sure but it just seems to me that the death rates were already on the decline to the point of almost being gone, so people saw this opportunity to introduce vaccines saying that it will achieve what was already being achieved anyways

https://ourworldindata.org/vaccination I was right, in the 1980 vaccination rate was only 20% it must've been way lower in 1950s so why would you attribute the eradication of these viruses to vaccination?

so my point is that vaccines didn't contribute to anything

so why introduce them if not for nefarious purposes

When you see the anti vaxx kid using an aging app, *insert looking away meme template*

But then how do you explain the fact that ever since vacations have gone on decline there have been more disease outbreaks

And the comeback of polio

Why don’t you compare death rates in the US and Canada to countries without access to vaccinations?

if

@pphands here

the problem is if you have a poor country with unsanitary conditions, you're bound to have diseases

it has nothing to do with having vaccines or not

the proof is the graph where you see the huge decline in death tolls in the US before vaccines

i could ask you the same thing, so take the graph - 1 day before the vaccines and compare that to africa, what's the difference

i really dont care about debating the legitimacy of identity. it's like telling a group of bricks that they aren't sticks @Lil Knaffe

rich country and sanitation vs poor country and lack of sanitation

That's the problem, we live in a rich country with good sanitation yet vaccines are still mandatory. You can see most viruses got widely eradicated in the 1950s-1960s where vaccination wasn't widely used as it is now.

Diseases like measles can have life long effects to the body and brain, especially in young children, when not vaccinated. The contraction rates went down once the vaccination was widespread. Sadly, we are having some measles outbreaks due to a lot of misconceptions about vaccines.

yeah exactly @Teddy

False, it went down before vaccination was widespread. You can compare vaccination population rate and virus population rate. You would see it does not match

Vaccination took the credit for what was sanitation job.

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_100525

Wrong

Someone who actually shares their sources

Impressive

Please, take the time to compare vaccination population rate and the viruses eradication statistics. That source had no statistics what so ever.

Cases went down AFTER the vaccine was licensed in 1963

That's not the point, vaccination wasn't widely used back in the 1950s-1960s where most viruses got widely eradicated.

From 1965-1968, cases of measles dropped from over 450,000 to under 50,000. This was after the 1963 licensing of the vaccine.

You aren’t incorrect that sanitation plays a factor, but the numbers indicate that the drop happened after the vaccine had started being dispersed.

Which came first, ranch or cool ranch?

asking the important questions

Definition of Hydrophobic

The word hydrophobic comes from the Greek roots hydro- (meaning water) and -phobia (meaning fearing or hating). The word hydrophobic describes the fact that nonpolar substances don't combine with water molecules. Let's take a closer look at that definition. Water is a polar molecule, which means that it carries a partial charge between its atoms. Oxygen, as an electronegative atom, draws the electrons of each bond closer to its core, thus creating a more negative charge. Therefore, any materials with a charge, be it negative or positive, will be able to interact with water molecules to dissolve. (Think of how salt dissolves in water. This is due to the charges of the ions sodium and chlorine.)

So essentially, hydrophobic molecules are molecules that do not have a charge, meaning they are non-polar. By lacking a charge, these molecules do not have any charge-to-charge interactions that will allow them to interact with water. Hydrophobic materials often do not dissolve in water or in any solution that contains a largely aqueous (watery) environment. This characteristic of being hydrophobic - or non-polar - is important for many of the molecules found in nature, in other organisms, and even within our own bodies.

The vaccination got licensed but what was the % of people that were vaccinated in 1950s-1960s?

Not that high, it was more sanitation that did the trick

yeah i wasn't going to get technical but essentially everything has a cohesive or ionic bond and where the ionic bond becomes stronger than the cohesive bond is when something gets wet, something hydrophobic will have a much stronger cohesive bond than water's ionic bonds, it will therefore never get wet

water in itself is ionic, thereby making it wet

By lacking a charge, these molecules do not have any charge-to-charge interactions that will allow them to interact with water.

It cant be dry so it wont be wet

For something to be wet it has to be able to be dry

if something cant interact with water, it cant get wet

What's the best fast food burger?