Originally Posted by un-midas touch
You keep oversimplifying. The claim you made was that we are somehow compromising our genetic fitness by using vaccines. I'm trying to tell you that one's immune system is not in any way an indicator of their genetic fitness, and what you say here is supporting that fact, not your alleged ones. This all before mentioning the fact that many people have overactive immune systems, causing several conditions which can't even be addressed in the context of what has been discussed yet.
So failing to minimize the pathogens existence allows more chances for it to mutate, and thus threaten us.
1. regardless, we will. 2. Is it about maximizing an individual's lifespan, or maximizing the average lifespan? Because with that deflection I think it's about time you came out and said what you're trying to say more directly already.
anything that can degrade or change DNA, is going to degrade genetic fitness, excersize and diet can actually effect your genetic fitness, envorimental stress like mercury, lead and certain forms of aluminum and nickel, can cuase genetic mutation and damage. eyc ad nauseum.
bottom line, DNA can be very fragile and damaged easily. In fact cancer itself is a genetic issue, the failure of cells to properly replicate and then the immune systems failure to recognizine and clean up the mess.
and here is a great study btw, becuase it is funny.
12,357 women in the United States were diagnosed with cervical cancer out of what 160 million women ?
, thats like, astronomically low odds.
3,909 women in the United States died from cervical cancer.*2 and it gets worse
and then this ridiculous study,
he women were followed for a median of 17.4 months after completing the vaccination regimen. The incidence of persistent HPV-16 infection was 3.8 per 100 woman-years at risk in the placebo group and 0 per 100 woman-years at risk in the vaccine group (100 percent efficacy; 95 percent confidence interval, 90 to 100; P<0.001). All nine cases of HPV-16–related cervical intraepithelial neoplasia occurred among the placebo recipients.measurement noise best describes this study, the infection rate changes is so absolutely minimal, it is beyond the ludicrous.
Here is what we can be fairly sure of about cervical cancer,HPV it is mostly harmelss, to almost every one. it cuases no cases of cancer with enough statiscal frequency for the coincidence to be taken seriously. In light of this evidence, the conclusiveness of the clinical trial rate reduction of infection "not a guarentee to prevent cancer mind you" means that,
HPV is common, 99.999999 percent harmless and not in need of a vaccine.
and when you truly wiegh the odds of vaccination, life death etc, it becomes glarinly obvious that the statitics do not lie. Most infectious ilness is mostly harmless, and very rarely met with significant challenge by the host.
and long term side effect of the vaccinated and unvaccinated have never been done, on claims of it being unethical, I think it is unethical no to do the trials. If we are in search of the truth, and the truth is that certain segments of the population are simply suscptiable to diesase, does that make all forward action that comes with a high potential for damage to our DNA, children etc a worthwhile endevor.
and that sir, is the question we would have the answer to, if we had the proper control studys, which we do not have. A placebo is water or saline, not a vaccine minus pathogen. if you want to broaden the data to rule out a problem in your adjevuncts and other ingredients.