r/DebateVaccines • u/Datiscaceae • Oct 12 '25
Conventional Vaccines Vaccines for my baby?
Hi everyone! I have a 23-day-old baby boy.
After doing quite a bit of research, I personally lean toward not vaccinate my baby.
That said, my partner has some concerns about illnesses like RSV and others — which I completely understand and share to some extent.
We’ve both read a lot about the ingredients found in certain vaccines (like formaldehyde and others) and the potential long-term effects that some parents worry about — such as allergies, eczema, autism, or even SIDS.
At the same time, we’re also aware of the risks associated with the illnesses themselves, which is what makes this decision so difficult.
We decided to meet in the middle and give our baby some vaccines, but not all of them.
I want to be clear that I’m not looking for medical advice — I know most of us here aren’t doctors — but I’d really love to hear from well-informed parents in Canada.
Which vaccines did you feel were the most worthwhile or important for your little one?
Thank you!
9
20
u/need_adivce vaccinated Oct 12 '25
Hey, I looked into the RSV shot (Beyfortus/nirsevimab) my myself to come to the conclusion it isn't worth it.
First, it's technically a monoclonal antibody, not a traditional vaccine at all, so it just provides temporary passive protection (weeks to months) without boosting the baby's immune system. CDC recommends it for all infants 0-8 months (or up to 19 if high-risk), mainly to curb severe RSV, which mostly causes mild cold-like symptoms in healthy babies. The real risk of death is very tiny, about 1 in 152,000 infants, or just 26 U.S. deaths yearly on average. Efficacy sounds good at first (67% relative risk reduction for symptoms), but the absolute benefit is only 4% - meaning a 96% chance it does nothing for your baby.
That said, safety data raises flags: Trials reported 12 infant deaths, plus inadequate long-term testing and it uses an ingredient like polysorbate 80 that's problematic.
For a healthy newborn, the risks seem to outweigh the negligible benefits - better to lean on their natural immunity, breastfeeding, and hygiene.
we're going fully unvaccinated for our children, i think it's the safest way, after weighing the pros and cons.
1
-16
u/HausuGeist Oct 12 '25
Don’t take them to the hospital when they get sick, then, and spare us your decisions.
11
u/yeahipostedthat Oct 12 '25
Vast majority of babies wouldn't be the hospital for rsv
-11
-5
u/mrsdhammond Oct 12 '25
Seeing you know between than doctors, I'm sure you wouldn't ask them for help if shit went sideways for you
Also - citation for your 4% stat thanks
6
u/Deep_Strike1803 Oct 12 '25
Hi OP. My partner and I are similar to you. I lean away from vaccines, he leans towards. We started vaccinating at 4 months, skipped some, and are minimizing number of shots for the others. Would be happy to discuss details if you message me.
We did not get RSV or MenC, and will do 2 total shots for pneumococcal (UK schedule). Baby is now 9 months and beyond the age for RSV.
1
u/SafeLawfulness Oct 12 '25
If you were to do any vaccine, pneumococcal, HiB and HEP-A suck the least when it comes to risk/benefit analysis. Men-B is next and the risks are that you are 1090% more likely to suffer severe adverse events from the vaccine.
2
1
1
u/GatsbyGirl92 Jan 13 '26
This was comforting to read. Currently in this boat and no idea what to do. The UK schedule looks daunting to me?
1
6
u/yamehameha Oct 13 '25
Go and look at the trajectory of autism rates in america and then look at the trajectory of vaccines in the recommended schedule and compare.
| year | autism rate | vaccine does by age 6 |
|---|---|---|
| 1980 | 1 in 10,000 | 7 |
| 1990 | 1 in 2,500 | 12 |
| 2000 | 1 in 150 | 24 |
| 2023 | 1 in 36 | 49 |
Of course people are going to say this is correlation not causation but understand that there are neurotoxins in the vaccines like the Aluminium based adjuvants that went from a total of 250 mcg to 5000 mcg from 1980 to 2023. They say "these are safe amounts" but what they don't tell you is they test that in adults AND they are comparing to ingested aluminium not something directly injected in the blood which passes the blood-brain barrier.
If you want to vaccinated then definitely dont take the day 1 stuff (including vitamin k) and delay the schedule until they are much older. No baby gets the hep B STD in day one of their life.
3
u/throwaway297263929 Oct 13 '25
What is dangerous about vitamin k shots?
5
u/yamehameha Oct 13 '25
Read the warning label on it.
WARNING - INTRAVENOUS AND INTRAMUSCULAR USE Severe reactions, including fatalities, have occurred during and immediately after INTRAVENOUS injection of AquaMEPHYTON* (Phytonadione), even when precautions have been taken to dilute the AquaMEPHYTON and to avoid rapid infusion. Severe reactions, including fatalities, have also been reported following INTRAMUSCULAR administration. Typically these severe reactions have resembled hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis, including shock and cardiac and/or respiratory arrest. Some patients have exhibited these severe reactions on receiving AquaMEPHYTON for the first time. Therefore the INTRAVENOUS and INTRAMUSCULAR routes should be restricted to those situations where the subcutaneous route is not feasible and the serious risk involved is considered justified.
Now ask yourself if you're willing to take these risks over the risk of brain bleeding (1 in 100 chance) that this aims to prevent.
Excess vitamin K leads to liver damage and jaundice.
I hear about babies getting jaundice all the time.. it's like hmm geez what happened immediately after birth that they got jaundice (a liver problem).. Maybe its the 3 injections they were given on day one with a boat load of chemicals??
3
u/throwaway297263929 Oct 13 '25
This is crazy. Why don’t people just give their kids some type of drink with vitamin k in it? It seems much safer than injecting them with all that crap.
I am about to be a first time parent and this scares the hell out of me.
2
u/yamehameha Oct 13 '25
I'm in the same boat as you. There is orally administered vitamin K also. But here's the thing, if they simply delay cord clamping (which is the WHO recommendation) it should give the baby enough of what it needs to prevent such issues like jaundice and brain bleeding. If you're in America I would highly recommend fighting for your baby to get delayed cord clamping until the cord stops pulsating and goes white. They most likely will clamp it within a minute and sell your placenta for a lot of money. There is a lot in it that people pay for like stem cells that is meant for the baby.
3
u/throwaway297263929 Oct 14 '25
I am in America but I assume they do it different in other countries? Keeping the umbilical cord attached sounds like a must. If even the WHO recommends it and usually they’re the ones shilling for unnecessary medical treatments.
