Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "Romina Libster: The power of herd immunity (with English subtitles) | TED" video.

  1. You say everything should be challenged and questioned, but you refuse to actually offer any questions or present any challenges.  Instead you dismiss everybody who is pro-vaccine as blind zealots, and compare them to Hitler. You say that discussion is being shut down, but you're ignoring the discussion that is actually taking place.  While people are insulting others and saying mean things, other people are actually supporting their view in a polite manner.  But you're ignoring those people on purpose.  Who is acting religious here really?
    32
  2. The main difference between 1964 and 2014 is that the DEFINITION for autism has widened.  In the old days you had to have something seriously wrong with you to be considered autistic, now you just need to be slightly eccentric.  Our kids haven't changed much, but how we label them has. But child mortality rates are WAY down compared to what they used to be, so there's no complaining there.
    13
  3. But you're lying.  Your post is wholly false. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html The unvaccinated ARE getting diseases and spreading it around, and the fact that this ISN'T happening in places with high vaccination rates PROVES herd immunity to be valid.
    6
  4. kevnar I pointed out that you were ignoring the comments on the video, and your counter is to just say "No, you're the one not reading"?
    5
  5. Andrew Jucutan How is being vaccinated NOT preventative? How does "eating right" prevent infections from say tuberculosis or polio?  Nono, actually explain to me the mechanics behind your extraordinary claim.
    4
  6. tedskam You didn't say it, but you implied it.  Also it's pretty funny you got mad at me for thinking that you're talking about money, just prior to explicitly claiming it really is all about money.  Your own lack of consistency aside though, let's address your claims: Companies try to make profit, nobody has denied this.  However you just said that alternative energies are being shelved/buried, when the opposite is true.  There are more windturbines and electric cars now than there ever have been before.  Alternative energy is even getting big government contracts.  It's far from being buried. I have to ask, why are you derailing the topic with energy talk?  Can we stick to vaccines?  You still haven't provided any evidence that vaccinces are harmful. Here's something to chew on though, tell me what you think: What if a population that doesn't get ill and diseased is more profitable than one that does?  What if the "profit" that drove vaccination was all the money saved from people staying alive and working?
    4
  7. tedskam More than one of us has taken the time to explain to you the questions you raise, and you simply ignored us all.  Being ignorant is your choice I suppose, but I'm not going to repeat myself just so you can insult me more.
    4
  8. tedskam If the statistics from 50 years ago are skewed, why were you the one to bring up 1964?  Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.  Regardless, my claim applies to before either of the world wars. In the 1930's we thought that radiation cured people, so I don't believe that "the cure for cancer" was discovered then. By the way, if you think ALL cancer could have ONE cure, then you haven't done your research.  And it's embarrassingly obvious to everybody here.
    3
  9. Gandalf the Great White If you were a scientist, you wouldn't be highlighting the word "theory" as if it made the idea less reliable. http://www.cdc.gov/measles/cases-outbreaks.html Here is data supporting the idea of herd immunity, so I've done at least some research.  Why do you refuse to provide the proof you claim to have against herd immunity?  Why would you hide that information if it's so important?
    3
  10. Andrew Jucutan Once upon a time, organic food was the only food that existed, so EVERYBODY ate healthy.  But they still got sick.  Are you going to deny this?  Doctors are trying to convince people to eat healthy too, they don't WANT to spend so much time taking care of people who get obese when they could have avoided it. I'm honestly dying to know, what do you think eliminated smallpox globally?  Will you admit vaccines did that or do you think it was something else?
    2
  11. Andrew Jucutan I'm already proud of myself, because I don't get sick either. But what you're doing right now is dismissing everything I say because I don't agree with you.  That's not what a clean mind does, that's what a broken mind does.  You've been avoiding discussion, refuse to answer questions and blame it all on us instead of yourself. Then you return just to brag some more.  That's infantile.
