As a physician you might be able to give me some input on this. I'm not a doctor, no medical training. From what I understand the basic principle of a vaccine is to introduce a weak variant of a disease to expose the immune system without becoming ill. Same principle as tapering off drugs just in a different way. The first vaccination wa…
As a physician you might be able to give me some input on this. I'm not a doctor, no medical training. From what I understand the basic principle of a vaccine is to introduce a weak variant of a disease to expose the immune system without becoming ill. Same principle as tapering off drugs just in a different way. The first vaccination was done by injecting a similar but harmless disease from a cow or a pig which would then give you immunity against the human version of the disease, or at least that's what they taught us in school back in the 90s.
The problem with flu, cold and other diseases is that this weak variant is not available, so they have to concoct something on their own. This in my view is why they always have to use various poisons in the vaccines. Their job is to provoke a immune response via poisoning and in that way "hack" the disease they are trying to vaccinate for. Of course this is less than perfect which is why such vaccines provide no actual immunity, only "protection".
So basically vaccines are poison potions and no different from when we treated people with arsenic or made children inhale chlorine gas to "help their lungs". The doctors mostly don't think about it because it has always been done that way. I will never take another vaccine for this reason.
My question, how right or wrong am I to think this way?
Here's how I understand it. Vaccines aren't weak variants, but usually are inactivated forms of the virus. So the inactivated form is not as virulent and won't be highly reproduced in the body. They may use animal or fetal cells in the vaccine to get the virus into the body. A virus is basically a strand of DNA it RNA surrounded by protein. Maybe if you just injected the viral proteins, the body would break down the proteins and DNA before antibodies would be produced.
It's hard to get an inactivated form of the flu virus because it keeps mutating every year. So the inactivated form from one year won't be effective the next.
To me, the difference between a vaccine and your sentence on arsenic and chlorine gas is that vaccines generally produce antibodies. The CDC changed a definition of a vaccine from something that makes you immune to a disease, to something that generates antibodies in the body. Generating antibodies in and of itself doesn't necessarily make one immune to a disease, hence the low efficacy of the flu vaccine.
I doubt I will take another vaccine in my entire life! I don't think I can trust any vaccine any longer, even those purporting to be made from an inactivated virus.
As a physician you might be able to give me some input on this. I'm not a doctor, no medical training. From what I understand the basic principle of a vaccine is to introduce a weak variant of a disease to expose the immune system without becoming ill. Same principle as tapering off drugs just in a different way. The first vaccination was done by injecting a similar but harmless disease from a cow or a pig which would then give you immunity against the human version of the disease, or at least that's what they taught us in school back in the 90s.
The problem with flu, cold and other diseases is that this weak variant is not available, so they have to concoct something on their own. This in my view is why they always have to use various poisons in the vaccines. Their job is to provoke a immune response via poisoning and in that way "hack" the disease they are trying to vaccinate for. Of course this is less than perfect which is why such vaccines provide no actual immunity, only "protection".
So basically vaccines are poison potions and no different from when we treated people with arsenic or made children inhale chlorine gas to "help their lungs". The doctors mostly don't think about it because it has always been done that way. I will never take another vaccine for this reason.
My question, how right or wrong am I to think this way?
Here's how I understand it. Vaccines aren't weak variants, but usually are inactivated forms of the virus. So the inactivated form is not as virulent and won't be highly reproduced in the body. They may use animal or fetal cells in the vaccine to get the virus into the body. A virus is basically a strand of DNA it RNA surrounded by protein. Maybe if you just injected the viral proteins, the body would break down the proteins and DNA before antibodies would be produced.
It's hard to get an inactivated form of the flu virus because it keeps mutating every year. So the inactivated form from one year won't be effective the next.
To me, the difference between a vaccine and your sentence on arsenic and chlorine gas is that vaccines generally produce antibodies. The CDC changed a definition of a vaccine from something that makes you immune to a disease, to something that generates antibodies in the body. Generating antibodies in and of itself doesn't necessarily make one immune to a disease, hence the low efficacy of the flu vaccine.
I doubt I will take another vaccine in my entire life! I don't think I can trust any vaccine any longer, even those purporting to be made from an inactivated virus.