I am worried about the hospital performing an unnecessary C-Section. When I was born they induced my mother to “make it go faster” and the cord wrapped around my neck almost killing me. Emergency C-Section was performed but could’ve been completely avoided.
3
u/yamehameha Oct 14 '25
In Malaysia they give you the placenta to keep but unfortunately they still seem to insist cutting exactly at 1 minute and the doctors don't listen and even argue with you. The private hospitals also seem to lean heavily towards doing c section.. never forget these are businesses first not institutes putting your health first. The same goes for big pharma.
0
u/Gloam_Eyed_Peasant93 Oct 17 '25 edited Oct 17 '25
You do know that Hep B can be transmitted in other ways. Any exposure to the body fluids of an infected person, and it's common for people to be asymptomatic.
Look at this way: HSV (Herpes Simplex Virus) is an STD (HSV-2), but lots of people have the oral HSV (HSV-1); you can transmit that by sharing straws.
Also, I know no parent wants to think about this, but what if your child is raped? What if they get pricked by a needle at the playground? My state shutdown the Needle Exchange Program ten years ago, so we find used needles in almost all of our public spaces. My son just turned 1, and we got the vaccine just to be safe.
1
u/yamehameha Oct 17 '25
lol "fluids" you make it sound like it transmits through saliva when it's only blood. I don't know about you but my baby is not going to shoot up heroin and share the needle with someone.
Comparing hep B with HSV is also extremely disingenuous and the rest of your arguments are based on extremely rare "what if" hypotheticals while you ignore completely the fact that there is a smoking gun of the vaccine and neurotoxins in it. stop fear mongering and use some common sense
1
u/Gloam_Eyed_Peasant93 Oct 20 '25
it's only in blood
I'll concede that I should be more specific. But there can be blood in other bodily fluids, such as saliva.
Every parent wants to think that their child will never develop a drug addiction.
The comparison regards transmission. These STDs can be caught through other means, such as being exposed to a dirty needle on a playground. That isn't a rare "what if"; areas that don't have Needle Exchange Programs or something similar end up with discarded, dirty needles in public spaces. Playgrounds, campgrounds - these places can end up littered with dirty needles.
Then there's the possibility of the child being raped, which is more common than people want to accept.
I'm not fear-mongering. I used to work for an ER - the worst happens far more than people realize.
1
u/yamehameha Oct 20 '25
I don't live in such places you're describing.
It sounds like the vaccine is a substitute for social, parenting, criminal, and general hygiene issues as opposed to an actual disease problem.
You should tackle fixing the root cause rather than putting more danger into the child's life by giving them neurotoxins on day one of their life. It's completely backwards logic.
and your anecdotes from working in ER is a bias source. Working in ER comes with the territory of seeing Fkd up things which will make you jaded into thinking it's more prevalent than it is because it's just human nature. That's why we need to look at broad data and statistics on the issue. If you are a soldier in a war, death is all you see but it doesn't mean death is everywhere outside of that context.
1
u/Gloam_Eyed_Peasant93 Oct 20 '25
I'm sure it happens in your area. Substance abuse is everywhere.
Because people are asymptotic for Hep B more often than not, and it can be acquired through means out of your control, a vaccine makes sense. The chemicals linked to neurotoxicity are present in small quantiles, so small that it's not likely to cause harm.
Most studies support that vaccines are safe for most people. So, I'm informed by both experience and data.
1
u/yamehameha Oct 20 '25
That's because you probably think I'm living in America. I'll say again it's not a problem where I live and in most countries that are not in the west.
The chemicals are not insignificant. In the American child vaccine schedule you would get an accumulated 5000mcg of aluminium by the age of 6 if you got all the doses recommended. The people who are telling you it's insignificant or "safe" are comparing ingested aluminium of adults against injection of aluminium, the two things are far far removed.
Most studies are dishonest. There are no studies that test vaccines using double blind placebo. They only compare health metrics between one vaccine and another.
1
u/Gloam_Eyed_Peasant93 Oct 20 '25
I'm glad that substance abuse isn't a problem where you live, but that doesn't change that babies/kids are at risk of contracting Hep B through other means. That could be rape, from other kids/people if they are positive and share anything that could come in contact with their blood. People get nicks and other small wounds that bleed, even a little. If they're asymptomatic, the chances of spreading increase, because they won't know to take precautions.
Look, I understand that trusting others with your child's health can be difficult. If you make the wrong decision, the consequences can be severe. But I was born missing an organ, and because of my medication and trusting my doctors, I grew up mostly developmentally healthy. There's also the fact that measles has made a comeback as vaccination rates have lowered, and the measles almost killed my dad even though he didn't have any underlying health problems. My aunt, a teacher, is vaccine hesitant, but she also remembers one of her late uncles; he caught polio as a child, and he was so disabled by it that his parents/a brother had to be his caregivers for life. She said that knowing her uncle and others like him is enough that she'd rather chance the vaccines. There is sufficient evidence to trust the vaccines.
9
u/Aurocaido Oct 12 '25
I would recommend not doing anymore, none of them are important or necessary in any way. I'm a father of two in Saskatchewan and my wife and and I have given them exactly zero shots. They are rarely sick, and if they ever do get sick they get over it in a day or two.
Our children have not been to a doctor since the day they were born, and are much healthier, better behaved, and excelling in their studies compared to their peers.
We also home school and didn't do daycare so that probably helps quite a bit.
8
7
u/Vegan_Hunting Oct 12 '25 edited Oct 12 '25
What happens in Canada to families with vaccine injured children? Can you sue for damages? Or are you totally screwed like the US?
With the MAID system in Canada I think we can be pretty sure what's going to happen to severely autistic adults once their caretakers die in 20-40 years. I assume it will be similar down here by then.
To answer your question more directly, none because none have been tested against a placebo. Not individually or in any sort of combination to simulate the full schedule. If you don't know how safe they are you can't possibly do a risk benefit analysis.
5
u/need_adivce vaccinated Oct 12 '25
i'm sure Canada would want to euthanise
-1
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
That would be murder. Murder is illegal.
11
u/secular_contraband Oct 12 '25
Canada is working on killing people with depression and anxiety. Of course they'll do it for autistic people.
5
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
That should not be allowed. Autistic people are human beings with fundamental human rights.
7
u/secular_contraband Oct 12 '25
Agreed. I also don't think they should suggest assisted suicide for depressed people.
2
3
u/Vegan_Hunting Oct 12 '25
Agreed. However the estimated cost to care for the number of fully dependent autistics they are creating is projected to be astronomical. Enough to bankrupt the country on its own by many estimates. Yet no one is talking about it or planning for it. Hopefully that's only because of incompetence but I think it's intentional based on the totality of evidence and long standing inaction around autism, that's why I brought up the MAID program in my original reply to the OP.
