Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, "no doubt."

What a shame there isn't a more accurate way of determining these things than just what appears common sense to one of us.

We definitely completely lack "more accurate way" to determine all these substances were harmful for human beings and I am making all this up because I am a dumb low IQ person. I must be hallucinating the existence of lead paint disclosures, thalidomide scandal, etc. And DDT is still around being sprayed all over the place. "DDT is good for meeee!"

You should print this one out and put it on your wall

https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/1831ck18w/viewer/js956g01z

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

Roundup isn't the only thing used. DDT insecticide was widely used before, and terrible herbicides like atrazine and paraquat. Your first statement is more of an opinion. We had lead pipes and lead paint, medications prescribed to pregnant women that caused birth defects, etc. No doubt a lot of this contributed to the health problems in young children beyond infections with common diseases.

'No doubt" the things that just pass through my untrained and uneducated mind are relevant and make sense, because I and my feelings are the center of the universe.

Data. Your feelings aren't relevant.

Show me the data proving DDT, atrazine and paraquat are 100% safe and amazing for the health of humans.

Show me that atrazine and paraquat were in widespread use in 1963.

Your IQ must be too high to figure out how to type into your browser, is it?

"
Atrazine and paraquat, both introduced in the late 1950s, represent a critical era in agricultural history, transitioning farming toward heavy chemical reliance while setting the stage for decades of health and environmental scandals.
Atrazine (Introduced ~1958): Synthesized in 1955 and registered for use by Ciba-Geigy in 1958, atrazine revolutionized corn and sorghum farming as a pre- and post-emergent herbicide.
Paraquat (Introduced ~1950s/1962): Introduced commercially in the 1950s, it gained prominence in the early 1960s as a "revolutionary" herbicide for "no-till" farming to reduce soil erosion.
The Scandals & Controversies: While not widely recognized as a "scandal" in the 1950s—a time when chemical pesticides were widely hailed as scientific progress—the seeds of the current, massive scandals were sown during this period through:
Human Toxicity: Paraquat was discovered to be deadly to humans if ingested, with no antidote, leading to fatal poisoning cases shortly after its launch.
Environmental Persistence: The widespread, routine, and often unregulated application of these chemicals in the 1950s and 60s quickly led to water contamination.
Long-Term Health Risks: Later revelations showed that manufacturers were aware of mounting evidence of toxicity—particularly paraquat’s connection to Parkinson’s disease and atrazine's role as an endocrine disruptor—early in their adoption, but continued to market them heavily.
Civil Eats
Civil Eats
+7
The "Paraquat Pot" Scandal (1970s extension):
While the chemicals were introduced in the 50s, a major, related scandal occurred in the late 1970s, when the U.S. government funded the spraying of paraquat on Mexican marijuana fields. The resulting poisoned marijuana was illegally imported into the U.S., causing lung damage in users.
UCSF Synapse
UCSF Synapse
+3
Modern Legacy of the 50s:
Paraquat: Due to high toxicity (causing lung, kidney, and liver damage), it is banned in over 70 countries, including the EU. In the U.S., it is restricted to certified applicators, with thousands of lawsuits pending regarding its link to Parkinson’s disease.
Atrazine: Remains in use in the U.S., but has been heavily criticized for contaminating drinking water and acting as an endocrine disruptor that can "feminize" wildlife.
Center for Food Safety
Center for Food Safety
+4

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

Roundup isn't the only thing used. DDT insecticide was widely used before, and terrible herbicides like atrazine and paraquat. Your first statement is more of an opinion. We had lead pipes and lead paint, medications prescribed to pregnant women that caused birth defects, etc. No doubt a lot of this contributed to the health problems in young children beyond infections with common diseases.

'No doubt" the things that just pass through my untrained and uneducated mind are relevant and make sense, because I and my feelings are the center of the universe.

Data. Your feelings aren't relevant.

Show me the data proving DDT, atrazine and paraquat are 100% safe and amazing for the health of humans.

Show me that atrazine and paraquat were in widespread use in 1963.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, "no doubt."

What a shame there isn't a more accurate way of determining these things than just what appears common sense to one of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

Roundup isn't the only thing used. DDT insecticide was widely used before, and terrible herbicides like atrazine and paraquat. Your first statement is more of an opinion. We had lead pipes and lead paint, medications prescribed to pregnant women that caused birth defects, etc. No doubt a lot of this contributed to the health problems in young children beyond infections with common diseases.

'No doubt" the things that just pass through my untrained and uneducated mind are relevant and make sense, because I and my feelings are the center of the universe.

Data. Your feelings aren't relevant.

Show me the data proving DDT, atrazine and paraquat are 100% safe and amazing for the health of humans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

What does your last paragraph about the short bus mean exactly?

You know what it means. Or you don’t. Antivaxxers aren’t known for their intelligence.

