Rick Reuben wrote:

bumble wrote:Edit: oh, and there are no blood vessels in the brain, itself.

What?? What is a brain aneurysm, then?

Wikipedia wrote:The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is a membranic structure in the central nervous system (CNS) that restricts the passage of various chemical substances and microscopic objects (e.g. bacteria) between the bloodstream and the neural tissue itself, while still allowing the passage of substances essential to metabolic function (e.g. oxygen).

Neural tissue = no blood.

Rick Reuben wrote:

kerble wrote:you're picking the wrong person to try to argue with about infectious diseases, especially in regards to understanding risk assessment and projection of data trends.

She can tell me herself how we are supposed to rule out anticipated or unanticipated collateral damage from vaccinations.

but you won't believe it since you've already made up your mind.
what's the point? she does this kind of thing for a living and has for years and years, so I know, that in any type of argument you have with her about this kind of stuff, your base of knowledge will fall horribly short. and she will be right. every time.

even if you agree, your degree of understanding of it won't even come close. so go ahead and take it for truth exactly how she says it. lady knows what the hell she's talking about.





best,


Faiz

Actually, antibodies themselves do not pass through, bacteria (usually) do not.

Virii/viruses (whatever) DO.

Yep.

Right. Neural tissue has no blood in it. We're all in agreement.

Yep.

Sure.

Blood has all kinds of crap in it.

If you catch, say, polio, the polio virus will travel through the blood and then cross the BBB.

Shit's crazy.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote: aren't the risks associated with actually acquiring a full blown case of the diseases prevented by these vaccines far worse?

Not really. If the vaccines work as claimed, and if 90% of the population submits to vaccines without asking questions, then there is 90% of the population that can't transmit the disease. This reduces the likelihood of an outbreak for both those who vaccinate and those who don't. If the vaccines work as claimed, the guinea pig kids transmit the benefits to all of society, by reducing the number of those who can turn contagious.

Because many who vaccinate are pissy authoritarian fascists, they are infuriated by this fact: Those who are wise to the dangers of vaccines and hold their kids back are getting a free ride off the kids whose parents used them as guinea pigs for risky vaccines. Because the potential number of carriers for diseases has dropped if 90% vaccinate ( assuming that the vaccines work ), the 10% who don't vaccinate live in a less-risky environment- without having to shoot mercury and live viruses into their kids' brains.

Ha ha.

So it's ok for the 10% to leach off the 90% in this case? Let someone else take the risk for them?

Off course I jest. There are very real reasons why some people shouldn't get vaccinations. For instance, if their immune system is impaired, they could get full blown cases of diseases in some cases. Or, if someone is allergic to the medium in which the vaccine is prepared, they shouldn't get the vaccine.

To say that many who vaccinate are "pissy authoritarian fascists" is a bunch of shit, and you know it Rick.

Because I have asthma, I get a vaccination every year for the flu, as I really don't want to take the chance of dying from an easily preventable disease. For the same reason, I'm vaccinated against pneumonia. I also occasionally get vaccinated against tetanus, and have had the whole course of childhood vaccinations someone my age would have gotten.

I really don't care one way or the other if someone else gets vaccinated; that is their, or their parents, decision. Just don't name call because soemtimes you can't resist being a bit of a blowhard to prove a point.

Rick Reuben wrote:

kerble wrote:but you won't believe it since you've already made up your mind.
what's the point?

To make people defend vaccines. I'm not required to have medical training to explore this issue. I'm reading the work of others who do. I notice that you didn't tell anyone who is defending vaccines to give up the argument because they also lack medical training.

I don't think you should have medical training to have to discuss it, my man. I'm saying that bumble is an incredible resource for information like this, and her word on the subject counts more on this than for anyone else I can think of here.

it'd be like you arguing with steve about analog recording.




tip top,


Faiz

Rick Reuben wrote:

Mark Hansen wrote:So it's ok for the 10% to leach off the 90% in this case? Let someone else take the risk for them?

What risk? If you say that 90% are 'taking a risk', then you validate the concern of the 10% over the risk.

Ultimately, I believe that parents should question authority/media/science, and should not be forced to vaccinate if they draw conclusions that worry them about vaccines.

Every activity in life carries a certain amount of risk, Rick. And, as I said, I was joking.

I also think no one should be compelled to get vacinnated; as I said, it's up to them, or their parents if they are a child, to decide what level and type of risk (which always exists to a certain extent) they can accept.

bumble wrote:Sure.

Blood has all kinds of crap in it.

If you catch, say, polio, the polio virus will travel through the blood and then cross the BBB.

Shit's crazy.

Heh heh.

Or mercury. That's what you're getting at right Rick? From vaccines, or salmon, or coal fueled power plants? Or alcohol...or THC....

Ahh, sweet soothing THC...