Can someone explain this logic to me?
1)
Me: I have a bacterial infection. I'm a tad worried about using antibiotics as I've had gastrointestinal issues in the past and I don't want to kill off beneficial gut bacteria.
Doctor: That seems reasonable. Let's consider your options.
2)
Me: I have a cold and I need cold medicine. I'm not really in pain (and my family has a history of liver problems) so I would prefer a formula that doesn't contain acetominphen (the leading cause of liver failure in the Western word).
Doc: Okay, let's find you a medicine that doesn't contain acetaminophen.
3)
Me: I'm experiencing symptoms of severe inflammation. I think I need an NSAID but I'm concerned about ulcers and increasing my risk of heart attack or stroke. Are there other options?
Doc: Why yes, let me explain them to you.
4)
Me: I know vaccines can be very helpful, but I have concerns that the type and quantity of vaccines I receive may adversely affect my immune system. My family does have a history of autoimmune disorders. Also, I've read studies that demonstrate some of the adjuvants can be harmful. What can you tell me about my concerns?
Doc: Fucking anti-vaxxer! Get out of here!!
So you are allowed to have concerns with any drug you put in your body, but if you have even one reservations about vaccines, you instantly become anti-science and an anti-vaxxer? Why is that? Group think? Propaganda campaigns by big pharma? What?
>>7670738
It isn't pharmacies driving this (they don't make much money on vaccines), but rather governments are pushing this. There are well known side effects on vaccines, but the government has decided to accept those consequences for the benefit those vacancies bring to society. The other stuff is ok for you to object as you will only harm yourself. The other stuff will harm others and create bigger problems.
Well if you have read studies than you should know which adjuvants are harmful and which are not. 'some' is not an answer.
since what you are getting from a doctor are not 'some' adjuvants. maybe he knows whats in the little flasks, maybe he doesnt. many just do their job.
because for the 'some' adjuvants that do help protect from a distructive sickness it is worth risking autoimmune disorders imho.
I can however not name the degree of severity in which the prevented sickness has to surpass an autoimmune disorder, for my claim to be justified.
Just know that it's better to have dead killers inside of you the first time, then living ones.
>>7670747
Side effects: these are from a cut sheet on the MMR vaccine.
3/6
4/6
5/6
5 of 6
6/6
>>7670756
>because for the 'some' adjuvants that do help protect from a distructive sickness it is worth risking autoimmune disorders imho
I agree but only to a certain extent. I don't get the flu vaccine, for example, because I never get the flu and I'm not a young child or old so the chance of the flu killing me instead of just giving me diarrhea is like 0. I don't think the flu vaccine (for me) is worth the risk. For other diseases, ones that really mess you up, it probably is worth the risk to get vaccinated.
>>7670738
I think I dodged getting vaccines where I could, from childhood. Don't really know why, could be because the whole thing seemed suspect.
Anyway I haven't caught anything they would have prevented so I can't say I regret it. If everyone else gets them there's much less of a reason for you to.
if a doctor acted like that I would be an anti-vaxxer too. People need education, which many shitty doctors don't give enough of instead of "take this because I told you to"
>>7670738
I never get flu vaccines, because I'm not in the risk group or work in the health industry. However, I do get hepatitis vaccines if I travel for example because getting the disease would be worse and I've never had any side effects from the vaccines.
I'm all for vaccinating children though, because we need to keep those deadly diseases (eg. polio, smallpox etc.) out of society.
>>7670738
>4)
>Me: I know vaccines can be very helpful, but I have concerns that the type and quantity of vaccines I receive may adversely affect my immune system. My family does have a history of autoimmune disorders. Also, I've read studies that demonstrate some of the adjuvants can be harmful. What can you tell me about my concerns?
>Doc: Fucking anti-vaxxer! Get out of here!!
Absolute strawman. If you had a history of autoimmune diseases no doctor would dismiss that nonchalantly. As for why you should get vaccines otherwise, see next paragraph.
