Sorta? The problem with them is that they compromise herd immunity, meaning that people who can’t receive vaccines will no longer be safe.
@Ultimatum, then all the weak AND stupid genes will be selected against (im kidding i like when people don't die over stupid ignorance)
@Ultimatum, I’m not an anti-vaxxer but herd immunity is a myth. A quick google search will show many MDs disproving the theory when it relates to vaccines. Real world examples have disproven it to work. If 100% of population was vaccinated there would still be outbreaks of diseases that were vaccinated against. I’m all ears for arguments against anti-vaxxers but the herd immunity is an argument that gets tossed around way to much when there’s no science to back it up.
@socialableLoner, if you’ve got peer-reviewed papers that challenge the consensus on this one, then by all means.
If you’re talking about musings by antivaxxers, however, then regardless of their education level you can’t really consider that “science”.
@socialableLoner, that’s complete bunk. Herd immunity is real and effective. Nothing, including vaccines, are ever 100% effective. When more people in a community are vaccinated, the disease has a much harder time getting a foothold, thus protecting the people who didn’t (or couldn’t) get vaccinated.
@big freedom, or the virus mutates into a stronger and more affective one that overcomes the vaccine. Here is a link with research from Dr. Obukhanych who has been through Stanford, Cornell, and Harvard. I don’t believe they’re an anti-vaxxer but just disproving this one theory for the falsehood that it is. There is a real world example brought up in this article of rubella virus in a town that had mass vaccinations that then experienced an outbreak. https://kellybroganmd.com/herd-immunity-fact-fiction/
@Ultimatum, please see my response to big freedom but also, do you have peer reviewed scientific proof that herd immunity WORKS? If so I’d love to see it because I doubt you can find any and if that’s your basis for proving science then, assuming you can’t find any, you would disprove your own side of this argument.
@socialableLoner, the nature of the virus is to mutate to continue replicating. I have degrees in microbiology and medical technology with an emphasis in Virology. I’m very aware of the research.
Again, nothing is ever 100% effective. Herd immunity is more effective in areas with higher rates of vaccinated people. Without the vaccines that town STILL would have seen the outbreak, probably at higher rates (but that is impossible to prove)
Kids used to die by the 1000s from measles. The fact that it’s news now that there is an outbreak proves the effectiveness of measles vaccines.
We’ve created an incredibly soft and naive culture that is literally bringing back diseases from the past because of misinformation.
@big freedom, you seem to be mostly in agreeance with me with a difference of degree of efficacy. The assumption of herd immunity is that anyone who doesn’t vaccinate puts a hole in the wall created but this isn’t true. People hear the word immunity and think that it’s a 100% guarantee ‘just as long as everyone participates’ but it’s wrong to think that. I’m not disagreeing with your recent comment and I don’t think you’re truly disagreeing with me. Again, I’m not an anti-vaxxer but herd immunity is such a misused argument that it sometimes verges on denying science when the people using the argument are yelling at their counterparts for that very thing. As someone with your pedigree can you not think of multiple other arguments that are pro-vaccine that have much much more solid footing in proven science?
The second one is a bit less dense, though if numbers are what you’re looking for the first has *plenty*
@socialableLoner, as an aside, I already mentioned that musings of an antivaxxer who uses a dead link as a reference don’t exactly meet the standard of “peer-reviewed academic paper”.
As another aside, that’s not really how this works to begin with. You made a positive claim that the consensus is wrong; you need evidence to back it up. You’re the one trying to convince me, remember?
@socialableLoner, well no shjt it isn’t 100% effective. That’s no reason to deliberately break it.
@Ultimatum, as I mentioned, I’m not an anti-vaxxer and the link I sent you is one MD presenting evidence from another. It’s a perfectly legitimate article. There’s plenty of real world evidence showing how even with extremely highly vaccinated areas there are major outbreaks amongst people who are fully vaccinated.
@socialableLoner, and I’ll say it for a third time, one person musing about another person’s musings is not the same as a published, peer reviewed paper.
It literally does not matter what level of education they have. Andrew Wakefield was a doctor.
@Ultimatum, dude, did you look at the article or are you assuming what it is? The Doctor I mentioned is presenting evidence in my article and you can google yourself for many other examples. You use the word “musing” to discredit my article when it has hard evidence presented in it. I’m not saying an article is the same as a published peer reviewed paper and never made that claim. All I’m saying to you is ‘an article can have science and evidence in it and look here’s mine.’ This argument feels like it’s getting semantical with you. At least big freedom debates the point at hand instead of just trying to discredit and force one into a corner.
@socialableLoner, I read the article as well, which is how I knew that two of her links are dead and the link about measles is to a blog which provides one piece of substantial evidence, which acknowledges that cases can and have occurred in vaccinated individuals.
Which, as I have mentioned, we know already.
@socialableLoner, and if you want “the point at hand” I gave you two peer reviewed papers.
@socialableLoner, oh. I thought that you said “herd immunity is a myth”. It’s mislabel because it’s not “immune” but it does absolutely provide protection
@socialableLoner, have you ever heard of the argument from authority fallacy?
@robee, I agree with the first part
Not when the parents who were more than likely vaccinated are still alive. And how the fvck do they explain not having autism themselves?
@ TouchMyCatEars, they have what's called "the need for attention", the worst mental illness to ever come about. While its origin is unknown, many people suspect L. Ron Hubbard, or PETA members as being patient zero.
@ TouchMyCatEars, refusal to accept expert diagnosis?
@ TouchMyCatEars, stop women splaining on with your bewbs and oppressing me !!!!!
@ TouchMyCatEars, well clearly they do or they’d get their kids vaccinated
@ TouchMyCatEars, God it's hard to not take that bait and call them autistic
@ TouchMyCatEars, being an anti-vaxer is surely on the autism scale.
@Sarcastic Wombat, Hey, autistic guy here. Please don’t call anti-vaxxers autistic; we don’t wanna be associated with them any more than you do.
@ TouchMyCatEars, they do not thing logically or rationally. For that matter, they aren’t capable of thinking.
@Implicit88, that about sums it up perfectly
"Where'd all the goth and scene go?"
"When an entire group is based around suicide, they don't tend to last long."
No because they give viruses hosts and the opportunity to mutate which can be harmful to those that are vaccinated
Not when, just like with any ideology, they stick around and persuade others.
Are flat earthers and anti vaxers the same people? I see a lot of the same type of thinking
Parents still live though..