Print

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

[GavJ]

GavJ, there's a reason why you react when even a tiny amount of something you're allergic to enters your system.

The immune system doesn't care that it's a large amount or small, it will absolutely FLIP ITS SHIT. You're arguing that a vaccine is worse because there's a larger dose. Get the disease in anything larger than a few hundred bacteria or viruses (not very many, given how small they are) and your body'll go full out.

It's not an on-off switch for normal diseases, but in most cases of allergies it may as well be, because the severity of the reaction increases ridiculously fast the more of the stuff there is until it hits the limits of the immune system. It's like a dimmer switch where turning it the tiniest bit turns the bulbs from off to on, and if you keep turning it eventually turns to 'Oh god my retinas are burning'

1) A NORMAL immune system might not care that it's large or small, for an allergic reaction. This is not guaranteed for 1/1,000,000 weirdo broken immune systems, which might act in all kinds of minorly different ways. Including having different thresholds for local antigen concentrations before triggering a response, blah blah. Thus, potential difference between wild and vaccine FOR THEM.

2) An allergic reaction is not the only thing that might be going on. There could also be things like actual vulnerability to a particular chemical additive in a rare segment of population. So like, something wrong with your liver where a little bit of injected formaldehyde might really damage you more than a normal person, for example. Thus, a difference between wild and vaccine.

3) Even if/when it is just a normal allergic reaction, and even if that is an on/off switch it could simply be one to the adjuvants, preservatives, or a combination thereof or combination with the antigen that a person is allergic to, not just plain antigen in and of itself. Thus, a difference between wild and vaccine.

4) A person could also be severely allergic to just the antigen (including portions of a whole virus or just toxins from a bacteria, etc.), to the extent that they may also have been severely injured or killed by the wild type disease as well, but due to extremely low incidence of that wild disease due to current coverage levels, the vaccine might introduce it to them when otherwise they may not have ever been introduced in their entire lives. For measles, maybe 10,000 people are exposed in the US in order to get 800 cases this year. That's still only a 0.2% chance of being exposed per lifetime on average, versus a 100% chance if you get a vaccine. This is also a difference between wild and vaccine (statistically rather than biologically, but so what?)

[GavJ]

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.

I don't think shock is commonly written down as a cause of death.  For example, many of the reported deaths are SIDS-possible cases. Even if it is SIDS, and is not vaccine related (coincidental timing), dying of respiratory failure from having your face down and not being able to turn over or whatever is generally written down as "SIDS" not "oxygen starvation/shock" etc. etc.

[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.

I don't think shock is commonly written down as a cause of death.  For example, many of the reported deaths are SIDS-possible cases. Even if it is SIDS, and is not vaccine related (coincidental timing), dying of respiratory failure from having your face down and not being able to turn over or whatever is generally written down as "SIDS" not "oxygen starvation/shock" etc. etc.

So, they aren't dying from immune reaction... huh

Well that ends that theory *throws it out*

WAIT A MINUTE *checks internet*

They are dying from SIDS? Sudden Infant Death Syndrome... because they had a vaccine at a period of time they would get it and then suffered from SIDS around the same time they would have said reaction?

And along with this they didn't suffer from autoimmune disease OR an allergic reaction because both of those are obvious in an autopsy or require more time then it would have taken to kill the baby?

[Shinotsa]

SIDS caused by vaccines. Y'heard it here first folks.

To quote a post on the previous page: Lol

I'm not denying that an additive can cause a reaction, I'm denying that the 'artificial' (as you termed it) parts of the virus that form the actual vaccination can cause a reaction without the illness doing so. Which seems to be what you're saying sometimes, and others you aren't.

This is true. While there are some minor concerns that the adjuvants could potentially cause some sort of autoimmune effect (to the same extent that getting the flu would). To assume that the antigen itself would cause a problem is kind of a moot point because you are being exposed to antigens all of the time. Hell, during any illness where your body is actively destroying cells it is creating far more antigens (both self and foreign) than in a vaccine.

[GavJ]

I'm not denying that an additive can cause a reaction, I'm denying that the 'artificial' (as you termed it) parts of the virus that form the actual vaccination can cause a reaction without the illness doing so. Which seems to be what you're saying sometimes, and others you aren't.