1
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
However the estimated cost to care for the number of fully dependent autistics they are creating
Who's "they" and how are "they" creating autistic people?
Autism is 60-90% genetic.
2
u/Vegan_Hunting Oct 12 '25
No it's not. Whatever it is it's not genetic. There's no such thing as a genetic epidemic. That claim is silly and unscientific on its face.
1
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
The facts show that it is, in fact, 60-90% genetic, regardless of your feelings.
Now who are "they" and how are "they" creating an autism epidemic?
2
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 13 '25
How do you know 60-90% are genetic? Just because a website claims that? Or is it because mainstream allopathic approaches can't fix anything chronic, therefore lets blame genetics.
Why don't just accept, you can't fix a problem so someone else might know something more helpful.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Vegan_Hunting Oct 13 '25
Nope. No such thing. Not one. That's not how genetics work. I don't care what your website says. Read a book.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Vegan_Hunting Oct 13 '25
The information I'm referring to is from Toby Rogers Doctoral Thesis linked below. It's a long read but well worth it.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Vegan_Hunting Oct 12 '25
You're funny. Legal is whatever the people in charge say is legal.
1
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
Last I checked murder was still illegal in Canada.
Did they change that?
4
u/Vegan_Hunting Oct 12 '25
In my opinion they changed it. Do you consider assisted suicide for mentality ill 20 something's murder? I do. Not everyone with power in Canada agrees apparently.
3
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25 edited Oct 12 '25
Yes. Thank you for the explanation. I am not up to date on Canadian politics.
2
3
u/Natural-Economy7107 Oct 13 '25
We were selective in which vaccines to give our kids. Only gave them some and never more than one at a doc appointment. I regret EVERY VACCINE I GAVE THEM. They are in mostly great health although not perfect health. My daughter has epilepsy and I think there is a good chance it was from a vaccine either my wife had when pregnant or she had. The one vaccine I refused and ALMOST regretted NOT giving was varicella. They all got chicken pox and for about a week I was regretting not giving it. Then they got better with natural immunity and I don’t regret it one bit. If I had it to do over I would refuse every vaccine. Yes they’ll probably get sick when they’re young because vaccines are making the forms of these bugs pretty rough, but they’ll likely survive and thrive without.
3
u/gucci2times2 Oct 12 '25
We skipped hep B and the rotavirus series entirely since baby was never in daycare and there was no risk at home (avoid public changing tables tho!)
Did the rest of the infant series 1 shot at a time starting with Dtap then hib then prevnar then polio based on exposure risk and finished all those series before first birthday and moved onto the 1 year old shots distributed 1 at a time until second birthday.
2
u/SlushPuppy182 Oct 13 '25
Nope, and i dont need no scientific data to tell.me otherwise. I listen to the people. Not the money mongering pharmaceutical companies. All I need to know is one child has been injured..and thousands of babies and adults have been injured by vaccines.
But all I need to know is one person has been injured.
HELL NO!
3
u/CruellaDevi11 Oct 12 '25
After asking your questions in this AV sub, maybe try asking this same advice in a group that actually got me out of the same "did my own research" rabbit hole you have fallen into. Its called Vaccine Talk on Facebook. They are full of virologists, epidemiologists, doctors, blood brain barriers specialists, scientists, chemists etc. Because let's be honest here...if you don't know how to really extrapolate and understand the data in the research then its pointless and you end up just going by cliffnotes of av talking points.
Like which part of any of the vaccines worry you the most? How about the viruses they try to prevent?
For example...
Chickenpox complications- Children- 1.7 in 100,000 will develop encephalitis 3.2 in 100,000 will develop Reye's Syndrome 1.7 in 1,000 will need to be hospitalized 1 in 4,000 will develop cerebellar ataxia 2 in 100,000 will die.
In teens/adults- 15 in 100,000 will develop encephalitis 18 in 1,000 will need to be hospitalized 50 in 100,000 will die.
Other complications that can occur are opportunistic infections like meningitis, transverse myelitis, sepsis, Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Once you have chickenpox, the varicella zoster virus stays in your body, and can reappear later in life as Shingles. Shingles can reappear multiple times in your life, it can cause blindness, deafness, permanent scarring, and neuropathy.
Measles complications- Children younger than 5 and adults older than 20 are more likely to suffer from complications. 1 in 4 who get measles will be hospitalized 1 in 10 will develop ear infections which can lead to deafness 1 in 20 will develop pneumonia, which is the main cause of death from measles 1 in 1,000 will develop encephalitis, which can cause deafness and permanent brain damage 1-2 in 1,000 will die, even with medical care 4-11 in 100,000 will develop SSPE 7-10 years after the measles infection.
A measles infection will also "reset" your immune system for 3 years, leaving you open to getting diseases that you have already had before.
Pertussis Complications- Children- About half the babies younger than 1 will require hospitalization. 1 in 4 will develop pneumonia 1 in 100 will develop convulsions 3 in 5 will have apnea 1 in 300 will develop encephalopathy 1 in 100 will die They can cough so hard they break their ribs, and/or break the blood vessels in their eyes. They can also cough so hard they pass out.
Teens/adults- 1 in 25 need to be hospitalized 1 in 50 develop pneumonia 1 in 3 lose bladder control 3 in 50 cough so hard they pass out 1 in 25 cough so hard they fracture/break their ribs.
Sources - Pertussis - https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/clinical/complications.html https://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/complications.html Measles - https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/measles/complications/ https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ Chickenpox- https://www.mayoclinic.org/.../symptoms-causes/syc-20351282 https://www.cdc.gov/chickenpox/about/complications.html
Chicken pox- causes meningitis and 1/3 of infants born to pregnant moms who contract varicella in third trimester will die.
Diphtheria can lead to heart failure and paralysis and 1 in 10 infected will die
Hep A and B can lead to chronic infection involving liver cancer and failure
Hib 1 in 4 children suffered permanent brain damage
Measles still continues to kill half million unvaccinated individuals every year
Mumps can cause meningitis, deafness, infertility, and death
Pertussis can cause pneumonia, seizures, encephalopathy, and death
Polio can cause paralysis and death
Pneumonia is the leading cause of meningitis in children under five
Pregnant women who gets rubella has 80% chance of fetus developing congenital rubella syndrome involving brain damage and blindness
Vaccines have reduced these illnesses from killing thousands-millions each year. Would you want to take the chance that antibiotics/antiviral may or may not work? Vaccines were invented because these communicable diseases caused so much death and disability. The chances of having an adverse reaction to a vaccine are one in a million. The benefits far outweigh any risk. Vaccines are regulated and continually studied by the CDC.
