"Vaccines don't save lives"

Raggedstar

New member
Jul 5, 2011
753
0
0
Deadcyde said:
...... not to sound callous, but this is fucking cats we're talking about here, the assholes of the animal kingdom. Hardly a case when there is no analogue in even the remotest sense for humans.
Perhaps you missed my original post, but I mentioned animals as a "food for thought" thing regarding harmful vaccine reactions, the movement of removing adjuvants from vaccines, which are all things relevant to this thread. The vaccination debate is also found in animal medicine for similar reasons, as well as people who refuse all vaccination for their pets for reasons similar to why people don't vaccinate their children. I'm trained in animal medicine, which possibly gives me a unique viewpoint in this thread. Animal and human medicine aren't that different, and advances, products, and concerns in both affect each field. Hell, we use diazepam (Valium) meant for humans to use towards animal behaviour modification and seizure treatment, as well as for anesthes1ia (with ketamine) and as a tranquilizer. The rabies vaccine in cats and dogs (at least the ones I've seen) contains the same strain used in human rabies vaccines. Not to mention animal vaccines are often created by the same companies as human vaccines and follow similar research, marketing, and testing.

I'm quite aware that vaccine fibrosarcomas aren't seen in humans (they get them from other foreign materials), and nowhere did I say "cats can get cancer from vaccines so therefore all vaccines are bad in humans" if that's what you were implying. While I have an issue with many vaccination protocols (such as over-vaccination, vaccinating non-core vaccines when not needed, and injection locations), I've seen too many cats die from URI and too many dogs from parvo to say "all vaccines are bad". I brought it up as an alternate viewpoint to the idea that vaccines can't harm anything and only provide benefits. Nothing wrong with that, especially since this thread is about vaccines and the vaccine debate in general and not specifically for humans from what I see.

Though yes, cats are assholes. I own one and I deal with other people's cats every day, so I'm aware of that fact.
 

triggrhappy94

New member
Apr 24, 2010
3,376
0
0
idarkphoenixi said:
If I remember right, Michelle Bachmann said something similar and since then a lot of people seemed to really rally against it - claiming everything from mental illness, mind control or even death as being the end result of getting these simple injections.
If I remember correctly. It became a way for the republican candidates last election to try to out conservative each other.
Rick Perry had actually required people to get the HPV (STD cancer) shots in his state, Texas, before the primary.
This led to him having to make a speech in which he said he was against cancer. Politics are fun.

OT:
I have to say my favorite "What the fuck are you talking about" is "gay people cause natural disasters"
 

Deadcyde

New member
Jan 11, 2011
187
0
0
@ragged

you're trying to draw an analogue when there is no biological basis for one, everything, from our brains to our limbs are fundamentally different. And when it comes to medicine, in no way are medicines for animals vetted and tested to the point humans are. Yes i just laughed because if they test on animals then what do they test on for animal stuff.. lol. Otherwise, the point you're trying to make might make the layman think twice but anyone with the most remote biological knowledge would know that it's a flawed analogy. But here's a layman answer just for the fun of it...

But i can eat chocolate and that's deadly to animals, in fact, studies say it's beneficial to humans.
 

Quaxar

New member
Sep 21, 2009
3,949
0
0
triggrhappy94 said:
OT:
I have to say my favorite "What the fuck are you talking about" is "gay people cause natural disasters"
Always reminds me of this SMBC comic:
http://i.imgur.com/TTAPS.gif


Deadcyde said:
@ragged

you're trying to draw an analogue when there is no biological basis for one, everything, from our brains to our limbs are fundamentally different. And when it comes to medicine, in no way are medicines for animals vetted and tested to the point humans are. Yes i just laughed because if they test on animals then what do they test on for animal stuff.. lol. Otherwise, the point you're trying to make might make the layman think twice but anyone with the most remote biological knowledge would know that it's a flawed analogy. But here's a layman answer just for the fun of it...

But i can eat chocolate and that's deadly to animals, in fact, studies say it's beneficial to humans.
I think you're making more of it than it was. She's given us a view of vaccines in animals and how there certain additives can indeed cause serious issues there, in no way was there any anti-vaccination business going on.

Animal "stuff" gets primarily tested on mice and rats first, then later on a selected group of the actual target species, like pretty much anything else including humans. Mice really do have a shitty union.
And this animal testing isn't done because they are "fundamentally different". Although there may be specific biological triggers that differ and thus may cause or suppress something compared to human usage much of a cat's biochemistry is pretty much identical to ours.

By the way chocolate is by far not "toxic to all animals", it's merely slow metabolized ones that are more prone to it. Rats and mice actually have much the same if not higher LD50 than humans.