Page 4 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

superluminary
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

13 Dec 2013, 4:41 am

doofy wrote:
If vaccines are so wonderful then why on earth does the vaccine lobby fear unvaccinated kids? No one - but no one - has ever given me a satisfactory answer to this.


I'll give you four satisfactory reasons now:

1. Not vaccinating puts babies at risk - babies are not vaccinated right away. Your child could potentially be exposing my new baby to lethal viral particles. If this sounds emotive, it's because it is.

2. Some people cannot be vaccinated because of allergies - If people who can be vaccinated do get vaccinated, then these people are protected because there is nowhere in the environment for live viral particles to hide.

3. Vaccination is not 100% effective. You are much less likely to contract a disease, but it can still happen.

4. Herd immunity - If everyone gets vaccinated the disease will die out, then no one will need to be vaccinated any more. A few people not doing this jeopardizes the whole endeavor.



Last edited by superluminary on 13 Dec 2013, 7:57 am, edited 3 times in total.

superluminary
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

13 Dec 2013, 4:53 am

doofy wrote:
You're welcome to define the injection of the dead remnants of foreign bodies into the veins of babes as "natural". The fact that I disagree with you does not make my disagreement "ridiculous". As another poster has said: those of us who have chosen not to vaccinate our children have had to get used to emotive hostility.


Actually it is natural. A child is exposed to thousands of new types of virus particles a day, dead and alive. Every time he falls over and cuts himself. Every time he eats a sandwich. This is natural, it's how his immune system learns.

A vaccination is essentially a controlled graze in which we expose his body to the virus we want his immune system to learn, having first rendered the virus harmless in some way. It exactly mimics a natural process.



Segolia
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7

13 Dec 2013, 4:57 am

doofy wrote:
Segolia wrote:
doofy wrote:
I reckon anyone advancing the "natural" argument in respect of vaccination is on sticky ground.

Natural contact with a disease is never about injecting the stuff direct into the blood stream.

In the old days, we used to have "chicken pox parties". That was "natural".


The immune reaction works in the same way. (Natural.) Except instead of exposing your child/yourself to the live foreign body, you are exposed to the dead remnants, so you have a far, far smaller chance of actually getting sick, and almost zero chance of getting life threateningly ill. There goes your ridiculous "in the olden days" argument.

You're welcome to define the injection of the dead remnants of foreign bodies into the veins of babes as "natural". The fact that I disagree with you does not make my disagreement "ridiculous". As another poster has said: those of us who have chosen not to vaccinate our children have had to get used to emotive hostility.

Segolia wrote:
(In the olden days girls were also married off to men some 40 years their senior at the age of eleven, but I don't see you supporting that.)

Not at all sure I see the point of this analogy.

Segolia wrote:
Whaddup, I work in biochemistry, and worked for MSD (one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies around) during one of my internships.

Never heard of MSD. Do they produce vaccines as part of their charitable work?

Segolia wrote:
I've also been vaccinated as a child and am autistic. My younger sister, who got the same shots I did, is not autistic.

So what?

Segolia wrote:
I mean, ultimately it's your choice whether or not to vaccinate your child, but do fully realise that you are jeopardising your own, and other people's loved ones by not doing so.

I made a judgement call not to vaccinate my daughter. She was born with profound eczema and I didn't want to stress an already compromised immune system with vaccines. I authorised a tetanus shot in her early teens as another judgement call. When she got mumps recently she moaned to me about never having been vaccinated and asked me for further info as she was considering getting fully vaccinated (she's 21). I suggested Rubella might be useful but advised against MMR and told her to do her own research into vaccines.
I simply do not accept that I put others at risk by my judgement calls. If vaccines are so wonderful then why on earth does the vaccine lobby fear unvaccinated kids? No one - but no one - has ever given me a satisfactory answer to this.


The "natural" part, if you had read my post, refers to the immunoreaction, which is still natural. The analogy refers to the fact they did a lot of harmful stuff back in the days, and how we no longer do that, because we have grown to use things that don't require us to do those things.

MSD is also known as Merck, one of the world's seven largest pharmaceutical companies. If you've ever heard of Mothers for Mothers, you've heard of Merck. (Which, by the by, is part of their charitable work. Oh no, Big Pharma is so scary and terrible(!)) Yes, they produce vaccines, even two types of MMR vaccine. The reason I brought it up is because I know what I'm talking about. I mean, it's almost as if I studied to know what I'm talking about!

