Are vaccines harmful?

[Singu]

Are vaccines harmful?

[xerx]

no

[timber]

To viruses, ya.

[Aramas]

@Singu, your poll options only allow people to select yes or no to all vaccines. Some can be harmful while others might not be. Older versions of the Polio vaccine contained SV-40, which might cause cancer in humans....

SV40 is believed to suppress the transcriptional properties of the tumor-suppressing p53 in humans through the SV40 large T-antigen and SV40 small T-antigen. p53 is responsible for initiating regulated cell death ("apoptosis"), or cell cycle arrest when a cell is damaged. A mutated p53 gene may contribute to uncontrolled cellular proliferation, leading to a tumor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40#p...arcinogenicity

Soon after its discovery, SV40 was identified in the oral form of the polio vaccine produced between 1955 and 1961 by American Home Products (dba Lederle). This is believed to be due to two sources: 1) SV40 contamination of the original seed strain (coded SOM); 2) contamination of the substrate—primary kidney cells from infected monkeys used to grow the vaccine virus during production. Both the Sabin vaccine (oral, live virus) and the Salk vaccine (injectable, killed virus) were affected; the technique used to inactivate the polio virus in the Salk vaccine, by means of formaldehyde, did not reliably kill SV40. The contaminated vaccine continued to be distributed to the public through 1963.

Obviously, it's not all or nothing.

[The Reality Denialist]

No. I take them on hourly basis against tetanus and polio.

[Singu]

@Singu, your poll options only allow people to select yes or no to all vaccines. Some can be harmful while others might not be. Older versions of the Polio vaccine contained SV-40, which might cause cancer in humans....

A what? That just means that the vaccine was contaminated by the SV40 virus.

[Aramas]

A what? That just means that the vaccine was contaminated by the SV40 virus.

And hemlock in my salad doesn't make the salad harmful....

[Singu]

And hemlock in my salad doesn't make the salad harmful....

What do you mean?

[Aramas]

What do you mean?

You fail to follow the implication. People who say vaccines are harmful usually argue that the vaccines are harmful because they contain a harmful ingredient. In the Polio vaccine, there was SV-40. The SV-40 made the vaccine harmful. So, the vaccine in this case was indeed harmful, because it contained a harmful ingredient.

Your poll didn't have an option for some vaccines being good and others bad, so you ignore a possible perspective that some might have. It's possible that some vaccines have harmful ingredients while others do not.

[Singu]

You fail to follow the implication. People who say vaccines are harmful usually argue that the vaccines are harmful because they contain a harmful ingredient. In the Polio vaccine, there was SV-40. The SV-40 made the vaccine harmful. So, the vaccine in this case was indeed harmful.

Your poll didn't have an option for some vaccines being good and others bad, so you ignore a possible perspective that some might have.

Which vaccines are good and which vaccines are bad?

[Aramas]

Which vaccines are good and which vaccines are bad?

I'm not trying to debate you on that issue. I'm simply pointing out that your poll is missing an option.

[Singu]

I'm not trying to debate you on that issue. I'm simply pointing out that your poll is missing an option.

Ok well in general, are they harmful or not harmful? Are harmful vaccines an anomaly or accidental, or are they by design?

[Aramas]

Ok well in general, are they harmful or not harmful? Are harmful vaccines an anomaly or accidental, or are they by design?

I'm not gonna debate you lol. I'm just saying that the poll you added to the thread doesn't allow people to pick an option that might reflect their opinions, so your poll isn't going to be accurate.

[Singu]

I'm not gonna debate you lol. I'm just saying that the poll you added to the thread doesn't allow people to pick an option that might reflect their opinions, so your poll isn't going to be accurate.

If they're harmful by an accident or something unintended, they're not going to be harmful. If they're harmful by design, then they're going to be harmful. People can pick the options that way.

[Aramas]

If they're harmful by an accident or something unintended, they're not going to be harmful. If they're harmful by design, then they're going to be harmful. People can pick the options that way.

So you need to rephrase your question to say that so that people know what you mean lol.

[Raver]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Aramas]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

You know, I've always hated that scene with a passion, mostly because I realize it was propaganda.

[Raver]

You know, I've always hated that scene with a passion, mostly because I realize it was propaganda.

Fair enough. I just thought it was fitting in this instance at least.

[The Reality Denialist]

LOL this poll is guilty of same faults as the OP tends to criticize ie either or approach from observational basis where you can not simply just prove it.

[Singu]

So you need to rephrase your question to say that so that people know what you mean lol.

Ok, so what, would you like me to add the option, "It depends"? Perhaps pick the option "I don't know" for that.

The only way to know whether the vaccines are harmful or not, is to understand how vaccines work. Then you can understand how vaccines are harmful or not harmful.

Here's another question: Is it safer to receive vaccines, or is it safer to receive the actual diseases that vaccines are trying to protect from?