    2
  12. Andrew Jucutan Your personal experience is not relevant, especially if you say something like "you could not possibly convince me".  You're boasting about your mind being closed to new evidence or reasoning now?  Food is not medicine.  If you were born with a genetic condition that means you don't have enough thyroxin for example, you can't cure that with food.  If you injure yourself and get an infection, you can't disinfect your body with a nice organic sandwich.  You already know this, and have quite happily taken advantage of modern medicine when it suited you, only to rail against it now that you no longer need it.  You're not just arrogant, you're ungrateful.
    2
  13. Andrew Jucutan I have no hate, I'm just sad you're trying to sabotage people to prevent them from getting the benefits you got. As for studies, no.  You've already shown that you will ignore any evidence presented to you, and you have no evidence supporting any of your claims to show me.
    2
  14. Eric Waldron Well technically speaking, if you're not eating GMO then you're consuming MORE chemicals, since more pesticide and fertiliser is used to produce your food.  But like Louie said, everything is made from chemicals.  Your body is a bag of chemicals.  A tree is a pile of chemicals.
    2
  15. Eric Waldron So why is something suddenly bad because a human made it?  You wouldn't say that 100% of natural compounds were good, so how can you tell me that 100% of synthetic compounds are bad?
    2
  16. Jason Hives Follow the money trail?  Doctors have always been paid pretty well, is that suspicious?
    2
  17. tedskam They're not bullshit, they're just not as good as nuclear power.  They have their place, because we can't put nuclear stations on every farm. Your original "statistic" regarding cancer wasn't a statistic, there were no numbers. But I'll address it anyway.  Fifty years ago people weren't usually living long enough to get cancer, they were busy dying of other stuff.  Once we stopped them dying of other stuff, cancer was what was left.  And that is why more people have cancer now. The good news is that the people who get cancer now are more likely to survive, thanks to early detection and better treatment.
    2
  18. tedskam If I'm convoluted, it's because I've been led down a twisted path by you.  You run from topic to topic, then get surprised when I'm doing the same thing.  Are you even reading your own posts?  Look at what you're doing now, you're trying to derail this discussion to be about "cancer cures", because you've run out of vaccine-related lies already.  Well spam them somewhere else. And don't tell me to do research if you refuse to do any yourself.
    2
  19. It's useless making posts like this if make it so obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.  You talk about research, but we can all already see you haven't done any.
    1
  20. Namaste1001 Wouldn't eugenics be letting third worlders die from disease?  Saving their lives with vaccines is the OPPOSITE of eugenics.
    1
  21. Namaste1001 Vaccine injury lawsuits are only successful when doctors fail to administer them correctly.  No court has shown that a vaccine is inherently harmful.
    1
  22. Namaste1001 What's most interesting about your link is that a lot of these cases explicitly state that there's no link between the vaccines and whatever disease the person suffered from.  Also, if you have to resort to using a court and not a labratory to determine something scientifically observable..that should be a big warning sign for you.
    1
  23. Namaste1001 Can you show me which packaging lists autism as a side effect?  Because every single manufacturer I know of completely rejects that idea.
    1
  24. Namaste1001 You aren't making any sense, hiding it in the small print would not save any company from being sued.  It would just make people stop buying their product.
    1
  25. Andrew Jucutan For somebody that demands sources and claims to have some of his own, you sure are stingy with them.  Where's YOUR proof?
    1
  26. Andrew Jucutan You have no evidence that vaccines are administered with "different intentions", so I'm going to dismiss your claim until you can provide evidence. "A lot" of diseases were caused by invasions?  No, that's a lie.  You are lying to me right now.  There's no way you can believe disease is created by the act of moving to another country.
    1
  27. Andrew Jucutan You have time to repeatedly boast about how healthy you feel and how evil medicine is, but when it comes to proving any of that you're suddenly too busy?  What a copout.  All you've done is made us all LESS sympathetic to your cause, and made me MORE likely to support new laws that enforce vaccination.  So well done on that front I suppose.
    1
  28. Andrew Jucutan You've told us that you need to go several times now, it seems like that's only ever true when you don't have an oppurtunity to belittle or insult us.
    1
  29. Andrew Jucutan Maybe your worldview would be a little more complete if you could bring yourself to look beyond your immediate family.  There are seven billion people in the world, please don't delude yourself into thinking your family is representative.