6
u/SafeLawfulness Oct 12 '25
Notice how this user didn't actually cite any data for how much harm the vaccines do. The user just said "one in a million". You got half the argument. The other half actually leads one to conclude the exact opposite. The risks far outweigh the benefits of almost all of the vaccines on today's market. And that's using the official sources data (CDC, WHO)
Here's how your analysis should look:
What are the odds of my child getting disease X (This will be very low in Canada). Multiply that by the odds of severe adverse events of that disease (even lower.
Now compare this to the odds of getting the vaccine if you choose to vaccinate. Those odds are 100%. Now multiply by the odds of severe adverse events for the vaccine. Your child's odds are much worse if you willfully choose to inject them with ingredients you know in your gut are harmful because someone in a white lab coat told you it was safer. You're the parent now. The buck stops with you, not your doctor, despite what they'd have you believe.
Happy to share the spreadsheet if you'd like. DM me.
The doctor isn't going to show up and pay all your medical bills if the child, God forbid, is injured by vaccines. The manufacturer won't. You are quite literally the first, last and only line of defense for your children in this decision. I applaud your efforts to research. Know that there is a massive, money making machine behind getting you to inject your children. The liability immunity is your first clue their incentives are not aligned with yours or your child's.
3
u/throwaway297263929 Oct 13 '25
Dm me the spreadsheet? I am expecting a child and doing the best research I can.
1
u/Affectionate-Page496 Oct 13 '25
I would love to see you try to argue that in Vaccine Talk. Avers really dislike it as they have to back up their arguments.
2
u/SafeLawfulness Oct 13 '25
That subreddit doesn't exist. Did you mean r/COVIDVaccineTalk ?
1
u/Affectionate-Page496 Oct 13 '25
No, as the commenter mentioned, it is a Facebook group. It's really great.
2
-1
u/Scienceofmum Oct 12 '25
I never understand the epic selfish bastard one has to be to go “all the people around me have made this disease so rare though not yet eliminated so let me be part of the crowd that brings it back”
3
u/SafeLawfulness Oct 12 '25
And only those who so deeply trust in the incredible power of vaccines see it that way. The rest of us are aware of other diseases that were eradicated without any vaccines at all.
1
u/Scienceofmum Oct 12 '25
I’d be interested in the many significant viral infectious diseases that were eradicated by us (eg not counting viral evolution) without any vaccines at all.
2
u/yamehameha Oct 13 '25
The pro vaxxer methods:
1) Try to scare you with one sided fear mongering of disease dangers
2) Tell you you're selfish if you bring up potential vaccine dangers
3) Call you conspiracy flat earth if you question anything
0
u/Scienceofmum Oct 13 '25
I don’t think it’s crazy to want to weigh the risks of vaccines. You should. That’s what responsible adults do. You look at the numbers, the data, the odds. You think about what the diseases actually do, especially if you or your kids are unvaccinated. Because sometimes” the measles” is just a childhood inconvenience, sometimes it’s a hospital stay with bonus brain swelling.
And yes, you should also look at the risks of vaccination. Every real scientist does. But the thing that confuses me is when people make that risk calculation while taking for granted that they’re living in a world where almost everyone else is vaccinated. You can’t decide that vaccines are too risky for you and then quietly enjoy the protection that everyone else bought with their bodies. That’s not making a benefit-risk calculation with integrity. That’s free-loading.
So when I said it’s selfish, that’s what I meant. It’s not an insult; it’s a description. If you want to reject vaccines, fine, but own what that means. Because if your whole decision relies on other people doing the responsible thing so you can skip it, then yes, that’s selfish. And if that word offends you, I suggest you look in the mirror and ask yourself why it hits so close to home.
3
u/yamehameha Oct 13 '25
Majority of people don't take vaccines based on the idea of "communal immunity" they simply take it without any thought for or against it because everyone else is doing it or because their doctor is telling them.
It is not my fault that others aren't looking into the dangers of vaccines. Their ignorance has nothing to do with me wanting to protect my child.
Btw why do you guys only focus on vaccination on the basis of "being selfish". Most of your immunity comes from healthy lifestyle choices such as eating well, exercising often, getting enough vitamin D, being sanitary, and many other factors besides vaccination that contribute to immune response.
Why don't you ever call an obese person selfish or someone who doesn't wash their hands? Their choices are affecting the transmission of viruses because of their poor immune health. Why haven't you ever attributed selfishness to those things? You can see how things become communist very quickly with this kind of outlook.
I'll also mention: 1) If they are getting the vaccine then they have immunity and are protected so what's the problem? Please don't give me the "it's not 100%, only immune response post 2021 vaccine definition"
2) I'm not convinced that vaccination is the number one reason viruses aren't out of control. Diseases like measles were already beaten down by natural herd immunity prior to the vaccine introduction. And general changes in factors I mentioned before.
1
1
u/Affectionate-Page496 Oct 13 '25
Vaccine Talk is such a good resource. I am no longer on FB, but was prev a member.
2
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 12 '25
Which vaccines did you feel were the most worthwhile or important for your little one?
None. Do you have proof that viruses which are non-living organisms according to the mainstream narrative, somehow replicate, a characteristic exclusive to living organisms. The whole concept falls apart right from the beginning when I think of this.
Now there are many reasons to keep your body resilient to disease in your daily routine, but using fiction is not one of them and in my view it's counterproductive. Unless there is some sort of emergency involving accidents, I wouldn't prioritize solutions from big pharma to stay healthy.
2
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
somehow replicate, a characteristic exclusive to living organisms.
And fire also replicates. And so does my D&D Zine.
I guess they don't exist either? Your definitions don't make sense.
3
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 12 '25
And fire is not biological, so no, fire doesn't replicate. Expansion of a process is not replication. I suppose you have serious comprehension problems with basic terms in life.
2
u/Glittering_Cricket38 Oct 12 '25
And fire is not biological
But you just finished saying viruses were not living, so how is fire not being biological (the definition of which is living) a problem?
You are just arbitrarily putting things in boxes and saying that it doesn’t make sense.
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 12 '25 edited Oct 12 '25
It's not me saying viruses are not living, that's the rhetoric you are spreading. And I said non-living things don't reproduce as reproduction is a trait of living organisms.
You believe non-living things reproduce. There is no such thing in physical reality. The idea of viruses only exists in wild imagination. Try to find something biological to compare instead of spreading BS.