Seriously, now I'm struggling to learn where you're arguing from at this point. You seem to be arguing that preservatives can cause a reaction or cause damage depending on the person's body (yes to the former, the latter is HIGHLY unlikely. If a guy's liver is failing, someone would notice the yellow eyes and skin, not to mention the fact they'd be scratching their leg/foot constantly), sometimes it seems you argue that the antigens would cause a reaction and the disease wouldn't, but then you say that it's wrong and they'd both cause the reaction...

There are three different things I'm saying about just the virus bits alone:

Yes I'm saying that the actual virus bits could possibly be treated differently in a respiratory introduction versus an arm injection, for people with weird immune systems. Because they are introduced in entirely different parts of the body, and it's completely plausible that even if a regular immune system considers those the same (due to both passing the very low threshold of a few hundred antigens) that a dysfunctional one might not (if for example, it is abnormal by very simply having a higher threshold for allergic reaction than a few hundred antigens)

Additionally, even if the biological reaction is identical, the statistical exposure to those virus bits can be differentially likely from a vaccine versus from wild type. I.e. a vaccine program above a certain level of coverage can increase your chances on average of being exposed to the virus or virus bits, so if you're just normally allergic to them, you could be at greater risk possibly from 100% vaccine coverage versus 90%, for example.

And finally, you might have a normal allergic reaction to [virus bits + formaldehyde] wven if you do not have a reaction to [virus bits] or [formaldehyde].

[Neonivek]

We already established it isn't an allergic reaction.

None of these people died of an allergic reaction XD

[ThrowerOfStones]

Reading this topic has been interesting. Suffice to say pretty much every argument you've made, GavJ, seems pretty clearly erroneous for fairly obvious reasons, but others far more expert in thise matters gave been badgering you for pages and made very little headway in convincing you of your errors. So I'm not going to try to go head to head on the medical and edpidemiological side of things, because thise better qualified have already done so ten times over.

But I do feel I need to say this: as someone who knows quite a bit about public policy, the government, Congressional scope of power, and administrative law, even IF what you are positing is true - that there is a calculable optimal vaccination rate that is less than 100% - there is no feasible public policy way of achieving that goal. People are not, have never been, and most importantly never will be rational actors. If you spend the billions (not millions) of dollars in medical research necessary to determine that level and then also spend the billions (not millions) of dollars necessary to constantly track the general vaccination levels, and then recommend people get vaccinated if they are below a certain point, the result will be an enormously plummeting vaccination level, well below whatever goal you set. Public policy aims for 100% because we know if you aim for 100% you get well below 100%, while if we aim for less than 100% you get much, much lower. It is simply not practical to have the government attempt to enforce less than 100% compliance; it would cost more money to enforce and the results would be massively less successful.

I agree with you knowing the fatality rate of vaccines would be very helpful, although I find your fear mongering regarding that absurd. But any implication that, barring a doscovery vaccines are killing tens of thousands a year, the practical matter is public policy is not a science and trying to enforce a particular vaccination rate is simply not possible. You can either try for all and get most, make recommendations and get very few, or do nothing and probably get about the same as the recommendations.

[Gentlefish]

...If vaccines aren't killing by allergic reaction, -how- can they kill unless the virus activates? The "artificial filler" stuff you propose that fucks up our immune system is body-neutral, similar to coconut water or saline solution. Sure you might be allergic to that, but we've ruled allergies out as cause of death.

So how does the vaccine kill? Auto-immune? You're fucked by the next common cold anyway.

[Neonivek]

The virus cannot activate that would also be obvious if the person suddenly died because they contracted Measles... Measles isn't exactly a "Subtle" infection.

[GavJ]

but we've ruled allergies out as cause of death.

Uh no, Neonivek just stated several times that we had ruled out allergies as cause of death, without providing much argument as to why or addressing 80% of my responses.
That's not quite the same thing as ruling out allergies as cause of death.
Your question about how they might kill: by allergic reaction...  to the adjuvants etc. OR to the actual antigen (which you're much more likely to be exposed to by vaccine than in the wild at certain levels of coverage) OR a combination thereof.

The "artificial filler" stuff you propose that fucks up our immune system is body-neutral, similar to coconut water or saline solution.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for delicious bottles of formaldehyde next to the coconut water next time I'm at Whole Foods.