    1
  30. kevnar Can you guys stop circlejerking for a few minutes and actually point out which questions you'd like answered?  If you whine about not being allowed to discuss something while never attempting to discuss it, it makes you look pretty disengenuous..
    1
  31. kevnar If you had bothered reading the comments, you'd have seen that I've been pretty polite in my discussions, and I have provided a substantial amount of decent answers. I apologise if I offended you by using disparaging terms, I assumed you'd be a little thicker-skinned if you casually call people fanatics and compare them to Hitler.
    1
  32. Janet Bird Well I don't live in the USA, but given how many people online boast about not being vaccinated, it would seem that people have complete choice over the right to refuse. I'm not aware of any discrepancies between different environments either, I mean I have heard of doctors refusing to sign on new patients unless they're vaccinated, but I'm not aware of any legistlation supporting this.
    1
  33. Janet Bird I suppose that makes sense, there would be an uproar if some healthcare workers etc refused to wash their hands or clothes. Where I live this isn't an issue, everybody vaccinates because they prefer not being diseased.  I've never heard of any rules enforcing it in my area.
    1
  34. Gandalf the Great White You dismiss out of hand every source we give to you, so why should we treat your sources any differently?
    1
  35. Gandalf the Great White Discredited?  By who?  You?  Why are you the arbiter of what is scientific?  Why are you admonishing me for attempting to meet your conditions?  To a casual observer, it looks like you're merely trying to suppress discussion.
    1
  36. Gandalf the Great White See, you're ignoring what I say then lying about what I said.  I guess I'll take that as an implicit concession of fault.
    1
  37. Melissa Garden They cause millions of deaths?  Why is infant mortality decreasing then?
    1
  38. Lindsay Corson I thought GMO plants didn't produce viable seeds that could breed?  They are designed that way so you have to buy new seeds every season.
    1
  39. Lindsay Corson It might not be that ALL GMO plants have this built-in, actually I'm sure it wasn't always a thing because I dimly recall farmers getting sued for not noticing GMO seeds getting blown into their farm.
    1
  40. tedskam You have no understanding of science, and therefore are incapable of using it effectively to support your arguments. You're going to assume a lot when we tell you that flouride is toxic, because you're only comfortable with what you understand.  Unfortunately your assumptions are all incorrect.  Toxic substances can be rendered nontoxic when bonded to the correct atoms, molecules have different properties than the elements they are made from. This is all basic stuff, please don't make me explain this to you again.
    1
  41. tedskam Yeah, it's toxic.  So is chocolate, what's your point?  Dosage is everything.
    1
  42. tedskam I've answered your question already, please take a moment to compose yourself before scrolling back up to confirm this however.  I don't want you to get too upset when you discover you just got mad for nothing.
    1
  43. tedskam Comparison is not equation.  I'm to repeat that a few times to let it sink in. Comparison is not equation. Comparison is not equation. Comparison is not equation.
    1
  44. tedskam I have repeatedly stated that flouride is toxic, and you just ignored me every time.  If you're going to simply invent imaginary posts to respond to, why not just pretend I'm agreeing with everything you say?
    1
  45. tedskam There is nothing wrong with my comparison, so your criticism is invalid.  You are dismissed.
    1
  46. Gandalf the Great White I can assure you I am aware of what science is.  I simply do not believe that you are a scientist. My CDC link does not provide proof of herd immunity, and I did not claim it did.  My claim was that the link supported the idea of herd immunity. As you can see from the CDC link, measles has an easier time spreading to people that have not been vaccinated. Assuming you do not deny this, there is simply no room to deny herd immunity.  I cannot concieve of a way to accept that vaccination works while denying that it prevents transmission.  Those two ideas contradict themselves. As for your articles, there isn't much to say since the author has made sure to redact any actual sources.  I can't really verify his claims without sources.
    1
  47. I don't think it's a valid to suggest that "if evil people exist, then everything evil a person can do is being done right now".  If you really were THAT evil, surely you'd prefer to do something evil that benefits yourself?
    1