specific target rates of vaccination.

[Neonivek]

They have a target number they are trying to go for. Which they will try to do through government programs.

I'm glad to hear that you agree about the ability of government to use programs to aid in meeting specific target rates of vaccination.

Well it is a benchmark goal. The Government cannot POSSIBLY go "Ok, lets vaccinate 90% of everyone!" they go "lets keep vaccinating and report back, once we get 90% we will consider it a success"

[GavJ]

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

To induce an immune response. They have the stuff on them that the body responds to, dead or alive. And all it takes is for the body to recognise it.

Yes somebody said that in the next post, which I knew and was just waiting for another person to say to make a point. Keep reading the posts after that.

[GavJ]

the non-local immune system

If you introduced exactly equal substances immediately after respiratory defenses versus in the arm, with the same timing, then yes. But that won't happen.

The local immune system--mucus as a physical barrier, stomach acid (depending on the microbe) and an especially high number of antibodies within mucus membranes--act as lines of defense that slow down and temper an infection and allow more time for the general immune system to react. They also spread out the area of effect if/when it does get past initial defenses, whereas the entire load appearing in one spot in an arm muscle is a far greater quantity of reactive substances per volume than normal for general tissues.

Also, as mentioned (yet nobody responded to), even if you use a nasal spray vaccine, you're still also introducing the microbes in conjunction with a bunch of bizarre chemicals that would never co-occur in real life. When somebody sneezes at you, they don't also throw a bunch of alum and formaldehyde and ammonium sulfate, etc. in your face Nor binders or preservatives that can also be reactogenic / allergic or have synergistic effects.

[GavJ]

The immune system is not a giant leaf switch that the protagonist hero throws all at once. It operates along a scale. greater viral load overall can matter. More distributed viral load (for instance in tiny pockets throughout your lungs) will matter as compared to a giant invasion all in exactly one spot in terms of perceived threat and scale of response.

Also, we aren't talking about a perfect healthy immune system anyway. An out of whack immune system (it's a rare thing to have a violent reaction) could easily be "broken" to look at only local volume of antigen for the signals it sends to the rest of the immune system, and not take into account context, thus possibly taking a giant local load of reactants and causing the body to flip the hell out.

You can't think of everything in terms of textbooks when you're discussing 1/100,000 or 1/1,000,000 cases. The reason they might have a reaction and most don't is likely because their system works weirdly. Which would mean that ANY differences -- even ones that might not be expected to matter typically -- can potentially matter.

[Neonivek]

But how many of those people died of shock gavJ?

That is the most likely way someone dies if due to an overzealous immune response.