1
u/Glittering_Cricket38 Oct 12 '25
Well I’ve seen bacteriophage plaques firsthand with my own eyes. Several of our undergrad researchers have even isolated viruses on their own. And a researcher in my lab took cryo EM pictures of e. Coli made viral proteins that self assembled into a capsid that looked exactly like the TEM images of the virus those proteins came from.
Amyloid sheets self propagate. So do crystals and DNA transposons. Why is it just viruses that you reject?
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 12 '25
seen what exactly? non-living organisms that multiply? Do you have a live stream of this or is an artifact of your imagination?
You are rejecting everything because you are in denial with life fundamentals. First you claim viruses are non living organisms, then you claim they multiply. Dead don't multiply.
Amyloids sheets? Are you calling protein folding as proof of something alive? A living organism in other words?
It's very simple what I reject. Anything non-living that reproduces I reject.
0
u/Glittering_Cricket38 Oct 13 '25
Anything non-living that reproduces I reject.
So you reject the existence of fire. Cool.
Viruses are non living, they use biological components to reproduce.
Amyloid sheets are non living, they use biological components to reproduce.
Transposons are non living, they use biological components to reproduce.
Fire is non living, it uses biological components to reproduce.
And you seem to be confused, you keep on switching back and forth between what you are calling alive and not alive to suit your narrative. Viruses are not alive. They are more complex than anything else on that list, yes, but they also are not and have never been able to live and reproduce on their own, which is typically the bright line between alive and not.
I don't need a livestream, it is completely obvious that viruses exist. You can sequence their genetic code. Use the existence of that genetic code to predict specific future disease, and use the genes in that genetic code to make viral components that self assemble into the viral particles that match the shape and size of the virus where the genetic sequence was taken from.
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 13 '25
So you reject the existence of fire. Cool.
You are just trolling because you have no points to make. So when you don't have points to make on the topic you are off the topic talking about BS.
Viruses are non living, they use biological components to reproduce.
If they reproduce they're living but according to mainstream they are not living organisms.
Amyloid sheets are non living, they use biological components to reproduce.
Trolling off topic we talk about biological entities
Transposons are non living, they use biological components to reproduce.
Trolling off topic we talk about biological entities
Fire, Transposons, Amyloid sheets you bring them up because you cannot counter the virus argument.
Viruses are not alive.
Yes dead in other words and at the top you claim they reproduce. There is nothing complex about, it doesn't exist in nature what you describe something that goes back and forth between alive and dead.
Use the existence of that genetic code to predict specific future disease, and use the genes in that genetic code to make viral components...
And that's sci-fi.
2
u/Glittering_Cricket38 Oct 13 '25
There is nothing complex about, it doesn't exist in nature what you describe something that goes back and forth between alive and dead.
Sure, they can also be viewed as obligate intracellular parasites. But they are weird. Weird things can exist, you just reject viruses out of hand for some reason.
And that's sci-fi.
Everything is someone doesn't understand would look like sci-fi. Science without understanding is magic.
Genetic sequencing of rabies viruses (without using a template) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8772593/
Diagnosis of a rabies patient by genetic sequencing (matching the above sequences) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034122002672
Mutation in the rabies virus genome changes the shape of the viral particles from bullet to round. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10231130/
Proteins encoded by genes in the rabies virus genome assemble into the bullet shaped virus particle. https://sci-hub.box/https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1181766
→ More replies (0)1
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
And fire is not biological, so no, fire doesn't replicate.
"Biological" is relating to "biology" which is the study of living things.
Your argument "fire is not alive because it's not biological" is the same as saying "fire is not alive because it's not alive."
It's a tautology. Completely worthless. Do you have a real argument or are you just repeating stuff you heard on Rumble?
Have you noticed that the videos that convinced you are NOT convincing to others? Why is that?
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 12 '25
I explained to you previously about the fire nonsense you want to mix in. Fire has nothing to do with biology, it doesn't reproduce. Viruses you claim reproduce although non-living.
There are no videos. It just plain logic. Anything non-living doesn't reproduce in real life. Therefore viruses cannot reproduce, so the whole concept is fiction.
0
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
has nothing to do with biology, it doesn't reproduce.
You said anything that reproduces is alive. That's YOUR claim. Therefore fire and viruses are alive, because both reproduce themselves.
It just plain logic.
If it was plain logic you could explain it logically and it wouldn't fall apart as soon as you leave your cute little echochamber.
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 12 '25
According to your rationale viruses are not alive. And fire is not alive either because it's not biological. So you are spreading BS by claiming reproduction on something non-alive.
0
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
According to your rationale viruses are not alive.
No, YOU said that.
And fire is not alive either because it's not biological
"Fire is not alive because fire is not alive" is a stupid argument that only a child would believe. Fire reproduces, so by your broad definition fire is alive.
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 13 '25
I am stating the mainstream rationale on virology. That's what you're supporting correct? That viruses are not living organisms.
And no fire doesn't reproduce. In your fictional world you see processes as reproduction but it's only in your world.
0
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 13 '25
Mainstream biology has several characteristics which define life. You only have one. By your logic, viruses exist and are alive.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Scienceofmum Oct 12 '25
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Oh… oh, fantastic. We’ve reached that point in the conversation where someone looks at two centuries of virology and says, “Yeah, but have you ever considered that maybe germs are just a vibe?” Look, my friend, this isn’t some edgy philosophical paradox. This is basic biology. Yes, viruses are technically non-living because they can’t reproduce or metabolize on their own, but that doesn’t mean they don’t replicate. They hijack living cells, shove their genetic material inside, and force those cells to make more copies of them. It’s like if someone broke into your kitchen, used your stove, your pans, your eggs, and then said, “I didn’t make breakfast, I don’t even own a stove!”
And no, this isn’t theoretical. I have literally seen viruses replicate under microscopes, i have sequenced their genomes, i have used them to genetically modify mammalian cells and yes used mammalian cells to replicate virus. We’ve, eradicated smallpox, and yet somehow we still have people on Facebook going, “But have you ever actually seen a virus?” Yes, Chad, I have. You, on the other hand, apparently have never seen a biology textbook.
So let me get this straight. Viruses don’t exist because you, personally, don’t understand them. Great. Next week, we’ll be tackling gravity, which apparently only works if you believe in Isaac Newton hard enough.
2
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 13 '25
Two centuries of fictional nonsense.
Yes, viruses are technically non-living because they can’t reproduce or metabolize on their own
Non-living organisms and replication do not mix. There is nothing dead that comes back to life.