LOL this poll is guilty of same faults as the OP tends to criticize ie either or approach from observational basis where you can not simply just prove it.

What?

[Singu]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

When do you think a vaccine is harmful, and when do you think that vaccines are not harmful?

[The Reality Denialist]

What?

Your Poll indicates discontinuous meaning dichotomy in this case which isn't that clear state in nature. The very same thing where typology fails.

You put it either or which is logical unnatural distinction in many cases where people still tend to take it as granted. It just happens so that there are usually cases which makes dichotomy fail in the strictest sense of the meaning therefore rendering it false due to highly imprecise formulation of the question. There is no absolute truth to this vaccine question.

[Singu]

Your Poll indicates discontinuous meaning dichotomy in this case which isn't that clear state in nature. The very same thing where typology fails.

You put it either or which is logical unnatural distinction in many cases where people still tend to take it as granted. It just happens so that there are usually cases which makes dichotomy fail in the strictest sense of the meaning therefore rendering it false due to highly imprecise formulation of the question. There is no absolute truth to this vaccine question.

It has nothing to do with strict observations.

[falsehope]

Those self-made can be deadly: https://www.livescience.com/62449-aa...ick-death.html

Also, injecting something not tested is plain stupid as it's nearly impossible to get proper results that early. Any technology requires a lot of iterations before it matures into anything close to be usuable. This guy was some sort of Ni lunatic probably never actually developed anything working in his life. Or rather he was a plain scammer but not wise enough to inject himself saline solution.

[Tonatiuh]

Some have been harmful.

[The Reality Denialist]

It has nothing to do with strict observations.

So people think through exact vaccination mechanism and make decision based on that? Still options are phrased as using "either or" wording. If I vaccinate myself with huge overdoses then I must say that it is harmful at least for me.

[Singu]

So people think through exact vaccination mechanism and make decision based on that? Still options are phrased as using "either or" wording. If I vaccinate myself with huge overdoses then I must say that it is harmful at least for me.

Yes, well that's why you don't test yourself with overdosing vaccines. You already know that it would be harmful.

[The Reality Denialist]

Therefore vaccines can be harmful or beneficial or in some cases both.

[Raver]

When do you think a vaccine is harmful, and when do you think that vaccines are not harmful?

It is very situational with a cost/benefit approach. For example, I got a tetanus vaccine shot recently because I had metal pierce through my palm that caused intense bleeding momentarily. It was over 10 years since I last took a shot so I went out and got it.

However, I haven't had a flu shot in 13 years and I get the flu rarely, like less than once a year and it is of mild to moderate intensity. That same flu shot is beneficial to someone who is over 80 that can die from the flu, but meaningless for me as the flu does not pose a threat to me.

Someone who gets unnecessary vaccines is just as idiotic as someone who doesn't get any. Getting the small dose of chemicals from vaccines is worth it to prevent serious diseases that can kill you, but not worth it against common ailments that pose no threat.

[WinnieW]

For example, I got a tetanus vaccine shot recently because I had metal pierce through my palm that caused intense bleeding momentarily.

The proper treatment of an infection happend with a high probabilty is usually not a vaccination, but a dose of antibodies that are effective against the disease germ.

A vaccine is always given in advance of an infection. A vaccine consists mostly of deactivated disease germ solved in a watery suspension.
Your own immune system get to know these germs and produce the fiting antibodies. Having these antibodies in your bloodstream. Having these antibodies in your bloodstream your own immune system can fight this kind of germ very fast and effectiv.

There a countries where some kind of vaccinations are mandatory.

I really can't see in which way a vaccination could be harmful.

...but I guess where are such rumors might come from. Let me guess. Pharmalogical companies, the really big companies... because the treatment of real diseases are more profitable to them than to prevent cases of sick people.

[DirectorAbbie]

Most vaccines are not harmful. Some may give a mild version of the disease they're meant to ward against, but that's still better than risking getting the full-fledged disease.

But I think flu shots are dumb.

[ooo]

my mum died because she didnt make a damn stupid flu shot... this sounds so bad... idk everybody is diff i guess

[timber]

Awe sorry to hear that.

[Singu]

Therefore vaccines can be harmful or beneficial or in some cases both.

I think you missed the point.

On a second thought, I'm not sure if "overdosing" on vaccines is actually a thing. It depends on the vaccine, but maybe we're talking on the magnitude of receiving hundreds or thousands of times the recommended dose. Of course, since we're talking about our health, we should be careful here, but only theoretically speaking.

It is very situational with a cost/benefit approach. For example, I got a tetanus vaccine shot recently because I had metal pierce through my palm that caused intense bleeding momentarily. It was over 10 years since I last took a shot so I went out and got it.