>>7670779
I can't tell if this is bait, but holy fucking shit you're so stupid it makes me angry.
>If everyone else gets them there's much less of a reason for you to.
No. This is fucking wrong. You are the reason that diseases like measles have come back in the United States and are spreading like wildfire. Vaccines are not 100% effective, so the only way to guarantee safety is herd immunity, but when fuckers like you leave us open, there are vectors for the disease to begin spreading through the population again.
>>7670738
Your first three sound improbable, but at least you wouldn't be putting anyone else at risk.
And the first three would also get you labeled as tinfoil hat material.
>>7670785
>diseases like measles have come back in the United States and are spreading like wildfire.
Only in places where many people don't get the vaccine, validating my sentiment.
>>7670789
No, that invalidates your sentiment. Because if even a small fraction of people feel your sentiment, you've fucked the whole lot. (And you were indeed advocating others to do so, completely invalidating your point)
>>7670793
>And you were indeed advocating others to do so
Nope, was just stating the facts.
If everyone else is vaccinated you're risking very little by foregoing the procedure yourself; other than having a bunch of angry people try to shame and guilt you.
>>7670787
>first 3 sound improbable.
This is probably bait but maybe just a quick bite.
You do know that the leading cause of liver failure in the US by far is from acetaminophen right? Tylenol. They throw it in everything. Last time I had a cold and wanted NyQuil I had to search through every single container and finally found 1 that didn't contain acetaminophen (it was generic NyQuil). If I'm not in pain, why take something that stresses my liver? A better question would be: why would you ever take acetominphen? There are way better alternatives that aren't as harmful as it. Acetaminophen doesn't even reduce inflammation. It's garbage.
>>7670798
No, you're actively working against the scenario that you're taking advantage of.
You're a smarmy piece of shit who's probably trolling, but just know that you are the reason that diseases we considered eradicated are coming back. It's your mindset that does this.
>>7670802
>You're a smarmy piece of shit who's probably trolling, but just know that you are the reason that diseases we considered eradicated are coming back. It's your mindset that does this.
see:
>angry people try to shame and guilt you.
Anyway I would totally advise others to vaccinate; them doing so protects me without me having to expose myself to the potential of side-effects.
>>7670803
You're a risk to lives of everyone around you. At least tell me you don't travel between countries much, because if you do, you should really eat a bullet instead
>>7670779
>If everyone else gets them there's much less of a reason for you to.
>I am a greedy little shitbag that risks other peoples lives so I won't *maybe* get a minor side-effect.
I hope you step on a Lego, asshole.
>>7670785
>>7670793
>>7670798
It's a similar argument to voting. Statistically, your non-vote (or non-vaccination) has virtually no effect on anything. A cost analysis would say driving to the polling station results in costs and risks that far outweigh the value of your vote. On a person by person basis, it makes sense not to vote. But if you extrapolate that to everyone, its a bad idea. It's a paradox?
BTW: Please vote.
>>7670771
well you just have to read...
aseptic meningitis > septic meningitis
>>7670800
>This is probably bait but maybe just a quick bite.
You misunderstand my point.
The conversations themselves sound improbable, not your allegations about the dangers of medicine. which sound more like you're making mountains out of molehills.
For instance:
>I had a cold and wanted NyQuil I had to search through every single container and finally found 1 that didn't contain acetaminophen
..if you're so paranoid about liver damage, why are you taking medicine that's 25% alcohol?
Most of us aren't worried about liver failure because we're more likely to die of lung failure, heart failure,kidney failure, cancer, etc.
Even suicide kills more people than liver failure.
>>7670800
>Acetaminophen doesn't even reduce inflammation. It's garbage.
Acetaminophen isn't intended to reduce inflammation.
Scotch tape doesn't reduce inflammation either, what's your point?