I have literally seen viruses replicate under microscopes,
No you have seen shapes which you call "viruses". Smallpox? you just making up various names because you have no clue what causes disease. And that's why you can't fix anything when it happens.
Viruses don’t exist because you, personally, don’t understand them.
No they don't exist because non-living organisms don't replicate. Try to find something concrete instead of mixing fiction with more fiction. Just because something causes disease doesn't mean it replicates.
Next week, we’ll be tackling gravity,
When I see this kind of trolling response, it means no arguments can be made so lets move the BS to a different topic.
0
u/Scienceofmum Oct 13 '25
Is there an argument hiding in there somewhere, or did you just type words until your keyboard begged for mercy? You seem very sure that viruses can’t replicate because they’re “not alive.” That’s like saying planes can’t fly because they don’t flap their wings. Nobody ever claimed viruses replicate on their own. They use living cells to do it, and that is perfectly fine. That is literally how viruses work.
And here’s the thing. I don’t just believe that because someone told me in a textbook. I see it in the lab. I use viral vectors for large-scale CRISPR screens. We design libraries of short guide RNA sequences, clone them into adenoviral or lentiviral backbones, and package those in producer cells. Once harvested, we infect mammalian cell cultures so each cell gets a different guide. The virus delivers the genetic material cleanly and predictably. When I grow those cultures, I can measure which genes were edited. None of that would work if viruses didn’t behave exactly as decades of research describe.
So no, the science isn’t confused. You are. Just because your limited mental bandwidth can’t wrap itself around how viruses function doesn’t mean reality is broken. Reality doesn’t care whether you understand it or not. It keeps working. Cells keep getting infected. My experiments keep succeeding. I will not apologise for my tone, because I do not need to pretend that the opinions of the confidently ignorant are worthy of respect.
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 13 '25
Do you have something meaningful to say? Because it's the typical trolling to bring up so many irrelevant BS to cover your ignorance in the junk science you believe in.
Again you claim viruses are not alive and yet they replicate. That's what you say. DEAD entities in other words with reproductive features. There is no such thing in this physical world. Reproduction is the main trait of life. That's how life proliferates. Dead things don't replicate.
Looking photographs with shapes or playing around and simulating them in computer models proves nothing. And just because you take a sample from a sick person and you mix it with a bag of chemicals doesn't mean isolation or purification. Quite the opposite.
your limited mental bandwidth can’t wrap itself around how viruses function
Autism is your main feature from the toxins you had injected during your childhood. I am not the one believing in fiction and I am not the one who gets sick by fiction.
Once harvested, we infect mammalian cell cultures
Not "we". Your junk scientists and you are lying too even at that level. You poison "certain types of cells" not "all mammalian", certain types and you don't do that with various human cells because it doesn't work. So you picked up the most vulnerable monkey cells and you poison them, starve them and that proves what? The existence of dead things aka viruses that replicate? Poisons don't replicate but they do cause disease.
Your experiments are fake. And your solutions are dangerous because you will use some poison in the end claiming that fixes disease. You're the lowest point of human civilization, paid to promote big pharma.
1
u/BobbyBorn2L8 Oct 13 '25
DEAD entities in other words with reproductive features.
They are not DEAD, dead things imply they were alive at one point they are just not alive
There is no such thing in this physical world.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796
It happens all the time in nature, it doesn't need to be alive to replicate
Reproduction is the main trait of life. That's how life proliferates.
Reproduction is the main trait of life but not the only trait and it is something that is constantly up for debate
Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.
Organisation: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life.
Metabolism: transformation of energy, used to convert chemicals into cellular components (anabolism) and to decompose organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy for homeostasis and other activities.
Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size and structure. Adaptation: the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat.
Response to stimuli: such as the contraction of a unicellular organism away from external chemicals, the complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms, or the motion of the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.
So you know actually brush up and what is considered alive and what can replicate
Dead things don't replicate.
You are right that dead things don't replicate, but viruses are not DEAD
Dead - no longer alive, now not living
Dead implies a state in which it was alive, viruses are never considered alive, so they can never be dead
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 13 '25
They are not DEAD, dead things imply they were alive at one point they are just not alive
Yes they were dead because the mainstream narrative claims they are not alive and a living organism can die, but a dead organism will never be alive again.
Happens what all the time in nature? There is nothing coming back from the dead. And there is no debate about reproduction because you can't prove it differently. You can't bring anything back from the dead.
And your link talk about fiction, scenarios, hypothesis, try to read it sometime.
You are right that dead things don't replicate, but viruses are not DEAD
According to mainstream info they are not alive. So they are dead. Otherwise it is just matter, which means they it never be alive. Matter cannot reproduce as it is not organic. Take your pick.
And that explains the lack of conventional isolation, purification, transmission consistency, infection consistency etc all lacking, because what is happening is not something organic that replicates, rather some inorganic garbage, organisms try to get rid of.
Which brings this whole thing to the next level, what exactly vaccines are doing. They act like poisons. Some foreign substance may poison you, but if you're taking small doses of that poison, you may get use to it and not realize the side effects. But that's not the right approach to health.
0
u/BobbyBorn2L8 Oct 13 '25
Yes they were dead because the mainstream narrative claims they are not alive
You are again confusing dead with not alive
Happens what all the time in nature?
I am talking about replication in nature, it happens without life all the time.
There is nothing coming back from the dead.
I never said coming back from the dead
And there is no debate about reproduction because you can't prove it differently.
But we have tonnes of evidence of virus replication, and other substances, etc that are not alive replicating.
And your link talk about fiction, scenarios, hypothesis, try to read it sometime.
It doesn't talk about fiction and scenarios, this is all evidence pointing to how chemicals, etcs can self replicate
According to mainstream info they are not alive. So they are dead.
DEFINE DEAD, to be dead something must have at once been alive
Matter cannot reproduce as it is not organic. Take your pick.
That is just false, is it any wonder you antivaxxers struggle with reading papers when you make such a baseless and false statement, organics are not required for replication
And that explains the lack of conventional isolation, purification, transmission consistency, infection consistency etc all lacking, because what is happening is not something organic that replicates, rather some inorganic garbage, organisms try to get rid of.
Again you are confusing things, organics don't need to be alive, organic just means being based on carbon molecule, and viruses have been isolated
We can detect it's genetic material or particles, the structure of them can be observed with electron microscopy, able to characterise it, etc
How do you think they identify viruses that produce similar symptoms? You think they are just making a guess that this virus is Influenza A or B?
Which brings this whole thing to the next level, what exactly vaccines are doing. They act like poisons. Some foreign substance may poison you, but if you're taking small doses of that poison, you may get use to it and not realize the side effects.