However, I haven't had a flu shot in 13 years and I get the flu rarely, like less than once a year and it is of mild to moderate intensity. That same flu shot is beneficial to someone who is over 80 that can die from the flu, but meaningless for me as the flu does not pose a threat to me.

Someone who gets unnecessary vaccines is just as idiotic as someone who doesn't get any. Getting the small dose of chemicals from vaccines is worth it to prevent serious diseases that can kill you, but not worth it against common ailments that pose no threat.

I'd assume the "cost" is more monetary cost. The cost to the body is probably minimal to almost none. So I wouldn't exactly say that it does harm in that way.

[The Reality Denialist]

I think you missed the point.

On a second thought, I'm not sure if "overdosing" on vaccines is actually a thing. It depends on the vaccine, but maybe we're talking on the magnitude of receiving hundreds or thousands of times the recommended dose. Of course, since we're talking about our health, we should be careful here, but only theoretically speaking.

Nah. I just did what you do here.

[Crispy]

Vaccines are completely ineffective (all of them) and mildly-to-seriously harmful (intentionally).



http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/eve...se-polio-wrong

[Singu]

Nah. I just did what you do here.

No actually, you didn't. You don't understand how Socionics or vaccines work.

You might say, the chance of getting an inadvertent result from being vaccinated is 1 in a million, therefore some vaccines are good and some vaccines are bad, like some people here have said. But that is not true.

There is a small chance of getting moderate to severe side effects from vaccines. Even then, severe problems like deaths and permanent injuries are so rare that it would be difficult to say that it was caused by the vaccine, or it simply happened after being vaccinated by chance. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. There is simply no report that it was the result of being vaccinated, and not something else.

[Sol]

my mum died because she didnt make a damn stupid flu shot... this sounds so bad... idk everybody is diff i guess

If you mother did other things she probably could to stay alive too. Like weared medical mask, stimulated immunity by physical training and better food, lesser tired or did not visited in that day the place where she got the infection, mb she had other not healed diseases which reduced her protection, etc.
Also vaccines are not abolutely effective and do not protect against any kind of infection - she could to get the one which vaccine would be not effective.
It's hard to say what whould happen in case she got the vaccine or did other things in her past. It's rare when people without additional factors die or get serious complications from common flu. Children are weak - they have the most sense for the vaccination against the flu.

As for the harm. I suppose this also depends on the concrete kind of it. It should be like with meds - they have different risks and side effects.

[The Reality Denialist]

No actually, you didn't. You don't understand how Socionics or vaccines work.

Nope. I made similar pressurized narrowing logical statements as you do with factualized statements. Just to show you how insane you are.

You might say, the chance of getting an inadvertent result from being vaccinated is 1 in a million, therefore some vaccines are good and some vaccines are bad, like some people here have said. But that is not true.

There is a small chance of getting moderate to severe side effects from vaccines. Even then, severe problems like deaths and permanent injuries are so rare that it would be difficult to say that it was caused by the vaccine, or it simply happened after being vaccinated by chance. Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. There is simply no report that it was the result of being vaccinated, and not something else.

Well if there exists one case in nearly infinite sets (impossible, I know) then it is not logically applicable anymore to say that vaccines are not harmful unless you add conditional to it. We want to everything here to be applicable under strictest criteria no matter what, don't we.

There are other sides to this. If we think that human extinction is better option than to be cured then we might think it is harmful.

Let's take more perspective to this. If we want that vaccines serve more purposes sky is the limit. If we think that there are cases in which there is something not expected let's say specific population then we can say that vaccination is not beneficial unless you add more conditionals to your statement.

There is no point to discuss about vaccination as procedure that has helped lots of people but you kind of want this kind of pointlessness with your forum activity. So here, I gave you pointless counter arguments.

[Singu]

Well if there exists one case in nearly infinite sets (impossible, I know) then it is not logically applicable anymore to say that vaccines are not harmful unless you add conditional to it. We want to everything here to be applicable under strictest criteria no matter what, don't we.

Yes, and this is the exact kind of criticism and methodology that I apply to both typology and vaccines.

Your idiocy lies in taking this poll out of this context, which is something that I just made up quickly for the fun of it, and I just couldn't be bothered to make many other options.

If we took your literalism seriously, the poll couldn't even have a "No" for an answer, as it would look like this:

Are vaccines harmful?

Yes, vaccines are harmful
Yes, some vaccines are harmful, some are not
Yes, sometimes vaccines are harmful by chance
Yes, sometimes vaccines are harmful by accident
Yes, sometimes vaccines are harmful due to intentions by conspiracies of government or corporations
No, which is impossible to know, so this answer is wrong
We won't ever know the answer to this question
I don't know

But I think the correct answer is this: From the best of knowledge that we have right now, and with the correct procedure, no, they are not harmful.

Vaccines are something that hasn't been "falsified" yet, so to speak.