You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Is Being "Unvaxxed" a NAP Violation? (In other words, do unvaccinated individuals put others at risk?)
Dude, great post. Very logical. We need to have this discussion, I'd really hate to see the "general public" decide I have to be forced to take something, or be jailed or fined of some sort. And they are going this direction.
Unfortunately it is full of logical holes, see:
https://steemit.com/health/@lennstar/replay-to-kafkanarchy84-article-on-unvaxxed-it-is-full-of-holes
Interesting rebuttal, but it is also full of logical holes. He is discussing weather or not the unvaccinated pose a risk to others. His point about the 10 year effectiveness is in regard to how Vaccines are administered. Most people take vaccines as children and then never again. By the time you are 20, you're immunity, if derived from the vaccine, is gone per their pamphlets. Therefore most are actually not immune. He isn't writing a scientific paper, only stating the obvious. There are problems with vaccines and we have to make it public, it needs to be common knowledge the risk associated with administering these to ourselves and children.
Vaccines are not as safe as advertised.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/323371
http://www.naturalnews.com/042046_Gardasil_vaccine_damage_HPV_vaccinations.html
https://www.vaccineinjuryhelpcenter.com/symptoms-of-vaccine-injury/
And as as argument for "no" he says that vaccinated people are not immune after 20 years (which is, depending on vaccine, wrong btw).
So yes, if you are unvaccinated you are a risk.
But whatever his statement, if your points all have holes, then your argument can be (and in several of his points is) invalid.
We are talking here about one vaccine. There are a lot that have a "guaranteed" time frame of about 10 years, but others work far longer.
And others again, like the flu one, are basically yearly, even if you have stronger resistances in the next year. The reason is that the strands are changing so fast.