1788
Comments (313)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
12
BoughtByBloomberg 12 points ago +33 / -21

Flu vaccine works only against certain strains of flu and the people that die from flu usually don't have the shot.

You can argue bodily autonomy. You can argue you don't want to risk the side effects. But arguing that vaccines don't work is dumb.

Small pox, mumps, measles, etc. These used to kill children like a scythe goes through a field. They work. They are efficient. You can choose not to take part.

55
Harambe 55 points ago +59 / -4

Flu vaccine is useless. People still get sick after getting the vaccine, because there are many strains of the flu and they are all constantly mutating. The vaccines spread the flu more than they prevent the flu. The flu vaccine is an abject medical failure, but big pharma wont admit it. They want you getting your yearly injection of mercury and formaldehyde.

Do not use vaccines that are actually useful to justify a flu vaccine. They are two different things. Smallpox, mumps etc do not evolve quickly, vaccines last entire lifetimes and make a ton of sense. The flu vaccine is useless after a season (if that) and thus isn't a vaccine at all.

-39
yesminister -39 points ago +13 / -52

Haha why did you have to throw in mercury and formaldehyde in there? That destroys your whole point. You've obviously not researched it to determine that there are too many strains of the flu for a flu vaccine to be efficient. That would be some sort of argument at least.

No, you're just an anti-vaxxer that believes "big pharma" (scary companies!!!) wants to inject you with mercury because... reasons.

31
Ikon 31 points ago +34 / -3

He just said there is useful vaccines and was only making a case for the flu vaccine, now you are calling him an anti-vaxxer? I would learn to read before trying to insult someone because it just makes you look that much more retarded.

-26
yesminister -26 points ago +10 / -36

No he didn't say that.

He said "big pharma" wants to inject you with mercury. That's from the retarded anti-vaxxer playbook.

21
llatlantall 21 points ago +22 / -1

Dude - Mercury and Formaldehyde are in the vaccines. Have you ever seen the ingredients? You don't have to be an anti-vaxxer to know whats in the vaccines

8
BillionsAndBillions 8 points ago +8 / -0

You can request the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheets) for any vaccine; they're required to have them on hand. They will list the ingredients. Mercury and Formaldehyde are used as preservatives in vaccines, or were.

-21
yesminister -21 points ago +3 / -24

And........? What's bad about it? Why do they want an excuse to put mercury in our bodies? Go on, spell it out.

23
deleted 23 points ago +26 / -3
16
deleted 16 points ago +16 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-6
Fremium2020 -6 points ago +3 / -9

The CDC admits that flu vaccines are only 50% effective.

Well....yeah if it is?

That 50% is part of a litany of things that keeps millions from contracting it. That + heard immunity + good hygiene + weak strains.

That breaks up the easy path it can take between populations.

-11
BoughtByBloomberg -11 points ago +11 / -22

Actually 60-80% effective based on 2018 numbers. Because they can't predict the variants the flu will mutate into this year. One year they'll fuck up and have a really shitty batch of completely worthless trash and the other year it's a near perfect vaccines.

Flu is a special case. Guess what though. The measles vaccines is way better and nearly wiped out the disease until people stopped getting it.

Oh and before you bring up polio vaccines... using crappy attenuated oral vaccines because third world tribes fear needles and Bill Gates is evil doesn't mean polio wasn't eradicated in the West thanks to the superior inactivated injection polio vaccine by dr Salk.

12
Memebomber 12 points ago +12 / -0

Which he gave away instead of charging $1000 a pop. And the 1st year that pharma was involved a defective batch was distributed in California infecting 1000s, crippling hundreds, and killing 10 out of the 200k injections.

9
proDeoEtPatria 9 points ago +10 / -1

How does one prove a negative? That not getting the flu is proof that a vaccine is effective. Reminder that according to the CDC, efficacy rate was as low as 19% for 2014-2015. Most studies that use placebo as a base measurement have better % efficacy with placebo.

Same principal the China virus mitigation is based on. Healthy people have to stay under house-arrest to prevent people from dying. Another negative impossible to prove.

1
FudgyFudgeBots 1 point ago +2 / -1

How do you prove a negative?