>>7670738
Me: I have a bacterial infection. I'm a tad worried about using antibiotics as I've had gastrointestinal issues in the past and I don't want to kill off beneficial gut bacteria.
Doctor: Here's a prescription for antibiotics, if you don't take them and die it's on your own responsibility.
Me: I have a cold and I need cold medicine. I'm not really in pain (and my family has a history of liver problems) so I would prefer a formula that doesn't contain acetominphen (the leading cause of liver failure in the Western word).
Doc: Stop wasting my time, stay at home if you have the cold and ask the pharmacist for the OTC range.
Me: I'm experiencing symptoms of severe inflammation. I think I need an NSAID but I'm concerned about ulcers and increasing my risk of heart attack or stroke. Are there other options?
Doc: Here, steroids. And PPI.
Me: I know vaccines can be very helpful, but I have concerns that the type and quantity of vaccines I receive may adversely affect my immune system. My family does have a history of autoimmune disorders. Also, I've read studies that demonstrate some of the adjuvants can be harmful. What can you tell me about my concerns?
Doc: Then don't take it. But I'll report you to social services if you deny your child lifesaving therapy. Now get out.
>>7670771
>>7670768
>>7670766
>>7670763
>>7670761
>>7670760
Pretty much any drug you take has a list of side-effects this long and alarming.
It just so happens that they're so fucking weird that there's no point thinking about stuff like this.
>b-but it happens to some people!
Yeah well people die all the time from lots of different stuff and most of it is related to their fucking awful habits rather than some stupid vaccine.
>>7670787
Fucking saved. Thank you, anon.
>>7670779
Except you can still get the disease and you also act as a reservoir.
>>7670807
>It's a similar argument to voting. Statistically, your non-vote (or non-vaccination) has virtually no effect on anything.
It's more like buying a lottery ticket.
It only takes one self-absorbed cunt to be a carrier and harbor a deadly disease.
One vote will never have that much impact.
>>7670814
>if it comes to that
What retarded logic is this, by choosing not to get vaccinated you're basically already at that point, you can't get vaccinated once you're sick
>>7670738
>Me: I have a cold and I need cold medicine. I'm not really in pain (and my family has a history of liver problems) so I would prefer a formula that doesn't contain acetominphen (the leading cause of liver failure in the Western word).
>Doc: Okay, let's find you a medicine that doesn't contain acetaminophen.
Well that's silly. Acetaminophen is the leading cause of liver damage not because it has a high risk of damaging the liver but because it is abundant, easily available, and overused. It's the most overdosed drug in the US, and when you overdose on it there is risk of liver damage. But recommended levels are proven to be harmless.
See that? Not all of your fears have to be treated as lifestyle choices. Some of what you've heard about certain drugs is true, and some of what you've heard is based on misinformation and pseudoscience. It is a doctor's job to explain these risks to you accurately, not to appease whatever you believe. Not to mention that you are comparing the relieving of symptoms to vaccines which prevent deaths.
>>7670855
Harmless is debatable. Bottom line it's pretty horrible for your liver in general. There are better options to releive pain. Especially minor pain which it is often prescribed for. I mean even low overdoses (which can be accidental due to public ignorance or mixing medicines and you aren't aware they all contain acetaminophen.) are deleterious to your liver. It's a silly drug that is way to prevalent given it's poor safety record.
I'd rather you die from the vaccine than live and spread the disease, you pussy ass fuccboi.
>>7670789
There are valid reasons why a person may not be able to get vaccinated. Some need to be done at a certain age minimum, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals are also other vulnerable individuals.
You are basically a scummy shitbag resevoir for these things which then go on to infect others and allow these diseases to persist.
>>7671417
>Harmless is debatable.
OK, debate with the medical and clinical research community and see how far that gets you.
>Bottom line it's pretty horrible for your liver in general.
No, it's not.
>There are better options to releive pain.
Other OTC pain relievers have problems with chronic use. You can pop Tylenol daily for years without problems, and people do.
