Really makes you think

Really makes you think.

they would be a danger to OTHER non-vaccinated children you mouth breathing moron. get a clue.

how are there guns in gun free zones

Some kids can't get vacccines and have to rely on herd immunity, also vaccines are not always 100% effective thus herd immunity is important, and also your mother will die in her sleep if you post a stupid thread like this again

You're right, but that's not the main reason. Vaccinated children are more dangerous to non-vaccinated children, because they can carry the disease without showing symptoms.

The real reason is because there is a small subset of the population that, for any reason from genetic differences in their immune system to getting a defective vaccine, doesn't actually develop the immunity. So, the point is that the question is faulty. Non-vaccinated children are only a danger when the vaccine DOESN'T work, which is a non-zero amount of the time, same as anything else.

Really activates my almonds

>Some kids can't get vacccines
why

The same reason why you went to school (probably) but are still an idiot. Education and vaccines don't work 100% of the time. The fact that you are still retarded doesn't imply we should burn down all the schools.

Same reason alcohol is free to purchase despite alcohol poisoning and physical addiction and cannabis is schedule one with hard drugs.

Medical conditions

...

I'm cousin skeeter

I'm tricking off the meter

kid's can't be vaccinated until a certain age. Herd immunity is a real dependence for some.

Sharque$ha laying down sum truf! [100emoji]

That's some genuinely funny shit right there.

maybe natural selection should work its magic

>trump against vaccines
>trumptards start believing this shit

just kill trump and everything will be fine

What do other people have to do with a person owning their own body?

Trump is against vaccines because Barron is autistic.

Official Kremlin-sponsored " Vaccines are degenerate" thread.

Is that cousin skeeter or the token nigger from Puzzle Place?

Vaccines cause Autism

Certain age
Allergies to medication
Medical conditions
To name a few

Because seperating newborns from their parents and then having jews inject them with all kinds of shit and cutting their dicks up immediately after birth is what everyone should do

if they already have autism, getting vaccinated will cause terminal superautism

Herd immunity you retard. Also children aren't vaccinated at birth. I don't want your diseased children potentially infecting my infant.

People claim you're putting your own child in danger, not others.

>herd

You fucking Jap, don't call a group of humans a herd, you Japtard.

>also vaccines are not always 100% effective

So they do not work properly.
Thanks.
Did they even try double blind tests at all? No? Where is the proof that they work at all?

>vaccinated people
>because they can carry the disease without showing symptoms
>Vaccinated children are more dangerous to non-vaccinated children

This is bullshit as far as i know. What transmission vector, which disease in particular? not only is this generalizing disease across vectors, but across class and form. Vaccines only work on a specific class of disease regardless of transmission vector. However, transmission vector does influence whether another will get the "condition".

Most of the vaccinated conditions transmit through pus or contact with a wound containing the condition (measles, smallpox, chickenpox and mumps for example) meaning that a vaccine which prevents the overt symptoms also prevents transmission.

Others such as rubella transmit through sneezing and mucous droplets. Assuming that we give your theory any credibility, they would only transmit if the person getting rubella shows stark symptoms such as sneezing or coughing when in all likeliness the disease would be dealt with long before it could multiply and cause the body to enter a state of sickness response.

The purpose of a vaccine is to innoculate against conditions that we know the body can already create antibodies for. There is no innoculation against uncurable illnesses or treatment resistant bacterium/viruses like HIV or MRSA.

Perhaps the only real argument against vaccines are where they fail or have low statistical effectiveness rates such as with malaria because like penicillin resistance, viruses evolve if they are not shut down completely by the body.

Most of the common vaccines do not have this concern at all. And this argument does nothing but demolish the idea that non-vaccinated are better for other non-vaccinated. They are not. Vaccines work extremely well which is why polio is all but eliminated in the western world.

>What is a drug resistant pathogen
>What is natural selection
>What is evolution
>Chris Christie help me
Kill yourself 60percenter

also not everyone takes the vaccine. If only half the population take the vaccine, the non-vaccinated have a demonstrably lower rate of affliction.

The more people that take the vaccine, the less likely a non-vaccinated person is to experience suffering because the disease is just generally more rare in the population.

The biggest part of vaccines is not ensuring every single person uses them. its ensuring a large enough population does so that the remainder does not have to. Even in developed nations medical availability (while high) is not 100%.

>Vaccines work extremely well which is why polio is all but eliminated in the western world.

Even if someone did an actual study w/ double blind test for polio vaccine and not just assumed that "it works somehow" (do they do this with any other actual medicine?), then that still wouldn't mean "polio vaccine works", so "all vaccines work".

Hygiene was changed ages ago, just right before the time plenty of "vaccines" were "invented". But it's absolutely for certain that all of these "vaccines" solved all sorts of problems and not the hygiene changes because muh double blind - oh nope - you gotta beLIEve I guess because big pharma said so.

It is also a fact, that for example womyn who actually had real measles will give proper anti-bodies to their children during pregnancy (nature properly working), so that the infant is protected. When they didn't get actual measles, they do not do this, which means newborn child is missing out on protection, that it would normally have. And no, when womyn got "vaccines" against it, they do not do this either. Which means it either doesn't work at all or does not work properly like the real thing.