Good damn question. How do we know that those who dont contract the flu would have contracted it if they didnt get the shot?

About a third of my patients who tested positive for flu had the shot. What proof do we have that it ever works? If we had 90% immunity then I might buy it but 12 %?

22
SneakyWino 22 points ago +24 / -2

I had a flu vaccine that gave me reactive arthritis within 5 hours of having the shot. I had to have my temporal artery biopsied to rule out giant cell arteritis. My neurosurgeon said I was his fifth patient with the same problem after getting a flu vaccine. I will never, ever get a vaccine again. The vaccines you are talking about were great in the day but now they are all tainted in some way. It's sick!

-22
BoughtByBloomberg -22 points ago +6 / -28

No they aren't tainted because 5 out of 50 million is not a causal effect. Anyway like I said, get it or don't. Not my problem, but don't pretend vaccines don't work.

11
sun_wolf 11 points ago +12 / -1

Don’t pretend all vaccines are equal.

3
TenScoops 3 points ago +3 / -0

vaccine diversity!

2
FudgyFudgeBots 2 points ago +3 / -1

5? I had more than 5 in one season in one ER who had reactions ranging from high fever to Guillian Barre syndrome. I personally know someone who had a reactive arthritis but it was not reported because his doctor refused to believe a vaccine could cause harm.

How many go un reported because of physician's rigid thinking? They are willing to believe that meds can have severe side effects but not vaccines...go figure. Most dont even know that there are vaccines that were recalled due to serious adverse events.

2
Overkillengine 2 points ago +2 / -0

Go back far enough and there were vaccines that could cause gran mal seizures and brain damage so severe as to inflict life long cerebral palsy.

How do I know this? Ask my brother...except he can't speak to answer.

1
BoughtByBloomberg 1 point ago +1 / -0

Obviously a fever, in the case of an attenuated and not inactivated vaccine, can be easily linked causally. Reactive arthritis becomes harder, because what you're essentially saying it "the flu antigens caused a immune reaction that targeted the joints" as in if you would have gotten the flu you would have gotten a reactive arthritis anyway because that is how you reacted to the flu shot, which has flu in it. On top of that other viruses could have infected you in the mean time and caused it.

The problem is that you see a vaccine as something entirely different from the virus. It isn't. It is just virus particles which cause all the disease you mentioned. Flu as a complication has.... reactive arthritis! As do many other diseases. You wanna know how many hundreds of babies I have seen who got the sniffles and then parents show up in a panic because they won't use one leg?

Quick x-ray to be sure. No fever. It still laughs and plays with my stethoscope. Go home, it'll be fine in a week.

Guillian barre can also happen from the flu! So again why I said 5 in millions isn't odd is because it isn't HIGHER than the normal rate we see reactive arthritis and Guillian Barre FROM normal respiratory infections SUCH AS THE FLU.

Like I said, always read side effects. If these are UNACCEPTABLE to you DO NOT USE A MEDICATION. However flu vaccines (and again depends on which type and batch) show a far lower incidence of adverse events than just getting the flu.

2
Peony 2 points ago +4 / -2

SneakyWino's neurologist doesn't have 50 million patients.

15
MAGA2020HyperDrive 15 points ago +16 / -1

We're not arguing against virus science. We know that if you expose a human to a dead virus sometimes that will lead to immunity and better health.

That doesn't make all vaccines absolutely great 100% of the time.

A vaccine is great. A vaccine that is spiked with lots of chemicals to induce cancer and inferitility in a deliberate effort to sabotage people for globalism is not great.

People have a choice if they want to inject aluminum, other heavy metals, and animal DNA fragments into their body. My body my choice.

9
HockeyMom4Trump 9 points ago +9 / -0

I am not interested in WAITING on a vaccine. Open the country now. A vaccine could take weeks, months, or years...we can’t continue down this path or we will destroy what’s left of our country for a virus that the vast majority of people recover from.

5
BoughtByBloomberg 5 points ago +8 / -3

Neither am I. Vaccine or no we open up. And after that when one comes available and after it reaches 90% efficiency with side effects I am willing to risk I am getting one.