Vaccine Debate.

how do you prove that vaccines lose effectiveness over time?

is it because they get sick?

>>8717692

Tell me, were you vaccinated? Because this the most autistic post I've ever seen.

>>8717692
Huh? What's that? I can't hear you over VACCINES HAVE ERADIACTED FUCKING SMALLPOX

>>8717725
Yes I was, and I'm a fat lonely virgin too. And I blame the vaccines that my mother let the doctors penetrate me with for my crippling disability to not think too well enough to see the truth or have good communication skills.

To think, if I did not vaccinate, I might have been handsome, and drawn like Leonardo DaVinci.

My friend on the other hand, is not autistic, has good critical thinking skills, and has researched a lot on 9/11 which you should look into.

File: 1486681096683.png (5KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 225x225px

>>8717692
post proof
>a youtube video
real proof, yeah guess what, you can't backup your claims, shame. now fuck off jidf

> Which means, the biggest percentage of the American population, the baby boomers, are akin to being practically vaccinated, since their initial vaccines "wore off"

More baby boomers are dying now than ever before in history. Just as their vaccines are "wearing off." Coincidence? I DON'T THINK SO!

But to be serious, we've eradicated smallpox from the face of the earth because of vaccines. You can make the "improvement in living conditions" argument all you want, but trust me, living conditions in niggerland ain't no better now than they were 40 years ago. In fact, since decolonization, they've been getting steadily worse.

>For starters, vaccines actually have a waning effectiveness rate that drops year by year.
Yes. Everyone knows this. This is why you get a DPT booster shot every 10 years. Once when you're in grade 9, then when you're 24, and so forth.

> So that means, by the 10 year or so, the vaccine traces will have left the body.
Now this, to me, indicates that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. "Vaccine traces" aren't what stick around. The memory B-cells are what "stick around." When they're activated by the antigen for which they're specific, they proliferate and dispense the virus before it gets a chance to proliferate.

In conclusion, do you have any CP? I could really use some CP. hhahahahah jesus christ this board is so fucking bad

What you said about the person not being vaccinated because of a shield around him is only because other people got vaccinated.

>>8717748
>real proof, yeah guess what, you can't backup your claims, shame. now fuck off jidf
Well, that's for the most part, because I'm living in the USA, which is a corrupt government, whose organization put out false information. One of them being that 9/11 was done by afghan terrorists, and the other being that vaccines were helpful in irradicating disease, rather then being toxic serums used to effeminate society so that they are more easily moldable into what the elites want.

>>8717770
Pro vaxxers say that. I was just citing their argument for the purpose of debunking.

>>8717764
>More baby boomers are dying now than ever before in history. Just as their vaccines are "wearing off." Coincidence? I DON'T THINK SO!

Most of those baby boomers who died got the latest flu shot before their death... COINCIDENCE?! I DON'T THINK SO!

>Yes. Everyone knows this. This is why you get a DPT booster shot every 10 years. Once when you're in grade 9, then when you're 24, and so forth.

And that's why you see so many degenerates on deviant art. The autism induced by the vaccines are making them that way. The other side of the population that isn't as fat and effeminate is off fighting in war. For Isreal no less.

>Now this, to me, indicates that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. "Vaccine traces" aren't what stick around. The memory B-cells are what "stick around." When they're activated by the antigen for which they're specific, they proliferate and dispense the virus before it gets a chance to proliferate.


You are focusing off base, and missing the point. Memory b-cells, vaccine traces, it doesn't matter because both wear off rendering the vaccine absolutely useless, and considering the brain damage it gives through the extra ingredients. Andrew Wakefield tried to "wake us in the field", and he got fired for it.

>>8717748
Okay, want a video that's on YOUR SIDE? Here's one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNHeV-9dPCs


Notice the dislike bar. Also notice how the comments are disabled. As we truth seekers say, the truth fears no investigation!

But if you disagree, you might as well tell me why FRIDAY was the best music video, and why Sonichu is such an awesome idea that Nintendo and Sega should merge over about.

