On some level, everyone knows coffee is bad for the body. That’s why they self-medicate later with alcohol to relax and sleep.
Perhaps this relates to mental illness in a modern population, perhaps not.
Caffeine has also been shown to increase serotonin levels in the limbic system, a relatively primitive part of our brain involved in regulating basic functions such as hormonal secretions, emotional responses, mood regulation and pain/pleasure sensations. This has a similar mode of action as some antidepressant medications.
That includes the amygdala, folks. A sense of appeasement and belonging.
Ever notice chronic coffee fiends are generally very sad, lonely people?
which can lead to sub-clinical mood problems such as mild depression (aka “the blues”), low motivation, irritability, and impaired cognition.
It doesn’t even give them more energy after the first week or two, they just need it to feel normal, like any addict.
I’m not saying this is urban liberals and SJWs especially…. but they tend to have spare tires that lead to this.
You don’t see many skinny SJWs who don’t abuse some substances (sugar, caffeine, alcohol).
encourage fascists to think they can make life or death decisions for other people’s children. That they have no legal obligations toward (unlike the parents).
Can you sue the manufacturers? No.
Can you sue the doctors who told you to take it, despite counter indicators like pregnancy or family history? No.
Can you sue the people in your life who manipulated you into getting it with rhetoric about being a baby-killer? No.
Even though they are legally culpable in every conceivable sense.
Nowhere are criminal charges available (against professionals in-role) even though lying about toxins (poisons) is otherwise considered murder.
Until you can sue people for taking on (giving/giving advice) and abusing a medical duty of care, the uptake rates will remain low.
Most parents have their wits about them and think: I won’t sacrifice my child’s health for yours. It’s the natural genophilic instinct.
Their reasoning is to force people to do something on the off chance it might benefit themselves (r-types), but if they’re vaccinated themselves, and vaccine failure is such a ‘myth’ to them, why should others’ behaviour impact them? Logically that would be impossible.
Vaccine Fascists: Communist emotional blackmail, give yourself up to the herd, shame on you, you put others in danger. Any other moral issue from a Leftist: it’s my choice e.g. to take drugs, I’m not hurting anyone at any point and you shouldn’t judge me because I allow you to do what you want.
Despite how behavioural studies have shown many behaviours, especially anti-social ones, are socially contagious.
It’s a Big Lie on par with Global Warming.
Ever thought there might be a connection between the use of adjuvants (that irritate the immune system, no really they’re supposed to) in a clustered combined schedule and the inexplicable rise of autoimmune conditions over recent times?
Like when you drill down about the hypothesis and myth of herd immunity. How much, you ask? How many is enough to sacrifice on the altar of Complete Strangers Who Might Hypothetically Benefit? It used to be 50-70% given as a percentage, at the start. But the longer you drill down, the higher their shrill calls for control, by now they’re calling for;
Herd Immunity And Measles: Why We Should Aim For 100% Vaccination Coverage
So who the fuck is this supposed to be protecting?
We have to protect everyone by …not leaving anyone in the control group to protect. Why don’t they want a group of people to remain unvaccinated? It would make the vaccine manufacturers look bad.
Why do you think there are no studies with a control group? This is basic science.
I’ve said before, why are there no longitudinal studies double-blind between kids that get the full schedule and kids that get saline? With a population of thousands either side?
Wouldn’t that settle this debate forever?
Yet they don’t want to do that study. They want everyone to get the drugs and we’ll have nobody to compare to.
If you think this is an IQ thing, Silicon Valley has been recently dragged up for a witch hunt on the subject for having low vaccination rates.
Why 92? All these numbers given for herd immunity are arbitrary, except 100%.
Herd immunity is actually a ripoff of the economic theory of the Free Loader/Rider hypothesis, which apparently doesn’t exist when discussing the welfare state but the Left suddenly believe in free riding on ‘herd immunity’ by a magical group of Victims nobody can point at. How many are there being protected by it, as a percentage? The rhetoric is useful to them. Usually people cited who have no voice: babies, the elderly, the immunocompromised, given the size of these demographics alone, the % they’re giving now are IMPOSSIBLE.
The ‘Protected’ Group constitutes more than 1% of the population, leaving the Herd Immunity % required at 99. And why should 99 people sacrifice their own health for a complete stranger? This is never morally argued but implied in a cowardly way while turning a blind eye to lawsuit bribes and damage cases ending in death, paralysis and disease.
It currently stipulates that in order to provide immunity to a population against contagious diseases like measles you must vaccinate at least 95% of the population. Theoretically-speaking, with a vaccination rate of 95%, the diseases should be eradicated.
The ‘Victim Group’ is more than 5% total though. This is impossible.
In an epidemiological review paper titled “Herd Immunity: History, Theory, Practice,” written by Paul E. M. Fine and published in 1993, the author notes that the first “published use” of the term herd immunity “appears to have been” in a paper titled “The spread of bacterial infection: the problem of herd immunity,” written by W. W. C. Topley and G. S. Wilson and published in 1923. From Fine’s paper, it seems that the theory of herd immunity was originally developed based on some observations with mice and some “simple mathematical formulations,” but the paper is unclear about whether the theory was ever validated through some of sort scientific peer review process—as is commonly the case with theories that eventually come to be widely accepted as “proven science.”12
In 1933, Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, IL observed that during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68% of the children contracted the virus.3
That’s where the ‘modern’ stance of about 70% came from.