Quote:
I simply do not accept that I put others at risk by my judgement calls.


Well, you're going to have to accept it anyway, because you are. Feel free to watch this video (youtube. com/ watch?v=rAGHXMq9ttw#t=132) to explain herd immunity. By not vaccinating, you are lowering herd immunity, and putting others in danger. Sure, not nice to hear, but it's a fact.

Schneekugel wrote:
doofy wrote:
How does my girl getting mumps affect the susceptibility of vaccinated kids to mumps?


You know that babies, dont get instantly vaccinated against everything, 10 seconds after birth?


Often anti-vaxxers tend to ignore that. They also tend to ignore the fact there are people, young and old, who cannot be vaccinated due to being immuno-compromised. Basically, they tend to only think about themselves, and often refuse responsibility, and refuse hearing when people try to explain to them why not vaccinating is a Bad Thing.



superluminary
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

13 Dec 2013, 4:59 am

It's important to remember that everyone here is simply trying to do the best for their child, that's why tempers run hot. We're all on the same side really. :)



Segolia
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 18 Nov 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 7

13 Dec 2013, 5:08 am

superluminary wrote:
It's important to remember that everyone here is simply trying to do the best for their child, that's why tempers run hot. We're all on the same side really. :)


Except by not vaccinating, you might be doing what you think is best for your child, but you are putting them and others in harm's way. People who do not vaccinate without a good medical reason really aren't on the same side I consider myself on.



TheCrookedFingers
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2013
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 161
Location: Cloudcuckooland

13 Dec 2013, 5:22 am

superluminary wrote:
TheCrookedFingers wrote:
I am happy too see that so many people here are familiar with Ben Goldacre's works! I'm in med school yet nobody there seems to have heard about him.


Ben Goldacre rocks!

It's so cool that you are in med school. I tried out for med school, passed the GAMSAT exams pretty well, but messed up on the interview. Best of luck with it!


Where I live entrance exams aren't extremely competitive. I tried out for UK unis last year and messed up on my interview, too.



superluminary
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

13 Dec 2013, 5:38 am

You can think about it mathematically. Any disease has a communicability factor.

If the factor is 1, then everyone who gets the disease will on average spread it to one other person and the disease will stay at the same level.

If the factor is 2, then everyone who gets the disease will on average spread it to two other people and the disease will run rampant.

Vaccination is about getting this number down below 1. Everyone who is vaccinated in a population will bring down the number in that population by a little bit. If enough people get vaccinated, the number drops below 1 and the disease dies out, eventually becoming extinct. We call this herd immunity.

Everyone who refuses to vaccinate brings the number up a little bit, damaging the collective endeavor, and making everyone cross.

The WHO recomends that 95% of a population be vaccinated with MMR to confer herd immunity. The current level in the UK is around 80%.



BlackSabre7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 943
Location: Queensland, Australia

14 Dec 2013, 2:21 am

I appreciate the value of the Cochrane group. They are trying to do unbiased critical evaluations of other people's science. Pity they can't get them to surrender all of the data

The focus is on MMR vaccines.

The first thing they said was about mortality rates from the diseases. I would like to see clearer evidence that attributes the positive effects of the vaccines in detail. I know they have impacted on rates of infection, but I also have heard that death rates from these diseases declined by as much as 90% before the vaccines were even introduced. While vaccine programs were increasing, so were standards of hygiene, education and treatment. Plus diagnostic criteria, and access to medical treatment for some people also changed, as did standards of living conditions for people during events such as wars. This information is always stated as a cut and dried fact, but it is not. Some data focuses on deaths, others on hospitalizations or incidence of disease. This can muddy the waters.

They list five MMR vaccines most of which show live viruses and some contain neomycin, which is toxic to humans.

Then they discuss vaccine schedules and rates in various countries, as well as apparent successes and failures of some of the vaccination programs. The focus is on incidence not on death rates. They mention the use of neomycin.

(Cut and pasted:)
Why it is important to do this review:
Despite its worldwide use, no systematic reviews studying the effectiveness and safety of MMR vaccines are available.

.....Which means until this was first done a couple of years ago, for all their bullying to vaccinate, they were not even sure....

They define the parameters for this review, including the list of adverse consequences of taking the vaccines.