>>8718017
Immune memory of your B cells is life long

File: autisim.png (111KB, 286x308px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 286x308px

>>8717692
Seen anyone die of Smallpox lately?

>>8717692
>Now an argument from the pro-vaxx crowd says, that my friend is only safe, because of "herd immunity." Which states that the surrounding vaccinated populace creates some sort of shield around him, and "that's" why he does not get sick.
The real issue here is that when someone explains herd immunity, they almost always base it on the assumption that they're 100% effective. If 25% of people not getting the shot ruins herd immunity, flu shots are worthless.

>>8718090
Some diseases spread much more rapidly than others - e.g. Measles is much more virulent than most flu
Anyway the flu vaccine would be more successful if more people got it.

>>8718081
Disease outbreaks run their course. Happens all the time, vax pushers try to take credit for it when really smallpox was going extinct anyway.

>>8718246
Proof? Anti-vaxxer (mostly) here would like to hear about this.

>>8717692
>Basing an entire hypothesis on one data point

Neck yourself.

>>8717714
I think it's something to with the lack of stimulation to the memory cells in our immune system, they may last a long time but not forever.
Also vaccines against common minor illnesses/diseases typically need replacing due to the high mutation rate of the pathogen, making the vaccine obsolete.

>>8717692

SAGE

>>8718409
>Anti-vaxxer (mostly) here
what

>>8718824
>Anti-vaxxer (mostly) here
>what

My personal opinion (I love starting posts on /sci/ with that, you can feel the derping through the aether) is that many first world vaccines are not needed. We have an unexplained epidemic of allergies, sensitivities, auto-immune conditions, atypical neurological development and so on. Something is fucking with children's immune systems. Maybe it's the toxic load from environmental pollutants and food, maybe it's the vaccines. It certainly seems to be the vaccines when I compare the unvaxxed kids I know with the vaxxed. But then again, their parents are the ones who care enough to also consider health in conception and pregnancy, avoid environmental pollutants and feed their kids organic food. The unvaxxed don't have peanut allergies, asthma, less eczema, don't go down with a cold every ten minutes, and generally look stronger and healthier.

These vaxx victims with the ADHD and the auto-immune conditions in their teens now, what are they going to be like in later life? Health isn't about avoiding every disease, it's about being sensible enough to know which to protect against and when, and healthy enough to fight off the ones you do get. Vaxxing against measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, on the basis that it's protecting some mythical 'vulnerable' groups isn't worth the trade off for the health of the general population.

On the other hand, if you live somewhere your kid might be exposed to polio or diptheria then you might want to protect them from those. Or whatever you decide to be the risk.

In third world populations the balance will be different.

Well, you asked.
In b4 the inevitable wankers.

And oh yeah, for the naive, follow the money.

>So that means, by the 10 year or so, the vaccine traces will have left the body.
that's why many vaccines require booster shots or additional new vaccinations

>>8718984
>my anecdotes prove me right

So how come there isn't hard science on the matter? Jewbucks?

herd immunity is not about creating a completely impenetrable bubble of immune individuals around the susceptible ones

i mean, that's obviously an ideal case, but no vaccine is THAT good

the point of vaccines is to lower the effective reproductive rate constant for the virus. no population is truly homogenous, so there will always be small pockets of susceptible individuals (or mutations) that keep the virus alive, but you can at least limit its spread if you can make it likely that the one or two people a sick person would otherwise have spread the disease to are resistant to infection.

http://www.sciencealert.com/the-us-is-in-the-middle-of-its-biggest-measles-outbreak-this-year

same shit is happening in germany thanks to third world savages in refugee camps that are riddled with tb, measles and all kinds of nasty shit

your post is scrambled and i'm not gonna read it again to find what you're actually arguing but
>Did we as human beings make a grand mistake, a scientific error in the effectiveness in vaccines with their "place" in history?
no, no we didn't

>>8718133
>the flu vaccine would be more successful if more people got it
No, the issue was that it's not 100% effective. More people getting it will not make it work better. Flu shots are sub-50%, meaning if 100% of people got it, there's still no herd immunity.