• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

‘A Match Into a Can of Gasoline’: Measles Outbreak Now an Emergency in Washington State

Washington State ranks 36th in infant DTaP vaccinations at only 81.6% vaccination rate.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not necessarily "human" either.

One of the things that happened during the selective breeding process that led from Red Fife wheat to today's version was that an enzyme was "bred" out. That wasn't the intent, and no one was actually paying attention to whether that enzyme was left in or taken out.

That enzyme happens to be one that assists people to digest wheat gluten.

Strangely enough, the percentage of people who are "gluten intolerant" has risen over the percentage of people who were "gluten intolerant" when the main wheat was Red Fife.

Quite a weird coincidence, isn't it?



Yep.
Click to expand...
Fascinating.
No surprise that the GMO evolution process is bad for humans.
You could bet very easily that all changes improve growth, plant size, and improved yields rather than improvements for consumers.
 
Xelor said:
I'm all about survival of the fittest; thus were I to have my way, I'd relocate and quarantine in reasonably hospitable circumstances, the people who've got measles and, to the extent they're minors, their parents, and just let nature run its course. It's unfortunate that folks and their kids/parents are intellectually indolent or just plain stupid enough to refuse the measles vaccine, but being cognitively torpid or stupid has consequences and I think it's high time we stop protecting people from and abiding their own stupidity.

I didn't used to feel that way, but as Trump has made manifest to me that the US has far more idiots and people who flat-out and baselessly reject all the advances in myriad science disciplines that have over the past century been made, it's clear to me the those folks need to be culled and left to figure out how to thrive/exist on their own because they are adamantine in their refusal to accept the advice, inverences, conclusions/findings and recommendations science gives them (everyone) and that the rest of us heed and, as a result, find ourselves thriving.
Click to expand...

Human beings aren't cattle to be culled.
 
SLC said:
There are illegal white people too you racist.
Click to expand...

Nah.....You trump lover types are all about Latinos, being "Illegal".....Just admit it and move on...Your white privilege has been exposed
 
Saladin4 said:
Nah.....You trump lover types are all about Latinos, being "Illegal".....Just admit it and move on...Your white privilege has been exposed
Click to expand...
There are white Latinos too. My former business partner looked 100% white but he was a Latino. He got a full ride scholarship his first two years of med school for being Latino. I knew a redheaded green eyed freckled Mexican in college. You racist.
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
There are white Latinos too. My former business partner looked 100% white but he was a Latino. He got a full ride scholarship his first two years of med school for being Latino. I knew a redheaded green eyed freckled Mexican in college. You racist.
Click to expand...

Too Funny....You angry white people can't even admit it....
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes.

One wouldn’t want to use *too much* of an extremely safe and very effective modality.


Let those lesser diseases run rampant! It’s good to teach the kids what suffering means!
Click to expand...

Who gets to define what is "lesser" or what is "greater"? Big Pharma or FDA? Are they the same thing?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Who gets to define what is "lesser" or what is "greater"? Big Pharma or FDA? Are they the same thing?
Click to expand...

Generally, the significance of the disease and threat would be defined by neither. Medical societies, or the CDC and WHO sponsor guidelines to inform us of things like that.
 
Threegoofs said:
Generally, the significance of the disease and threat would be defined by neither. Medical societies, or the CDC and WHO sponsor guidelines to inform us of things like that.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but an increase in the number of vaccines required (and used) increases the odds of an adverse reaction. At what point does it become not worth the exposure? Whose decision is that?
 
Thoreau72 said:
Agreed, but an increase in the number of vaccines required (and used) increases the odds of an adverse reaction. At what point does it become not worth the exposure? Whose decision is that?
Click to expand...

Again, medical guidelines.

And that theoretical limit isn’t even close to being reached.

Vaccination is extraordinarily safe.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Back in the 1980s a rather cursory study (cone on behalf of the Student Christian Movement) showed that approximately 10% of almost any "non-specialized population" (which means - essentially - a random grouping of non-specialists) would believe almost anything as long as it was not completely in opposition to currently observable fact. As far as I know that study is not available on line.

If that is (more or less) the case, then I wouldn't get upset about 10 or 12 percent of any particular group of non-specialists believing in anything in particular and I wouldn't ascribe any significance to a 2% (mid-point) difference between two groups when the margin of error was +/-3.5%.