>>7670738
>Propaganda campaigns by big pharma
If you're the type to say that unironically, maybe the doctor is reacting to the vibe you give off rather than just to something you said
>>7670824
>Most of us aren't worried about liver failure because we're more likely to die of lung failure, heart failure,kidney failure, cancer, etc.
UBeLike: Hey, there's already so many things to worry about, let's just draw the somewhere. Ya'll agree on neglecting liver failure? Aye! Aye! Aye!
IBeLike: You are silly! I think you should take your health more serious. Your liver health is important and is deserving of your efforts in your health.
>>7671495
>You are basically a scummy shitbag resevoir for these things which then go on to infect others and allow these diseases to persist.
Would it rustle your jimmies less if I say I'm immunocompromised?
Would it be any less dangerous if that were actually the case? I don't see you hounding the immunocompromised as a scummy shitbag reservoir.
>>7670738
>bacteria infection
no real comment here, but did you know they use poop enema transfusions to help replenish bacteria lost?
>Leading cause of liver failure
Only in stupid doses. Read the back and you are fine. And a family history of liver problems doesn't mean you can't process medicines as fast. Most family liver problems are caused from alcohol and obesity.
>I think I need a NSAID. You shouldn't be telling the doctor what you need. You just say you have inflammation and then he can bring up the options. NSAIDS aren't close to the only option. This argument against vaccines is flimsy.
>Fucking anti-vaxxer.
The doctor is going to have the same reaction to alternative treatments as he would with other ailments. Your strawman is showing.
One of the reasons that vaccines are treated differently is because the ailments it prevents are highly contagious and often life-threatening. Nobody is going to call you an anti-vaxxer for not getting the flu shot.
It comes down to that the doctor is going to suggest the remedy with the most scientific backing. But if you chose to not go with the suggested method, like in your first 3 examples, it affects nobody but (at worst) killing yourself. Polio, whooping cough, measles, malaria, ebola. These are all things that we, as a scientific society, have determined you don't have the RIGHT to spread to other people.
>>7672028
Refusing medical procedures is a right.
>>7672042
Should be a right*
In reality rights are fairly meaningless. Society has always been disjointed, and if someone is advantaged over you in some way, they're going to do with you whatever they can. And that's usually whatever they please.
>>7672042
Being stupid is a right.
>>7672067
>Should be a right*
Actually I'm fairly sure in most first world country it is respected, unless you're unconscious or retarded.
>>7672079
Read what I said again. It's not about where you live, it's about who has power and what they think they can get away with. Functionally, rights are an illusion. A gamble. Only in treating them this way can they be made more self consistent and equivalently enforced.
The US is also a shining example of where it isn't. The basic idea is actually quite new in the world.
>>7672084
I'm aware of the provisional nature of rights, the US not being excluded here, but my point was that this specific 'right' is generally respected.. Even if only because it poses little threat to the status quo.
>>7672124
Yeah, I know. And I agree this is an important one. Assuming you share the same opinion, eventually, we're going to be holding an unpopular viewpoint.
I'm just trying to draw attention to that people often say "blah blah blah is a right", and slowly lose sight of what rights really describe. This is part of what causes the waves of rights being taken and then fought for. Etc.
>>7672131
>Assuming you share the same opinion, eventually, we're going to be holding an unpopular viewpoint.
Probably. Tyrants usually wrap themselves in the morally unassailable.
>>7672042
>Refusing medical procedures is a right.
This is true. Refusing medical procedures is an intrinsic human right.
That's because you are the executive decision maker of your body. You call the shots. Not some other person or group. Not the results of some study or committee. You do.
And ideally, the decisions you make lead to a happier, healthier and more productive life for yourself and others.
That's not to say you should ignore the opinions of others. Ideally your doctor can help you make the best decisions, but at the end of the day it is your choice that calls the shots (pun intended).