Yes, I do know. I’d like to hear from the poster why they needed to make a joke about people with disabilities to make their point. And instruct them to point and laugh. I’d like to hear what about that is funny to them? Exactly.

What’s funny? Nothing is funny about a stupid anti-vaxxer killing their kids. What’s funny is that they bought into the wellness grift and truly believe they are smart. Laugh at them folks. And maybe figure out a way to rip them off. If you tell these bone-beads they’re smart, they’ll empty your pockets for your snake oil.

Ok. Say that and leave people with disabilities out of it. No need to punch down. It ruins your credibility because you turn into an a-hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

Roundup isn't the only thing used. DDT insecticide was widely used before, and terrible herbicides like atrazine and paraquat. Your first statement is more of an opinion. We had lead pipes and lead paint, medications prescribed to pregnant women that caused birth defects, etc. No doubt a lot of this contributed to the health problems in young children beyond infections with common diseases.

'No doubt" the things that just pass through my untrained and uneducated mind are relevant and make sense, because I and my feelings are the center of the universe.

Data. Your feelings aren't relevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP (close family members anti vax). Among other things, I think it’s hard to wrap one’s head around the that doing nothing can be more harmful than doing something — particularly when we don’t see the diseases or their consequences in everyday life.

There’s also an element of wanting to spare your infant or child — a literal miracle, more perfect than anything a human could create on their — own from contamination. Humans are fallible and small. Nature, and children as an expression of nature (or God, if you’re the praying type, which many are) have an inherent perfection. So injecting something human-made into this perfection feels wrong, corrupting, to many.

And while I sort of understand — as a parent I too have the impulse to preserve the infant/child’s state of grace— I’ve also lived in countries that don’t have the benefit of vaccinations. I know that while nature is a miracle, it has its own forms of corruption and contamination, which can be swift, merciless, and cruel.

But it’s hard to see this when we are still (mostly) benefiting from herd immunity.

I agree with you. But there is one fact that's often omitted in these discussions. The overall quality of life, state of nutrition and access to medicine and healthcare and sanitation in many of these places where access to vaccination is also limited. Same was true in first world before the overall advancement in medicine, access to sanitation, antibiotics and many new antiviral medications and supplements.

Because it's not relevant, and you know it's not relevant.

In 1963, measles was infecting 800,000+ people per year in the US, and a vaccine was introduced.

Within 5 years, that was down to 22,000 per year, and still dropping. A 97% drop in a matter of years. Are you saying that this was due to a change in hygiene and nutrition? Why?

In 1963, most Americans were eating what we’d think of today as a minimally processed, whole food, “organic” diet. Round up hadn’t been invented yet. Kids played outside every day. We had indoor plumbing and clean water. We had antibiotics. Most kids were raised by their mothers or other caregivers, at home.

And thousands of children still died of childhood diseases.

What’s more, many thousands of kids were born with mental and physical disabilities each year and shuttled off to centralized care facilities, where they lived their shortened, disabled lives largely out of the public eye. It was considered the right thing to do at the time.

The diet thing is irrelevant to measles, but 1960s diets were definitely not healthier than today or even remotely considered “organic”. Americans ate stuff like meatloaf, macaroni salad, Salisbury steak, scalloped potatoes, liver & onions, canned soup and canned fruits/veggies. People today eat less canned fruits and veggies. I can’t even remember the last time I ate canned vegetables or fruit. The only canned item I buy occasionally is pasta sauce.

Everything you listed there is pretty healthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

What does your last paragraph about the short bus mean exactly?

You know what it means. Or you don’t. Antivaxxers aren’t known for their intelligence.

Yes, I do know. I’d like to hear from the poster why they needed to make a joke about people with disabilities to make their point. And instruct them to point and laugh. I’d like to hear what about that is funny to them? Exactly.

What’s funny? Nothing is funny about a stupid anti-vaxxer killing their kids. What’s funny is that they bought into the wellness grift and truly believe they are smart. Laugh at them folks. And maybe figure out a way to rip them off. If you tell these bone-beads they’re smart, they’ll empty your pockets for your snake oil.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

This is a bit of a taboo topic, in that its very possible that vaccines are substituting fitness based mortality of resisting disease with what is essentially random mortality from injections. This is letting people make it to adulthood and reproduce that never would have done so before. While at the same time killing/crippling kids who would otherwise make it to adulthood unharmed. Is that a good thing? I bet you and I are in agreement here.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Not a single person has been killed by the MMR vaccine, and I’d venture to say the ones who were “crippled” by a few strains of some dead virus weren’t long for this world anyway. In a bit of news that is surprising to no one except low IQ antivaxxers, dysfunctional immune systems are dysfunctional. Sorry if one of your kids was one of the unfit - it must be terrifying knowing a real live virus could kill them. Or worse - the kind of huge “viral load” a kid gets in an average elementary school classroom in January.

But yes, in the past when people have refused to take common sense measures, Nature has been relentless. One of Benjamin Franklin’s great regrets was that he never inoculated his son against smallpox because he thought the boy was too weak. You can guess what happened next. (He got smallpox for real and died.)

Hopefully you didn’t pay for the AI that told you that. There are reported deaths in VAERS. The drug companies also admit it killed immunocompromised people which is why they aren’t given it anymore.

Oh yes, VAERS. Where guilty moms can blame vaccines when they smother their children to death in unsafe cosleeping arrangements. VAERS, where no truth or medical substantiation is required to submit to the database. That VAERS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

What does your last paragraph about the short bus mean exactly?

You know what it means. Or you don’t. Antivaxxers aren’t known for their intelligence.

Yes, I do know. I’d like to hear from the poster why they needed to make a joke about people with disabilities to make their point. And instruct them to point and laugh. I’d like to hear what about that is funny to them? Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

This is a bit of a taboo topic, in that its very possible that vaccines are substituting fitness based mortality of resisting disease with what is essentially random mortality from injections. This is letting people make it to adulthood and reproduce that never would have done so before. While at the same time killing/crippling kids who would otherwise make it to adulthood unharmed. Is that a good thing? I bet you and I are in agreement here.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Not a single person has been killed by the MMR vaccine, and I’d venture to say the ones who were “crippled” by a few strains of some dead virus weren’t long for this world anyway. In a bit of news that is surprising to no one except low IQ antivaxxers, dysfunctional immune systems are dysfunctional. Sorry if one of your kids was one of the unfit - it must be terrifying knowing a real live virus could kill them. Or worse - the kind of huge “viral load” a kid gets in an average elementary school classroom in January.

But yes, in the past when people have refused to take common sense measures, Nature has been relentless. One of Benjamin Franklin’s great regrets was that he never inoculated his son against smallpox because he thought the boy was too weak. You can guess what happened next. (He got smallpox for real and died.)

Hopefully you didn’t pay for the AI that told you that. There are reported deaths in VAERS. The drug companies also admit it killed immunocompromised people which is why they aren’t given it anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

What does your last paragraph about the short bus mean exactly?

You know what it means. Or you don’t. Antivaxxers aren’t known for their intelligence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

What does your last paragraph about the short bus mean exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt this thrilling but completely irrelevant discussion of 1960s food but this is the actual problem.

The discussion of 1960s food was meant to refute a favorite anti-vaxxer talking point: that our “advancements” in food and sanitation led to the decline in measles deaths and complications, and not the fact that we started vaccinating people.

In short - the early 1960s was better in almost every way the crunchies value, and kids died. A lot of them. They didn’t stop dying en masse until we started vaccinating en masse. As we are seeing now, all the hygiene in the world isn’t moving the needle - we are seeing complications at the exact rate we’d expect from past experience.

Are you going to just pretend that measles deaths and infections weren't dropping going into the 1960s? What caused the death rate to go from 12/100k to 0.21/100k in the years prior to the vaccine? Why do you dismiss the 11.79/100k drop, while holding the 0.21 drop as some sort of miracle?

Why do you seem so determined to go back to where we had that many deaths? Were measles cases declining before the measles vaccine was introduced? Yes, they were—and that’s a fact worth acknowledging. But the rate of decline after vaccination dwarfed anything we saw before. While we saw gradual improvements over decades, the introduction of the vaccine in 1963 triggered a stunning 97% drop in just five years.

1. Measles was already heading towards elimination/near elimination without a vaccine. Maybe it would have taken to the 70s/80s to get there, but we would have gotten there.
2. The MMR vaccination is not without risk. Read the package insert. There may be additional risks that aren't covered in the insert that people are still trying to figure out.
3. It therefore becomes questionable if the measles vaccine actually results in a net increase in health over the long term.

One obvious side effect of measles vaccination is that it let idiots like you live long enough to say completely stupid, made up crap.

The short bus has rolled in, everyone. Point and laugh.

This is a bit of a taboo topic, in that its very possible that vaccines are substituting fitness based mortality of resisting disease with what is essentially random mortality from injections. This is letting people make it to adulthood and reproduce that never would have done so before. While at the same time killing/crippling kids who would otherwise make it to adulthood unharmed. Is that a good thing? I bet you and I are in agreement here.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Not a single person has been killed by the MMR vaccine, and I’d venture to say the ones who were “crippled” by a few strains of some dead virus weren’t long for this world anyway. In a bit of news that is surprising to no one except low IQ antivaxxers, dysfunctional immune systems are dysfunctional. Sorry if one of your kids was one of the unfit - it must be terrifying knowing a real live virus could kill them. Or worse - the kind of huge “viral load” a kid gets in an average elementary school classroom in January.

But yes, in the past when people have refused to take common sense measures, Nature has been relentless. One of Benjamin Franklin’s great regrets was that he never inoculated his son against smallpox because he thought the boy was too weak. You can guess what happened next. (He got smallpox for real and died.)