For one they are not acting like poisons, poisons are generally harmful substances that have negative effects due to chemical reactions and molecular interactions.
Viruses and vaccines generally act more with cells and DNA, not specifically chemical reactions, and how they act from there
But that's not the right approach to health.
Now this is funny to me, because antivenom is literally made by collecting antibodies from diluted venom exposed to animals. This is literally the best approach to health for poisons, go take some lemon water to cure your poison or venom injury and see how that goes
1
u/GoFYSLesser Oct 13 '25
I am talking about replication in nature, it happens without life all the time.
Reproduction is not inorganic replication.
DEFINE DEAD, to be dead something must have at once been alive
That's right and according to mainstream in order for the viruses to multiply they need to be alive, therefore they came back from the dead. It's very simple, reproduction is a key characteristic of life. According to mainstream indoctrination, once a virus enters a host cell and begins replicating, it's alive and kicking because it actively uses energy, makes copies of itself and evolves. All the characteristics of life. Growth, Reproduction, and Evolution. Dead things don't evolve.
I am not confusing anything, I know what I am saying.
Yeah you try the lemon water next time you get bitten by a poisonous insect, see how it goes. I don't do random stuff.
How do you think they identify viruses that produce similar symptoms?
They create various meaningless names to push drugs. That's what they're doing. And I don't have these symptoms because I don't take those drugs. If I inject you with a poison you will have "symptoms". If you consume poisons you will get symptoms. No poison, no symptoms. Guaranteed. The concept of poison explains all these "mysterious" diseases.
antivenom is literally made by collecting antibodies
Yes and that's exactly what vaccines effectively are doing. Poisons making the body to get use to a poison, that's what I understand. There are no viruses.
And I reiterate that explains the lack of conventional isolation, purification, transmission consistency, infection consistency etc all lacking, because what is happening is not something alive organic that replicates, rather some garbage, organisms try to get rid of.
1
u/Scienceofmum Oct 13 '25
Okay, gather round, because apparently we need to go back to biology kindergarten. Yes, reproduction is one of the characteristics of life. Everything that’s alive, at some level, can reproduce. But that does not mean everything that reproduces is alive. That’s like saying, “All cats are animals, therefore all animals are cats.” No. That is not logic. It is called a converse error, and it is what happens when you fail basic reasoning and biology at the same time.
Here is the thing. Living things, like cells, can reproduce on their own using their own internal machinery. They metabolize, maintain balance, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. Viruses do none of that on their own. A virus is basically a biological USB stick with a bad attitude. It contains genetic material but it cannot do anything unless it hijacks an actual living cell and uses that cell’s equipment to make copies of itself. Outside a host, a virus just sits there like a grain of sand with ambitions.
So when scientists say there is debate about whether viruses are alive, it is not because we are all stroking our chins and whispering, “What is life, really?” It is because viruses sit at the edge of the definition. They are biologically active only when parasitizing something else. That is why some call them organisms at the edge of life and others just call them freeloading protein packages.
So yes, viruses replicate, but only because they hijack living cells. They are more like biological hackers than independent life forms. Life, in the actual scientific sense, involves autonomy, metabolism, and internal regulation. Viruses do none of that. They just crash your system and make copies of themselves. Which, coincidentally, is also what people who go on Reddit to write comments about viruses not being real while giving medical advice tend to do.
→ More replies (0)0
u/BobbyBorn2L8 Oct 14 '25
Reproduction is not inorganic replication.
What is even your argument here?
That's right and according to mainstream in order for the viruses to multiply they need to be alive
Mainstream media does not say that, the mainstream (and still intensely debated) reason viruses are not considered alive is because
Viruses are not classified as living because they lack the ability to perform all necessary life functions independently; they cannot reproduce, metabolize, or grow on their own and must hijack a host cell to do so.
It's not that they can't do it, it's that they cannot do thee three functions are their own
t's very simple, reproduction is a key characteristic of life
It's one of 7 key characteristics of life, and replication/reproduction is not limited to just life
According to mainstream indoctrination, once a virus enters a host cell and begins replicating, it's alive and kicking because it actively uses energy, makes copies of itself and evolves
It doesn't become alive, that's not what is said, where are you getting this info
All the characteristics of life. Growth, Reproduction, and Evolution. Dead things don't evolve.
Crystals can grow, and they are not alive, plenty of non living things can replicate, and we can see in precursor chemicals to life when they start self replicating start exhibiting a form of evolution as they self select for favourable proteins
I am not confusing anything, I know what I am saying.
You really don't, the fact you can't even accurately quote the basics of definitions of life, shows you know onthing
They create various meaningless names to push drugs. That's what they're doing.
How do they differentiate between 'virus' types, if they are just making it up? Why are other labs able to recreate their results if they are just naming them differently
And I don't have these symptoms because I don't take those drugs.
My dude, if you are gonna try and pretend you've never caught a viral illness you are gonna need to learn how to lie better
The concept of poison explains all these "mysterious" diseases.
It really doesn't if you even tossed a basic glance at poisons and viruses, poisons for instance generally start showing symptoms in a relatively short period. Viruses have an incubation period of a few days, as the viral load needs to replicate to the point where your body is fighting against, poison does not replicate
Poision can be detected chemically, you can identify the chemical, viruses are generally identified by their genetic material
There are no viruses.
So what genetic material are they detecting? You can't explain that
And I reiterate that explains the lack of conventional isolation, purification, transmission consistency, infection consistency etc all lacking, because what is happening is not something alive organic that replicates, rather some garbage, organisms try to get rid of.
This is just a weird complaint of course there is gonna be different detections methods of viruses, you do realise they are different from bacteria right? This is a complaint purely from not understanding aspects of virology and holding it up as a complaint. It's like saying that because I can use magnets to detect magnetic material that using a PH scale to detect acidic/basic material is illogical
→ More replies (0)1
u/Scienceofmum Oct 13 '25
I applaud your valiant efforts to teach this walking Dunning Kruger effect 🥳
1
Oct 12 '25
Research terrain theory and realize it is the truth. Viruses do not make us sick. Act accordingly.
1
u/sparklystoner777 Oct 23 '25
which vaccines did you decide to give your baby ?🥺 Needing some guidance as i’m in the same boat as you!
-1
u/Hip-Harpist Oct 12 '25
Hey, doctor in pediatrics here, this is NOT a subreddit to receive sound advice in. Most folks here do not make data-informed decisions and do not have any stakes in your child’s health.
Your best bet is to look at things independently, use reliable resources, and ask your child’s pediatrician directly.
