I'M better at expressing myself through text.

They are, these people compile descriptive conclusions to predict various phenomenon, and agree on them not to be epistemological truth but principles that they deem a more accurate descriptor

Yep.

I am on a tablet so I can’t use VC

I mean it's common sense.

It's like saying because x did a that x will always do a.

You there?

Lol?

I'm there.

<:angrycube:507990207602229249>

Vaccines are not perfect but they are genetically modified cells (usually of the disease itself) to be harmless so that the body can train it's immunity against it.

@ZeroT I just finished watching a video that explains the problems with vaccines administered to infants under the age of 2. There is a significant risk of brain damage in that 2 year window. It’s a long video but very good. This information comes from a neuroscientist.

Puzzloo, your information is correct, but neuroscience has discovered that the brain has its own immune system, that should not be messed with while the brain is still developing.

@The Gwench can u prove that video actually have proven facts or information

I suggest you watch that video. Determine for yourself whether the guy is making it up.

Link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYV8laCbNSE

@The Gwench That may be true but that only underlines that vaccines are so important

Huh? The idea of triggering immunity is a great one. However, in practice, this is not what’s always achieved.

Look

You know what herd immunity is?

Explain it for everyone please.

You need at least 95% of the people immunized

To protect the rest who cannot be vaccinated

Like infants, weak people

So by that I can assume that there is only 5% that cannot be vaccinated.

With the 95% immunized the chances of the other people getting the disease is around 0

@The Gwench Not a really true assumption, there are less then 5% that can't be vaccinated

How do you know this?

Its just a minimum requirement

Demographics

The major part of people who can't be vaccinated are new born infants

Given that allergies are a common issue these days, I refuse to believe that only fewer than 5% cannot be vaccinated.

Those with severe immunoligical deficits are a smaller part

@The Gwench What do allergies have to do with vaccines?

Many vaccines have allergens

To many people

They are not perfect, I can draw a parallel to this: If you use the same 'pest control' tactic against rats, they will eventually adapt to outsmart it. That's why when you reuse the same poison over and over, they may eventually develop an innate immunity. Also sometimes in rare cases, for x reasons vaccines can cause the actual disease. (X stands for any situation with different variables ex: non sterilized syringes, mistakes in genetic compound, etc whatever you could think of that would be possible even if unlikely.)

But, my opinion how that measle managed to infect the vaccined. Is that the measles probably was exposed to the vaccined people because of the host not being vaccined. (Think of it as you being on the other side of the canyon and eventually creating a bridge to the other side. The bridge being mutation in genetics to adapt.

However what I meant earlier is that while it's true vaccines are important if they are real. Is that it's kind of a dilemma I can't explain. I do think this vaccine conspiracy is unlikely and I really am not in the strong forte of believing it. But I have not dissected an actual vaccine myself (It'd require me to have some basis knowledge in that field mind you, and some plan to get my hands on it either) What I meant is that while if vaccines are real, they work. My point is that I wanna stay open to a paradigm shift that they are not.

I am not sure if you understand, my line of thinking is quite unorthodox. I agree with science but I also like to use creativity/logic simultaneously. I disagree with statistics even if they can be useful sometimes, but each situation is different. (May it be by only one atom particle to be different) While reusing the same tactic can work, it will not always work. (That's what I think over what you said about stats earlier)

Gotta seperate in two because discord text limit.

Show me this data, I want to see those allergenes

Otherwise by faith I probably didn't express it right. What I meant is that sometimes lies can happen. When someone tells you that the bible cannot have lies I chuckle (even if it might be true.). There's still the possibility that there might be lies, because remember that it may look good but is it really? If god cannot create a boulder that he himself can't lift. Then would that mean that he is imperfect. Either way the bible could of been a conspiracy itself or blah blah x reason for it to contain such lies.

I also think the same of science, sometimes things can look good even if you don't understand them. But you have to do your research sometimes and be open minded that you might be wrong. (Even if the truth ends up being ugly or hard to accept)