They explain how they searched for data/studies, and how they selected studies for review.

They did not do an assessment of reporting bias.

A total of 64 studies were used in this 2011 report because they met all of the inclusion criteria.

They critiqued the studies, assessing missing data, quality if the study, and risk of bias. The vast majority had unknown, moderate or high risk of bias. Very few had low risk of bias. Types of bias were noted. (missing data, unspecified vaccines, etc)

Studies of measles vaccines were all claiming effectiveness of preventing incidence of measles of over 90%
For mumps, effectiveness was extremely variable, with success ranging from about 83% to ineffective.
Rubella - they found no studies assessing vaccine effectiveness.

The studies showing safety usually show no difference between vaccine and placebo. But some studies had too many inconsistencies in how they assessed things such as temperature, so comparisons were impossible.
Most studies were comparing consequences between using different vaccines, or against placebo. VERY few looked at comparing between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. (Placebos are about making sure everything is the same between two groups, so they usually contain all of the same ingredients, except for the actual virus strain. This is the only way to test the actual effectiveness of the vaccine, without the effect of the additives biasing the results. This means if the additives are harmful, it will not show up in this sort of study)
Of the studies that compared various disorders among vaccinated vs unvaccinated children, some showed no significant difference, some did. Vaccinated children had higher incidences of fever, rashes, nasal discharge. This study covered a period of four weeks before to four weeks after the vaccination.
Encephalitis comparisons show no increase due to vaccines.
Aseptic menengitis - more studies showed an increase due to vaccines, than those that did not.
Febrile seizures shown to be increased in vaccinated children, over unvaccinated children.
ITP - link with vaccination is evident in studies.
Autism - a range of types of studies failed to show any significant link between MMR vaccine and autism.
Asthma - The studies looked at did not show a link between vaccines and asthma medication taking and hospitalization. Some seemed to show an actual reduction of this link. (All three studies had been considered to have moderate/unknown or high risk of bias. One looked only at MMR vaccine and did not specify whether other vaccines had ever been given. Another specified 'diagnosis criteria' in such a way as to possible leave out may less severe or atypical cases = bias)
Leukemia - The verdict was unclear to me.
Hay Fever - showed no significant link. One study reported a reduction in hay fever . Both studies had moderate/unknown bias risk.
Type 1 diabetes - one study, shows evidence of link
Gait disturbance - no apparent link
Demyelinating diseases - no statistically significant association found

If you are still reading this long post, then please begin your next post with a *. Then I will know you have actually read it, and I will be happy to continue on any discussion you wish to have, plus you will have earned a little respect from me, even if we disagree. I expect few will actually read it. Let's see.

I suggest anyone interested read the discussion section - it summarizes the results and points out all of the inadequacies of the research, including the bias, the insufficient volume of research, missing data, and other shortcomings of the research done.

from the discussion:
"As MMR vaccine is universally recommended, recent studies are constrained by the lack of a non-exposed control group."...."We were unable to include a majority of the retrieved studies because a comparable, clearly-defined control group or risk period was not available."

I did a summary for the people who might be put off by the length of the document.There is a lot missing, but I wanted to mention the topics covered, and highlight my favourite bits.

Anyone who thinks this is adequate proof that vaccines are safe either did not read it or did not understand it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .pub3/full



Last edited by BlackSabre7 on 14 Dec 2013, 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

superluminary
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 4 Nov 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 274

14 Dec 2013, 3:23 am

Actually placebo is typically saline, which is effectively no treatment, but controlled against placebo.

The fact that most of the studies were excluded or heavily criticised is typical for Cochrane. They are sceptics in the true sense, doubting everything, as you should when doing evidence based medicine. They only use around 33 studies in the final report I believe.



BlackSabre7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 943
Location: Queensland, Australia

14 Dec 2013, 3:43 am

superluminary wrote:
Actually placebo is typically saline, which is effectively no treatment, but controlled against placebo.

The fact that most of the studies were excluded or heavily criticised is typical for Cochrane. They are sceptics in the true sense, doubting everything, as you should when doing evidence based medicine. They only use around 33 studies in the final report I believe.


They said 64 in this version, but I believe you are right about the original one..
I like their approach.
I know they use saline for some, but in testing the actual effectiveness of the vaccine, they can also use one with additives, or it really does not rule out that an additive is influencing results.



cavernio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Aug 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,462

14 Dec 2013, 7:40 pm

BlackSabre7 wrote:
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen which destroys DNA. I don't accept that ANY amount of that should be injected directly into an infants body.