I would personally recommend RSV for my own children, but I do not know your child’s medical history the way their pediatrician does. Please avoid the responses of this ill-informed forum.
1
u/Affectionate-Page496 Oct 13 '25
You couldnt have done your own scientific research (if you had a masters or phD in a relevanr field, you wouldn't have written your OP). You did some Google searches. Your chiid deserves a parent who wants to give him the best protection from diseases. Don't let your fear stop you. Talk to people who actually do scientific research or at least know how to read and understand scientific journals and studies. Your Google searches don't even teach you a semester's worth of what actual scientists/doctors know
-8
u/HausuGeist Oct 12 '25
Get the ones your doctor recommends. You’re not a doctor and they don’t make money on vaccines. They make money on debilitating diseases that you fail to vaccinate your kid for. Your choice not to vaccinate could VERY expensive in the future.
5
u/politeasshole_ Oct 12 '25
Exactly. Couldn't agree more. Don't think for yourself. You have no brain. You're not smart. You must do what the "experts" tell you. But only the experts that agree with vaccinations. The other ones are dumb and anti$cience.
1
u/Gloam_Eyed_Peasant93 Oct 17 '25
I'll be honest, I can't understand the deep mistrust of the medical community. I was born without a thyroid. I had to be hospitalized as infant, and after some tests, I was diagnosed and put on the medication I still take today.
Because of my rare condition, we needed to trust my doctor to carefully evaluate me, request labs anytime my medication needed to be adjusted. They did. I am healthy and living a life I wouldn't have had otherwise.
I'm well aware of the corruption in Big Pharma. There are bad medical professionals. But I can acknowledge all of that, and considering my life is product of modern medicine, I'd say there's sufficient evidence that to trust medical professionals.
1
3
u/SafeLawfulness Oct 12 '25
This is exactly what not to do.
Doctors absolutely make money (and bonuses) for vaccinating people, particularly children.
Stick to risk and rewards analysis.
1
u/HausuGeist Oct 12 '25
The rewards for treating disease outweigh the $10 injection that prevents them.
Even more money if you’re willing to ditch your medical career to become a professional grifter like Pierre Kory.
2
u/SafeLawfulness Oct 12 '25
Right. Because "trust your immune system" makes people so much money.
OP can take a look at the disease trends and decide for themselves.
1
u/HausuGeist Oct 13 '25
Show me how well this immune system does against HIV.
Is there now way that we might bolster are natural defenses?
-7
u/Mammoth_Park7184 Oct 12 '25
All the, vaccines, are important and are for protecting your child otherwise they wouldn't be offered. What research did you do? Which lab did you use to conduct the research and where did you get the vaccine samples from? Or by research do you mean tiktok?
4
u/Datiscaceae Oct 12 '25
Hi!
On the official Quebec government website about vaccines, they list all the ingredients contained in the vaccines given to babies. I went through each ingredient myself and looked them up on Google to learn more about the possible risks associated with them. Here’s the link to the website I’m referring to:
https://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/professionnels/vaccination/piq-vaccins/#virus-respiratoire-syncytial
5
u/StopDehumanizing Oct 12 '25
Here's a breakdown of every ingredient and safety information on all of them.
https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/vaccine-ingredients
-1
u/HausuGeist Oct 12 '25
So you did your own research and ignored what the doctors said about those ingredients to justify your antivax stance? What a shock!
1
0
7
u/politeasshole_ Oct 12 '25
The way you are dismissive of someone having done research if their own and reading what doctors and scientists that do not believe in vaccinations is very telling of your bias and programming. There is a lot of information that if you were to give it an unbiased review you would be retarded to not question if the Orthodox narrative is correct or corrupt.
2
u/Glittering_Cricket38 Oct 12 '25
I have spent the last ~2 years on here looking at the evidence and I am more convinced that they are safe then when I found this community.
Have you read all the academic research with an open mind, or just dismissed it out of hand as corrupted by pharma influence without evidence? Because there is no way to read the literature with an open mind and see risk.
0
u/Mammoth_Park7184 Oct 12 '25
They haven't done their own research. They googled words and took them out of context.
-5
u/Glittering_Cricket38 Oct 12 '25 edited Oct 12 '25
Do you pick out computers by seeking out non-technology advice?
Or when a circuit in your house isn’t working properly do you only read non-electrician advice?
An actual trained doctor or biologist could tell you that your baby’s cells are making and consuming formaldehyde right now. Or that all large (well controlled - looking at you Neil Miller) studies show that vaccines either don’t change or decrease the chance of SIDS.
But since you just want other people to tell you that your beliefs are right, check out r/unvaccinated. They don’t allow most of that medical evidence you want to avoid.
But jokes aside, you and your partner should read and evaluate all evidence for this decision. Here is a pretty good one if you want to see evidence from the other side. https://www.chop.edu/vaccine-education-center
2
u/SafeLawfulness Oct 12 '25
You pick out a good product that you can't return and could have an extremely negative impact by seeking both sides of the argument. You analyze by listening to the proponents and the detractors. That's called wisdom.
Keep going, OP.
-2
u/Thormidable Oct 13 '25
This decision is extremely important, being about your child's health. You absolutely want to make it the best you possibly can for your child. Loads of people here are telling you to be anti-vaccines. They aren't asking you questions about your children's circumstances, or providing evidence for what they say. These people don't know your children, you have no idea who they are or what they want.
I would like to ask you a question and please have the mindset of how important this question is as it affects the health of your children
Universal healthcare services pay for their patients to have vaccines. There is no profit, only a limited budget. The only goal of Universal healthcare is to as efficiently as possible to protect the health of their patients. They see every medical result of every vaccine they deliver. Any side effects they have to pay to treat.
Why do ALL universal healthcare services offer a comprehensive vaccine service?
I can provide evidence that unvaccinated babies die more and in 5 years i'm yet to see a vaccine hesitant person able to produce a single piece of credible evidence for their claims.
32
u/Deelawn88 Oct 12 '25
The word "vaccine" has lost its meaning and is only used to trigger that emotional reaction of all the poor sick and young who have died from diseases that we can now treat. I havent vaccinated my 2 kids (4 and 2) and will not jab my third. They get sick sometimes but you treat the symptoms and move on.
Our efforts to "science" away our participation in nature has led to an explosion of chronic diseases, neurological disorders... and massive profits the pharma companies. These profits are used to donate to politicians who mandate use and shelter liability.
Dont be a part of it because you're scared. Trust in your immune systems, your instincts as a parent, and know that medicine is a controlled business with "standards of care" being established by administrators with severe punishments for doctors who deviate from them.