When the mass vaccination campaign for measles in the US began in earnest in the mid-1960s, the US Public Health Service planned to vaccinate over 55% (based on the Baltimore observation) of the U.S. population, and it announced that it fully expected to eradicate measles by 1967.
Guess what happened.
When that didn’t happen,
the Public Health Service came up [made up] with vaccination rate figures of 70-75% as the way to ensure herd immunity. When eradication was still not achieved at those rates, public health officials jacked up the rates to 80%, 83%, 85%, and ultimately to 90%.5
When have your Government ever been wrong?
Did they ever consider pausing and re-evaluating the original premise behind the theory of herd immunity? Or did they trudge on, arbitrarily raising the bar?
Government? Admit wrongdoing? Nay, mistakes were made lassie but not by them!
Now the rate is up to 95% to achieve herd immunity. But as we see with the continual outbreaks, even at 95% we still do not have full immunity. In China, the vaccination rates are even higher—99%. But there are also still measles outbreaks there.6 So is the answer 100%? And what if at 100% you still get outbreaks? We’ve gone from herd immunity supposedly achieved at 55% to herd immunity that is clearly not achieved even at 95%. At what point will public health officials have to confront the possibility that herd immunity may not be the best theory on which to base vaccination policy?
They’d get sued.
Ignoring the cases of vaccine failure, what is the effectiveness of a single vaccine? e.g. this is the first one I found, on a single mumps vaccine, full double-dose.
Increased reports of mumps in vaccinated populations prompted a review of the performance of mumps vaccines. The effectiveness of prior vaccination with 1 dose of vaccine ranged from 72.8% to 91% for the Jeryl Lynn strain, from 54.4% to 93% for the Urabe strain, and from 0% to 33% for the Rubini strain. Vaccine effectiveness after 2 doses of mumps vaccine was reported in 3 outbreaks and ranged from 91% to 94.6%. There was evidence of waning immunity, which is a likely factor in mumps outbreaks, aggravated by possible antigenic differences between the vaccine strain and outbreak strains. Inadequate vaccine coverage or use of the Rubini vaccine strain accounted for the majority of outbreaks reviewed; however, some outbreaks could not be prevented, despite high vaccination coverage with 2 doses of the Jeryl Lynn vaccine strain. Our findings indicate the need for more-effective mumps vaccines and/or for review of current vaccination policies to prevent future outbreaks.
The ‘scientists’ are shifting the blame to the politicians. This will end well.
Challenge: aside from the arbitrary HI % we have since established is a joke (100%? Really?)…
Total population (100%) – Unvaccinated Victim Group/s Hypothetically Protected by Herd Immunity (as a %) = Maximum % that CAN be vaccinated, to protect said Victim group via Herd Immunity.
How much of the Total Population is that? Anybody have a single number? That is the maximum that herd immunity rationales may cover. Hypothetically.
With the global eradication of polio drawing nigh, some researchers are directing their attention to the small fraction of immunodeficient people who can carry strains of the virus derived from the live attenuated vaccine. These “prolonged excreters” can shed the virus in their stool for years without ever becoming sick. One man has been shedding the virus since he was vaccinated nearly 30 years ago, researchers reported yesterday (August 27) in PLOS Pathogens. This is the longest that the virus has ever been found to remain in a person who received the live attenuated vaccine.
Because for once, they looked!
A group of scientists at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in Hertfordshire, U.K., have analyzed 185 stool samples from the man over the last two decades. They estimated that the pathogen has circulated in the male patient for 28 years using a molecular clock based on a viral capsid gene sequence; the researchers tracked mutations that may have enabled the virus to diverge from its once avirulent state, according to Live Science. However, this strain does not seem to pose a threat to vaccinated individuals because antibody levels in the blood of immunized people were sufficient to kill the virus, the researchers showed.
And which group of immunized people, specifically? One dose, two, full, scheduled, childhood, adult, post-illness? What? I always get suspicious of vague immunologists. They’re sneaky bastards that’ll skip town in the dead of night before sending you a note reading: btw you might have Black Death. Like, thanks guys, could have used this information earlier?
In their paper, the authors noted that there may be other long-term asymptomatic shedders of the virus and that sewage monitoring and antivirals could help prevent disease spread from virus shed by prolonged excreters. “Currently no effective strategy to treat these patients,” they wrote.
I’m bored of this.
I”m bored of findings like this coming out, which were theoretically plausible, yet anybody questioning the Mighty Vaccine is supposed to be anti-science?
Here we have a disease problem, public health risk, caused by vaccines, undeniably, and where is the media attention? The BBC and Guardian are trying to fob it off.
I feel like fucking Cassandra. I don’t say this from a point of vanity, it enrages me, the arrogance of these people to not look in the places pointed out to them for years (autoimmune response from vaccines) has caused how many millions to suffer?
And now they’re laughing it off, like, LOL, textbooks need to be changed $$$$$ for us.
I, among many others, have tried in vain to point this out, only to be told the same things: “there is no uncharted part of anatomy hence no point in even looking” and “that’s for real Doctors, we just need to give them drugs”.
Remember how this finding is being treated with flippancy when you automatically accord respect to researchers and scientists thanks to their credentials or fancy title. This is why I don’t use my real credentials, (see About) either the facts and truth are there or they aren’t – regardless of whom puts them forth. They don’t care about the truth, most of them, some care about their ego and others profiteering from ailments they likely caused when they pushed for things they didn’t understand and – worst of all, didn’t want to.