close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Study: Unvaccinated kids are healthier than vaccinate kids

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by Glocksanity, Oct 8, 2012.

  1. tsmo1066

    tsmo1066 Happy Smiley

    13,215
    7,288
    Aug 31, 2004
    Houston, TX
    Washing a car creates a sunny day?!? Come on! That's just an old wive's tale!

    Everyone knows that putting on swimsuits and suntan lotion is what causes sunny days!

    :supergrin::wavey:
     
  2. I come from a background where polio vaccination was not universal, so I know some who are affected by that disease. And I also know they go on to produce healthy children. But that's part of nature. They survived and they moved on to reproduce. Darwin's theory at work.
     

  3. tsmo1066

    tsmo1066 Happy Smiley

    13,215
    7,288
    Aug 31, 2004
    Houston, TX
    They may move on (when they don't die from it), but it certainly doesn't make them, or their children, any stronger.
    Polio also often causes premature muscular degeneration in adults years, or even decades, after infection.

    http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/ch...infections_in_infants_and_children/polio.html
     
  4. HollowHead

    HollowHead Firm member

    24,451
    2,052
    May 16, 2005
    Where the buffalo roam
    Have you even read On The Origin Of Species? HH
     
  5. "Stronger" is not necessarily physically stronger. Survivors of polio may be mentally "stronger" because they know they overcame something serious. And their children can take pride in knowing their parent was strong enough to overcome some serious illness by living out a full and normal life, which in turn could instill in them (the children) a sense of pride or achievement or proudness in the family heritage.
     
  6. Yes. Twice. And there was no mention of polio vaccinations.
     
  7. Rabbi

    Rabbi The Bombdiggity Lifetime Member

    27,208
    9,124
    Dec 18, 2004
    San AntonioTexas
    So, in your warped world, that is fine, but becoming a surgeon or scientist who actually fixes such things is "unatural?"
     
  8. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,777
    1,553
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    What doesn't kill you makes you weaker, not stronger. That's just feel good nonsense. You survive polio, small pox, spanish flu, whatever... you are weaker for it. Now, the overall strength of the surviving population might come up slightly in the aftermath of a pandemic, but not because any individuals were made stronger. Rather, because the weak were simple killed off and no longer count towards the population mean.

    With that said, I think it would be somewhat Darwinian to allow people to opt out of vaccinations for their children. Their offspring carrying their genetically inferior intelligence would be more likely to die before reproducing and the offspring of the more intelligent would be more likely to survive and pass on their genes. If you're to stupid to recognize the advantages of vaccination then your progeny should not carry forward.

    Yep, works for me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  9. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    12,922
    530
    Dec 5, 2002
    Dallas TX
    Don't be an idiot.

    Again:
    Smallpox
    Polio
    etc.
    Beating back these horrific diseases proves vaccinations are best for mankind.
     
  10. tsmo1066

    tsmo1066 Happy Smiley

    13,215
    7,288
    Aug 31, 2004
    Houston, TX
    By that logic, car safety devices should be done away with since people who survive violent wrecks may become "mentally stronger" and instill pride in their children by living a "normal" life in spite of their crippling injuries.
     
  11. .264 magnum

    .264 magnum CLM

    12,922
    530
    Dec 5, 2002
    Dallas TX
  12. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,777
    1,553
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    No, let the idiots opt out and continue dieing at higher than necessary rates. That should give the darwinian advantage to the more intelligent that recognize the advantages to vaccination.
     

  13. "becoming a surgeon or scientist?" You mean choosing to be a medical researcher, a scientist or a MD for the purpose of researching a cure for these conditions?

    There's nothing unnatural or wrong with having the knowledge to cure/prevent these things. In fact, knowledge is good. But there's also nothing wrong with people refusing to undergo these vaccinations.

    (Or are you saying universal mandatory vaccination?)
     
  14. sputnik767

    sputnik767

    8,536
    2
    Nov 1, 2007
    Chicago
    Sometimes it's ok to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, or at least stop talking. Because talking out of your butt doesn't make it favorable for you.
     
  15. Mr Spock

    Mr Spock Vulcan

    1,174
    0
    Jan 6, 2008
    First you say

    "I'm against medication of any kind unless one's very, very sick. And yes, I do believe MDs today over-prescribe everything.

    Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with."

    Then you say

    So is curing/preventing these things good, or interfering with survival of the fittest, as you've previously proposed?


    Also, I would appreciate very much if you'd address the other posts I've made in response to some of your earlier claims. Thanks.
     

  16. Good. So you gentlemen would have no issues with those who choose to opt out of universal mandatory vaccinations.
     
  17. F14Scott

    F14Scott Luggage CLM

    4,451
    706
    Sep 13, 2001
    Katy, TX
    You certainly do have a choice. Organically grown fruits and vegetables. Whole grains you grind yourself. Free range animals for meat. Sure, it would be expensive, but paying all that money for the health benefits would surely be worth it.

    But, wait. Wouldn't driving to the store in a techno-car be artificially defeating your hunter-gatherer roots? I mean, if you don't walk to hunt or gather it, aren't you denying your offspring the potential pride of your hardship?

    Sir, in so many different and interesting ways, your suppositions and rebuttals have been soundly and thoroughly picked apart, by some of the brightest guys on this board, no less. I don't know whether I want you to stop (to save yourself further embarrassment) or to continue ('cause this is fun). So, by all means, do either... :wavey:
     
  18. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,777
    1,553
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    Actually, no. As long as no tax dollars are used to treat their subsequent polio and small pox infections and the parents are required to watch their child whither away and die due to their stupidity. Other than that, no, not at all...

    Seems like a Swift solution to the problem to me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  19. sputnik767

    sputnik767

    8,536
    2
    Nov 1, 2007
    Chicago
    The problem is, the majority of people who refuse vaccinations do so because of a lack of understanding. They are not making an educated decision. Sure there are some people who can't receive the flu shot because of an egg allergy, or live-attenuated vaccines because they are immunosuppressed for example, but those people are few. These threads here always smell of conspiracy theories, "research" that is not actually research, and worst of all, misinformation and fear-mongering. Keep this simple thing in mind: if you are refusing vaccinations, you are doing so based on nothing more than our own stupidity. But while you are certainly allowed to be stupid, trying to make your case to other gullible people puts their lives and the lives of others under their care potentially at risk.
     
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2012
  20. Mr Spock

    Mr Spock Vulcan

    1,174
    0
    Jan 6, 2008
    I have a growing suspicion that Patchman is not the "follower of Darwin" he professes to be.

    He previously mentioned "G-d", which is significant because those who won't even spell god tend to show an inordinate reverence for the Christian belief system, including intelligent design and the derision of anyone who claims evolution as an answer.

    He then retorted to a comment about life spans by invoking Methuselah, which is clearly a reactive comment from a religious perspective.

    These items, coupled with his rabid defense of his warped, misinterpreted, and almost absurd to the point of farcical description of Darwinism makes me think he is simply attempting (poorly, as it were) to lampoon the entire concept of evolution and Darwin's theories regarding survival of the fittest.