*I can't disagree with the 'injection' part, but do you have any idea how much formaldehyde ALL children are exposed to? Do you live in a house or apt? Take a car or public transit anywhere? Spend time in any sort of building? I'd bet you money that your child, as a matter of living in our society and not in the woods, gets more formaldehyde in their bloodstream in a regular week than what they get from a vaccine.

Did you know that burnt food is also a carcinogen? Will you let your kids eat bbq? Toast? That dinner you burnt a little because you're not a perfect chef? How carcinogenic is burnt food? How much burnt food would be consider 'safe' for your kids to eat? None? What studies are there about burnt food causing cancer? Do you want to only boil or eat raw food from now on, only let your kids eat boiled or raw food?

Have you read or critically evaluated anything besides vaccination studies blacksabre? Because if you had, judging by your cynicism and critical thinking, I imagine that you'd come to the conclusion that no science that relies on statistics is ever accurate enough for anyone to ever use it as any sort of knowledge. I think if you delved deeper into any science beyond, oh, physics or chemistry, you might be happiest being a Mennonite.

Anyways, what I see is that we don't have the deaths of kids that my parents saw children die from, don't have the '194x was a bad year for german measles, 6 of my classmates left school and never came back'. What I see is that virii that don't get immunized, like chicken pox, is still alive and kicking and every couple of years or so all the grade 1s and 2s pass around chicken pox. Quite frankly I don't need a meta-analysis done on perfect studies (again, I'd like to point out that the perfect study doesn't exist) to be confident that measles wasn't just a fad that would have died out on its own had vaccination not happened. Just because the FDA f***s up with lots of things, and seemingly ends up being in the pocket of anyone who cares to pay enough (run enough trials and you'll eventually get a the result you want...), doesn't mean all medicine is a hoax.

Yeah, it's possible that vaccinations might increase the risk of a few things in your kids, and yeah, it's even possible for you to not vaccinate your kids and get away with it because you know that most people DO vaccinate such that the chances of your kids getting measles isn't next to none. But I also have a really, really hard time believing that someone intelligent could think that vaccinations weren't and aren't necessary in preventing the diseases that are being vaccinated against, as you have hypothesized.


_________________
Not autistic, I think
Prone to depression
Have celiac disease
Poor motivation


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

15 Dec 2013, 7:18 am

cavernio wrote:
BlackSabre7 wrote:
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen which destroys DNA. I don't accept that ANY amount of that should be injected directly into an infants body.


*I can't disagree with the 'injection' part, but do you have any idea how much formaldehyde ALL children are exposed to? Do you live in a house or apt? Take a car or public transit anywhere? Spend time in any sort of building? I'd bet you money that your child, as a matter of living in our society and not in the woods, gets more formaldehyde in their bloodstream in a regular week than what they get from a vaccine.


Not only that, don't forget that our bodies manufacture formaldehyde daily. Even if one grew up eating natural foods with no exposure to any man-made chemicals, he would still have detectable amounts of formaldehyde in the body.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,868
Location: London

15 Dec 2013, 10:13 am

BlackSabre7 wrote:

Anyone who thinks this is adequate proof that vaccines are safe either did not read it or did not understand it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .pub3/full

* I accept that drug companies often withhold data about safety, but this is unlikely to be the case with vaccines. They aren't money makers, they've been on the market for so long that they aren't even protected by copyright any more. Without checking, I imagine most studies on vaccine safety are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, because they generally only fund studies before their product comes to market.

If you think this is NOT adequate proof that vaccines are safe- a rigorous systematic review by an independent body with a fantastic track record- then you don't understand empiricism.



BlackSabre7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 943
Location: Queensland, Australia

16 Dec 2013, 7:04 am

cavernio wrote:
BlackSabre7 wrote:
Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen which destroys DNA. I don't accept that ANY amount of that should be injected directly into an infants body.


*I can't disagree with the 'injection' part, but do you have any idea how much formaldehyde ALL children are exposed to? Do you live in a house or apt? Take a car or public transit anywhere? Spend time in any sort of building? I'd bet you money that your child, as a matter of living in our society and not in the woods, gets more formaldehyde in their bloodstream in a regular week than what they get from a vaccine.

