3 ms·

Well I'm not downvoting you since 1) I can't, you responded to me; and 2) you're not being offtopic. And you're at least defending your position without memeing

Well I'm not downvoting you since 1) I can't, you responded to me; and 2) you're not being offtopic. And you're at least defending your position without memeing even if I disagree with it. That being said, I'm glad you clarified because I figured the implication you were getting at is these are harmful vaccines. Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful?

AnaniasAnanas 8y ago
> Am I correct in saying your grievance is a lack of evidence that they're helpful? Part of the second picture that the user has highlighted basically says that said vaccine contains a mercury derivative and that it has not been tested for "carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility". So I would say that this is also part of his issue.
_red 8y ago
To be clear: The best vaccines have about 85% efficacy rating. Most have a 35-60% efficacy rating. Some (like pictured insert) are basically unknown. The idea we should be compelled by law to forcibly take vaccines, and moreover that we shouldn't even be able discuss their efficacy is so anti-science I'm not sure how to respond.
- matt4077 8y ago
  I'm flagging this for spreading misinformation. WHO: "[..] measles, which we know to be about 98% effective" "Most routine childhood vaccines are effective for 85% to 95% of recipients" https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immunization_misconceptions/en/index2.html https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/initiative/detection/immu...
  - _red 8y ago
    You seem to think that the efficacy post-inoculation remains static throughout a persons 80 year lifespan. That's a very unscientific assumption. Vaccines regularly lose efficacy, which is why 85% for the 'best' is reasonable.