If you say "Between 9.5% and 14.5% of (self-identified) 'liberals' and between 7.5% and 12.5% of (self-identified) 'conservatives' believe X." then you can see that there is an overlap of between 9.5% and 12.5% where the actual numbers (assuming that one could actually get responses from 100% of both sub-sets) and it could well be that the 'liberal' number might turn out to be 9.5% while the 'conservative' number might well turn out to be 12.5%.

That, of course would be the complete reverse of the positions as reported by "mid-point" numbers.
Click to expand...

It's not ever that. Anti-vaccer's sit around and like minded friends reinforce each other. People who vaccinate don't sit around and talk about it, they just do it.

We had an attempted anti vaccination person in our family, until she "got woke" when her girlfriend's baby got whooping cough (pertussis) and almost died. A pro vaccinating little bubble head she is now...
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
When writing for the non-scientists people generally tend to express scientific verities in non-scientific terminology.



Same thing. The vaccine does NOT prevent the person from contracting a disease, what it does is prepare the person's body to generate its own antibodies which will enable the person's own body to kill off the invading disease organisms faster than they can develop to the point where they cause symptoms and sequalae of the disease to occur.

I know that this is somewhat difficult for you to understand because no one prophesied it back in the 1900s, but that is the technically correct description for what "vaccines prevent disease" means.

Of course, since neither "bacteria" nor "viruses" are mentioned in "The Bible", they really don't exist and the whole thing is a hoax perpetrated by the so-called "scientific" community.

Right?
Click to expand...
I'm sure a great medical mind like yourself is familiar with the New England Journal of Medicine and their target subscribers.

Vaccine Refusal, Mandatory Immunization, and the Risks of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases


Vaccines are among the most effective tools available for preventing infectious diseases and their complications and sequelae. High immunization coverage has resulted in drastic declines in vaccine-preventable diseases, particularly in many high- and middle-income countries. A reduction in the incidence of a vaccine-preventable disease often leads to the public perception that the severity of the disease and susceptibility to it have decreased.1 At the same time, public concern about real or perceived adverse events associated with vaccines has increased. This heightened level of concern often results in an increase in the number of people refusing vaccines.1,2
Click to expand...
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477
 
Thoreau72 said:
Agreed, but an increase in the number of vaccines required (and used) increases the odds of an adverse reaction. At what point does it become not worth the exposure? Whose decision is that?
Click to expand...
Vaccines decrease your odds of catching disease and decrease your odds of having sequela after contracting a disease. If you compare those potential risk to the potential risk of the vaccine itself the odds aren't even close. Vaccines are much safer than not taking them are.

Vaccines use to contain a minute amount of mercury for a preservative. It has been removed from most vaccines now. Vaccine from single use vials generally have no mercury. Anyway a study by Andrew Wakefield said the mercury was causing autism. The science on the subject does not support that claim and the Wakefield study has ben debunked. . Several studies have been done and no credible study supports his claims. But the damage has been done and his opinions are on the internet and the Anti Vax people point to his study and take it as the truth. I have a granddaughter that has married into a family of antivaxers. They are a pretty stupid bunch of people who put a lot of pressure on her to not vaccinate her two kids. Thankfully she talked to me about it and ultimately vaccinate her kids.
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
If both vaccinated and unvaccinated people are getting them how do you know that it's the people not getting the vaccine that are the ones spreading it?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No vaccine works 100%.

But the more people that are vaccinated, the fewer people there are to infect others.

See: Herd immunity
 
Threegoofs said:
Unfortunately, those antivax idiots sometimes don’t travel any farther than their evangelical church.
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, they've found that mid-upper income level and those of higher education levels also fall into this category...thinking they know better than the medical professionals because 'they've read articles.' They prefer 'designer health care' for vaccinations so they dont appear to be part of the great unwashed herd...they're smarter. /sarcasm
 
Tim the plumber said:
They deliberately use less than 100% effective vaccines. This is because the strength of a 100% effective one would be very strong, many times more strong than the 80% one used.

However, by using the strength they do they are avoiding causing trouble due to side effects and those who don't get total immunity get partial immunity and the whole herd gets herd immunity whereby the chance of a single case of the disease infecting somebody else is less than 1. Thus there is a general reduction in numbers rather than a spread.

Sadly this does not work when sections of society have clusters of none-vaccinated people.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you have any sources for that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom