Don’t let the troll get to you, LB. **legalsnugs **is correct to point out that nobody is buying her line of shit, and she’s been called out for her antics here and elsewhere.
By this point, it is. Because it’s been explained to you over and over again that babies these days get far less vaccination nowadays than they used to.
I.e., they get more jabs but far fewer antigens. As I noted previously, it’s sort of like getting shot with twenty BB pellets as opposed to three cannonballs. Nobody with any sense would think that the twenty BB pellets represent a greater risk of harm than the three cannonballs just because there are more of them.
This repeated explanation would have long ago removed the “reservations” that any halfway intelligent and rational person might have had about the apparent “increase” in childhood vaccinations. Since you still persist in making the same objection, it’s evident that you’re just being willfully ignorant.
I just don’t want anyone to believe a word she writes. I’ve seen people take anti-vax nuts seriously, refuse vaccines and wind up with kids sick from pertussis.
I think people today simply have no idea how awful these diseases are and were. It’s like explaining to my eldest the concept of a card catalogue at the library in the pre internet days. It’s just hard for her to imagine.
The worst of all vaccines in terms of side effects probably was the smallpox vaccine. The vaccine had a very high risk of complications and even death. Do you know why people embraced the vaccine? And I do mean embraced. Adored. Loved. Celebrated Jenner as one of the greatest heros ever. Thomas Jefferson even learned how to give it. The vaccine was made mandatory in multiple places after Jenner’s work was published.
Because people were desperate. Smallpox was that damned awful. Catch it (and many people did in periodic epidemics around the world) and you ran a one in three risk of death. Not complications. Death. You also ran all sorts of other risks including blindness because it could get into your eyes. The disease had no treatment at all other than watching and waiting for it to pass.
A smooth complexion was valued historically in part because it was rather rare that people didn’t have at least some scars from smallpox.
So I just want to pull my hair out when I run into people who fear vaccines more than they fear bad diseases.
Vaccine preventable diseases have gotten priority in prevention because they are that awful. Diphtheria has a huge mortality rate. Hib used to infect over 20k American babies a year and kill over a thousand. Mumps can make you sterile. Measles can steal hearing. Rubella in the womb causes horrible side effects including blindness, deafness and mental retardation.
I sometimes think parents (and people in general) don’t realize how very lucky they are to have escaped that era. Thomas Jefferson would have been utterly amazed and incredibly grateful that we don’t even need the smallpox vaccine anymore because smallpox is gone from the earth.
Nobody here does. If anyone find and reads this thread believers her they can take up the stupid torch in a non-trollish way or just live with their cowardice.
Someone did once say to me they felt that the anti-vaxxers cam along because there was no big evil to fear with the Soviet Union disbanding. I personally think it was when drug companies were allowed to advertise and people became more aware of them existing.
Mostly, remember that Ben Franklin was an opponent. At first. When he had a son die of Smallpox his tune changed.
In any case, focus not the obstinate troll. As a famous man once said you cannot reason to get a person out of a position that he didn’t use reason to get into. You target to prevent expansion of the anti-vaxxer crap - that means you debate and you destroy their arguments but you never lose sight of the fact that you are trying to win over the fence-sitters and those not terribly married to anti-vaxxer arguments.
Think of Steve Novella’s debate with an anti-vaxxer at a Libertarian event called the Freedom Fest. Novella destroyed the anti-vaxxer who had had free reign prior to that debate and most of the folks who were there seemed to agree with Novella more than the anti-vaxxer despite the fact that the anti-vaxxer was pandering to all their interests.
Yes it is. When it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that the number of shots is irrelevant to the number of antigens received then you are being willfully ignorant. Do you have another explanation for repeatedly ignoring the facts?
I can see your concern evolving as we speak. Whereas before you were concerned with kids being “pumped full” of vaccines, now you’re worried not so much about the contents of the shots, but the “shear number” [sic] of them. Apparently now you’re not questioning the safety of vaccines so much as the safety of hypodermic needles. I have to say, for someone who is so insistent that they’re “not anti-vaccine”, you’re really reaching for things to have reservations about.
This is not a summary that is borne out by a reread of the thread.
I mentioned this as part of the rationale for antivaxers resenting being called antivaxers. But it goes a lot deeper than that.
Anti-abortion activists (for example), while they prefer alternate terminology, will not get angry if you call them anti-abortion and then fulminate about how using that phraseology is a symbol of persecution. They’re pretty up front about their stance (even though they frequently employ deception to justify it).
Antivaxers on the other hand extend their deceptiveness to what they wish to be called as well as their goals. They’ve taken lying for the Cause farther than virtually any other group I can think of, with the possible exception of Holocaust deniers.*
*I am not equating the two groups, so spare me the Godwin’s Law references. 
Simple enough reason: Anti-vaxxers still want to be seen as pro-science (at least all science except vaccines).
I’ll even give a good number of them credit for actually believing there’s something remotely scientific about their objections. But that’s not really to their credit. It’s really more pathetic than anything else.
How do we KNOW that sticking a needle into a child’s skin WON’T allow a host of hellish demons in to possess its soul, hmm? WHY HASN’T ANYONE DONE THE RESEARCH??!
Anyone who has ever parented a toddler has wondered all about hellish demons. My youngest cried herself silly today because she got peanut butter up her nose.
Well, researchers at MIT are working on a hypospray, so that will deny demons access through that port of entry…
Really? That’s party time for Labradors.
I was never anti-vax because I knew a kid whose parents were and he had (still has, likely) the leg brace to prove it. Or more ambulation technology, if the post-polio syndrome has kicked in. Or he’s dead because his system was weakened. Anyway, I hate shots but I’ll sit through them because the benefits outweigh a little jab. I mean, I think there’s a jab, but I don’t watch.
However, I was concerned about how many diseases kids get inoculated against at one time until one of our resident MDs asked us to imagine how many hundreds or thousands of germs little Dick and Jane get exposed to in ten minutes in even the cleanest backyard. Vaccination is much the same thing, only far more focused and, if kids these days are anything like I was, with a lot less bloodshed.
Are you insane? I know that they get fewer antigens now, it was news to me the first time but every time it’s been brought up in this thread I’ve acknowledged it.
I think you just look for keywords so you can have an excuse to scream.
I. know. this. Or, at the very least, I am believing you when you say it. It still doesn’t negate the fact that babies get stuck far more times now, and since no one is looking into long term affects, you all repeating yourselves about fewer antigens in each stick is worthless. Apparently you have decided that the only way vaccinations could cause long term auto immune problems is thru their antigens, but since no one has studied it, I really don’t know why you believe it.
Hardly. All you do is either insist that agree to something I already have (number of antigens in vaccinations) or insist that there is no way vaccinations could cause problems in later life, despite there being no research. That looks a lot more like willful ignorance.
Don’t be willfully ignorant. “Pumped full” of vaccinations and “sheer number” say essentially the same thing to the lay person.
Well, antigens would be the reactive bit there. Generally speaking, the rest of a vaccine is either inert or known not to be harmful. It’s not like Merck throws strychnine at babies and say’s “Oh, they’ll be fine, probably.”
If you consider pumped full and sheer number to be synonymous, one wonders why you would mention sheer number if you’ve already admitted the inaccuracy of the pumped full charge.
As near as I can figure from reading this thread, curlcoat’s primary concern is that people will stop talking to and about curlcoat, even if it’s only abuse. The whole vaccine thing is ancillary.
Antigens ARE vaccines. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Yup.
Oh dear, now you’ve picked another previously-answered question to be willfully ignorant about. To repeat, yes, there is ongoing research on long-term effects of vaccines.
And yes, the only way vaccinations could possibly cause long-term autoimmune problems IS “thru their antigens”. Because the antigens are precisely what the immune system responds to in order to produce immunity to the disease.
Here is a description of how that works:
Looks like spinky nailed it. If curlcoat thinks that more vaccination jabs might mean a greater long-term health risk unrelated to the amount of antigens in the vaccinations, then what she’s worried about is possible immunological consequences of merely getting pricked with a needle, independent of what the needle contains.
Of course, this assumes that curlcoat’s reasoning follows some kind of logical consistency, which admittedly is quite an assumption.
To help allay those concerns, I’ll offer up a little evidence from my own childhood experience: in the years when I was learning to sew, I got pricked with a non-antigen-delivering needle literally hundreds of times, and it had no long-term immune system impacts at all. 
(Now watch curlcoat pretend to take this seriously and start complaining that people are citing personal anecdotes in place of research data because “there’s no research” and “nobody’s looking into it”.) :rolleyes: