Yep. My thoughts exactly. No one can ever seem to get that through their heads when I explain that to them. Trying to explain logic to an illogical person can make you go crazy at times.
It is a fact that the body will not produce antibodies unless it comes into contact with the antigen. The assumption that the unvaccinated are contagious, is to assume they are full of the virus and immune to the disease. If the unvaccinated have no signs, or symptoms and are not dying from the virus they are supposedly carrying, this would be the ultimate immunity. Isn’t this the objective of vaccines to impart such an immunity? So really, forget the virus itself, this pro-vaccine movement is about a human becoming a threat only if they have not produced the antibodies as a sign of a recent infection. Vaccines carry a virus and chemicals. It is injected into a body to incite a response from the immune system. A person’s body does not produce antibodies for fun, but because it is necessary to clear an infection in the body. Antibodies, which are what the vaccine theory is based on, does not equal an immunity. You can still contract the disease, have the virus circulating through your body or even lying in dormant (latent) and have antibodies to it. You can spread the disease too. Plus, usually the higher antibody count means a higher viral load. This antibody/vaccine theory is not unlike believing that the more pus in a wound is the sign of a cleared infection.
Consider this: The CDC reported on those on the naval ship that were fully vaccinated that came down with the flu and tested positive for the strand they came down with. This has happened more than once and is not a freak accident or coincidence. And if contracting a disease or even vaccinating equals an immunity, why is there a such thing as shingles or the need to re-vaccinate? Or the fact that viruses, such as HHV6, can hide in your genetics? Or being vaccinated means you can still spread the disease and some vaccines leave you to shed the virus or even come down with the disease (atypical measles)?
Here are a few articles about antibodies/vaccines not protecting individuals from disease:
Have to laugh at this one as this just came out not long ago. “The presence of rubella IgM and IgG antibodies in pregnant women predisposes babies to congenital rubella syndrome and emphasizes the need for the initiation of a national rubella vaccination program in Nigeria.” LOL! Antibodies (the same thing vaccines are meant to trigger our bodies to make) are the reason they need to start a national vaccination program and there were even a few mothers that said they were vaccinated. If you want to say it was IgM antibodies that is more indicative of a recent infection, think again. In vaccinated populations, there is a belief that higher the IgG titers are more accurate. (2nd link below) Yes, the test that used for showing an infection is the same test that shows ‘immunity’.
Here are just two examples, from two different occasions involving naval ships, from the CDC about the flu shot not preventing the flu. And if you look further you will find it is not just the flu, but you can find cases of measles, mumps, etc in groups of vaccinated individuals:
With the fear and hysteria, it is likely that babies and immunocomprimised could be treated as a threat to society in the future, regardless of the reason they are unable to be vaccinated. For the greater good, means sacrificing and discriminating against anyone that poses or is perceived to pose a threat to the greater good. Media propaganda comes to zero tolerance: No antibodies, no ‘immunity’, no rights. (But you can carry any virus, because the focus is on antibodies).
The holocaust, Spanish Inquisition and many witch hunts were started through fear, ignorance and the greater good belief that an groups rights supersedes an individuals rights. Vaccines are artificial means to modify our bodies and we should have a right to say no without being tracked or discriminated against. Without this right, the transhumanism movement (with the exponentially growing technology in genetics (eugenics), bioengineering, nanotechnology, etc) could lead to unaltered humans becoming second class or worse. Corn that is genetically modified to produce its own pesticides is accepted practice. So are three parent babies…. When the time comes, babies that are genetically modified to be born with antibodies, superhuman abilities (like the need for less food or water, etc) and more will be the norm. Actually, the path we are on will make it the duty of all citizens to stop suffering and no longer produce ‘natural’ babies or to continue to modify the ones we have.
yep that about says it all.
Except logic would convey to you that it would not have to be repeated every year if it worked, therefore it doesn’t.
Again what ever happened to Scarlet Fever?
exactly sue.
Yep. My thoughts exactly. No one can ever seem to get that through their heads when I explain that to them. Trying to explain logic to an illogical person can make you go crazy at times.
that’s for sure C.
It is a fact that the body will not produce antibodies unless it comes into contact with the antigen. The assumption that the unvaccinated are contagious, is to assume they are full of the virus and immune to the disease. If the unvaccinated have no signs, or symptoms and are not dying from the virus they are supposedly carrying, this would be the ultimate immunity. Isn’t this the objective of vaccines to impart such an immunity? So really, forget the virus itself, this pro-vaccine movement is about a human becoming a threat only if they have not produced the antibodies as a sign of a recent infection. Vaccines carry a virus and chemicals. It is injected into a body to incite a response from the immune system. A person’s body does not produce antibodies for fun, but because it is necessary to clear an infection in the body. Antibodies, which are what the vaccine theory is based on, does not equal an immunity. You can still contract the disease, have the virus circulating through your body or even lying in dormant (latent) and have antibodies to it. You can spread the disease too. Plus, usually the higher antibody count means a higher viral load. This antibody/vaccine theory is not unlike believing that the more pus in a wound is the sign of a cleared infection.
Consider this: The CDC reported on those on the naval ship that were fully vaccinated that came down with the flu and tested positive for the strand they came down with. This has happened more than once and is not a freak accident or coincidence. And if contracting a disease or even vaccinating equals an immunity, why is there a such thing as shingles or the need to re-vaccinate? Or the fact that viruses, such as HHV6, can hide in your genetics? Or being vaccinated means you can still spread the disease and some vaccines leave you to shed the virus or even come down with the disease (atypical measles)?
Here are a few articles about antibodies/vaccines not protecting individuals from disease:
http://www.neurology.org/content/42/4/761.abstract
Have to laugh at this one as this just came out not long ago. “The presence of rubella IgM and IgG antibodies in pregnant women predisposes babies to congenital rubella syndrome and emphasizes the need for the initiation of a national rubella vaccination program in Nigeria.” LOL! Antibodies (the same thing vaccines are meant to trigger our bodies to make) are the reason they need to start a national vaccination program and there were even a few mothers that said they were vaccinated. If you want to say it was IgM antibodies that is more indicative of a recent infection, think again. In vaccinated populations, there is a belief that higher the IgG titers are more accurate. (2nd link below) Yes, the test that used for showing an infection is the same test that shows ‘immunity’.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4294645/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24423404
Here are just two examples, from two different occasions involving naval ships, from the CDC about the flu shot not preventing the flu. And if you look further you will find it is not just the flu, but you can find cases of measles, mumps, etc in groups of vaccinated individuals:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/3/pdfs/01-7320.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6342a3.htm?s_cid=mm6342a3_e
Here is an article about viruses MUTATING our genes: http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/77405.aspx
With the fear and hysteria, it is likely that babies and immunocomprimised could be treated as a threat to society in the future, regardless of the reason they are unable to be vaccinated. For the greater good, means sacrificing and discriminating against anyone that poses or is perceived to pose a threat to the greater good. Media propaganda comes to zero tolerance: No antibodies, no ‘immunity’, no rights. (But you can carry any virus, because the focus is on antibodies).
The holocaust, Spanish Inquisition and many witch hunts were started through fear, ignorance and the greater good belief that an groups rights supersedes an individuals rights. Vaccines are artificial means to modify our bodies and we should have a right to say no without being tracked or discriminated against. Without this right, the transhumanism movement (with the exponentially growing technology in genetics (eugenics), bioengineering, nanotechnology, etc) could lead to unaltered humans becoming second class or worse. Corn that is genetically modified to produce its own pesticides is accepted practice. So are three parent babies…. When the time comes, babies that are genetically modified to be born with antibodies, superhuman abilities (like the need for less food or water, etc) and more will be the norm. Actually, the path we are on will make it the duty of all citizens to stop suffering and no longer produce ‘natural’ babies or to continue to modify the ones we have.