But I do feel I need to say this: as someone who knows quite a bit about public policy, the government, Congressional scope of power, and administrative law, even IF what you are positing is true - that there is a calculable optimal vaccination rate that is less than 100% - there is no feasible public policy way of achieving that goal.

There are countries all over the world at all kinds of different levels of coverage maintained. Some places have 90+%. Some have 80%. Some have 70%...

If you want to maintain 80%, there is definitely some way to do it, because it's happening right now in the Philippines, Colombia, few places in Italy and eastern Europe, etc.

It might be that the only way to reliably achieve 80% is by controlling how enthusastic (or not) and how efficient (or not) about advertising and subsidizing your 100% rate you are, for example.
"OMG You're all going to die horribly if you don't vaccinate and nkljadnscxlakcna" = 90%
"Yes, we should all vaccinate to 100%. But we aren't going to bar you from school or anything. Still, let's get to 100% that would be great go team!" = 80%
"We would appreciate it if you got vaccinated" = 70%
etc.

But saying it's not POSSIBLE is pretty silly when there are long term examples all over of it happening at almost every level that might possibly be near the actual optimal rate.

[Neonivek]

Uh no, Neonivek just stated several times that we had ruled out allergies as cause of death, without providing much argument as to why

Because allergic reactions causing death tend to follow a pattern and the major one not present is Shock... which for an alergin you are having a deathly reaction to that is circulating your blood stream... is unheard of. Well I guess not if you had the shot right in the throat and the throat swollen up and blocked your air passage ways.

[GavJ]

Uh no, Neonivek just stated several times that we had ruled out allergies as cause of death, without providing much argument as to why

Because allergic reactions causing death tend to follow a pattern and the major one not present is Shock... which for an alergin you are having a deathly reaction to that is circulating your blood stream... is unheard of.

What are you talking about? Yes, shock is entirely consistent with many if not most of the reports.

Seriously, stop what you're doing -- this will only take a couple of minutes:
1) Go over to VAERS's website. https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index
2) "click here to proceed"
3) download some recent year, doesn't matter.
4) just read a few entries.

Notice: The data is CRAP at details. Half the time they don't have dates, more than half the time they don't even know what vaccine it was, probably most of the dead people they don't even LIST a cause of death at all, much less it not being the exact wording you are expecting here, very rarely do they report anything about autopsies, assuming they even did them...

You're all like "Oh well well, it doesn't SPECIFICALLY list shock as part of the detailed, professional report, well then it couldn't possibly be allergies"  ...No. These are hasty notes jotted down in about 5 minutes by doctors who have vague, fleeting suspicions about vaccine timing and take a short moment to submit something. That is all. They don't list generic cause of death AND cellular cause of death AND follow up in triplicate, blah blah blah.

If a dude gets his hand chopped off and loses a bunch of blood, then ultimately, he dies of shock probably. In a reporting system like this, though? You are about equally likely to get any of the following notations too:
"Died of hand chopped off"
"Died of blood loss"
"No cause of death specified"
etc.
Does that mean he didn't die of shock? No. It simply means that the reporting standards are terrible and incomplete.

You're way overthinking this. The lists of symptoms are blatantly obviously immune related in the huge number of the reports. Lack of specific technical terms doesn't matter because they're not technical. What they are, though, is chock full of sudden inflammation, sudden respiratory issues, sudden "sepsis", wheezing, big puffy arms, local site issues, etc. Not all of them. Some or many of the people probably just coincidentally dropped dead. But this is an overwhelming pattern overall that clearly indicates a plausible mechanism going on that makes sense to study further.

[Neonivek]

Shock is a BASIC symptom any doctor could identify across the room at sight.

[GavJ]

Shock is a BASIC symptom any doctor could identify across the room at sight.

So is age, and the date, and which vaccine you're reporting a vaccine related event for.
Yet they fail to write down those things about as often as not.

What's your point?

Again, I urge you to go actually look at the state of the data before you keep going on about how to lack of a single specific notation means anything.

[Shinotsa]

I love how you're pointing at formaldehyde in horror when our body actually makes it and degrades it naturally in a fairly efficient process. Plus, it's not even an active ingredient. It's used to break down some viruses and then diluted to tremendously trace levels. Buzzwords ftw.