Did you know that burnt food is also a carcinogen? Will you let your kids eat bbq? Toast? That dinner you burnt a little because you're not a perfect chef? How carcinogenic is burnt food? How much burnt food would be consider 'safe' for your kids to eat? None? What studies are there about burnt food causing cancer? Do you want to only boil or eat raw food from now on, only let your kids eat boiled or raw food?

Have you read or critically evaluated anything besides vaccination studies blacksabre? Because if you had, judging by your cynicism and critical thinking, I imagine that you'd come to the conclusion that no science that relies on statistics is ever accurate enough for anyone to ever use it as any sort of knowledge. I think if you delved deeper into any science beyond, oh, physics or chemistry, you might be happiest being a Mennonite.

Anyways, what I see is that we don't have the deaths of kids that my parents saw children die from, don't have the '194x was a bad year for german measles, 6 of my classmates left school and never came back'. What I see is that virii that don't get immunized, like chicken pox, is still alive and kicking and every couple of years or so all the grade 1s and 2s pass around chicken pox. Quite frankly I don't need a meta-analysis done on perfect studies (again, I'd like to point out that the perfect study doesn't exist) to be confident that measles wasn't just a fad that would have died out on its own had vaccination not happened. Just because the FDA f**** up with lots of things, and seemingly ends up being in the pocket of anyone who cares to pay enough (run enough trials and you'll eventually get a the result you want...), doesn't mean all medicine is a hoax.

Yeah, it's possible that vaccinations might increase the risk of a few things in your kids, and yeah, it's even possible for you to not vaccinate your kids and get away with it because you know that most people DO vaccinate such that the chances of your kids getting measles isn't next to none. But I also have a really, really hard time believing that someone intelligent could think that vaccinations weren't and aren't necessary in preventing the diseases that are being vaccinated against, as you have hypothesized.


The constant exposure to formaldehyde is exactly why it should be minimized. The link below is all about it.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=218&tid=39
Maybe it is partly the cause of asthma in some children? The site says: "There is some evidence of asthma or asthma-like symptoms for children exposed to formaldehyde in homes."
There is no way to argue that more formaldehyde is a good thing.

We are exposed to toxic substances regularly, and we have unprecedented rates of cancer and all the rest of it. Does that mean we should not try to reduce the risk? Perhaps we should give kids cigarettes after all.

I make NO apologies for haiving critical thinking. I am not a sheep. (is that why they call it 'herd immunity'?)
OK, I couldn't resist the pun, I do know about herd immunity. No need to bring out the bazooka. I agree it is a sound principle.

Although my recent studies have been focused on geology, physics, and psychology, I did population studies which included epidemiology, and a compulsory subject which included ethics in science in which we studied the Andrew Wakefield situation (as a cautionary tale). I have also done in the past, at my Uni (one of the top 100 unis in the world, in case you think it's an online one, or something) parasitology, pharmacology, microbiology, invertebrate zoology, botany, vertebrate zoology, and a few other biological ones. Oh yeah, and statistics too.
And I am not religious, although I defend the rights of others to choose to be so.

I ABSOLUTELY do NOT believe all medicine is a hoax, and never said anything of the sort. I did not even say that vaccinations should be discontinued for everyone. My central point is that people should have the right to make informed decisions about the well being of their own children without being accused of being irresponsible or of 'jeopardizing the health of everyone else's children'. The science is simply not as clear as you think.

I know it seems like there must be SOMETHING wrong in my thinking if I am not agreeing with the majority on something that appears so obvious, but there is not. I am not the only educated person who thinks vaccination should not be forced on people. I know of doctors and researchers in that industry who choose not to vaccinate their own kids. I know you want to believe only uneducated, or ignorant, or fanatically religious or hippie mother nature type people or mentally ill people could possibly have a problem with vaccination, and I know there is a common view among passionate pro-vaccination believers that there could only be a tiny handful of rebels that can't see the truth, but this is just not true. One doctor who became my friend, eventually admitted to me that she was afraid to even appear that she in favour of vaccines, because she said if someone complained, she could lose her license. So she did as was required, and suggested vaccines to her patients, answered their questions the expected way, administered the vaccines, but if a patient said no, she did not push. The majority of doctors do not make this decision, they follow the guidelines set by others. But there are a few who notice things that cause them to question whether they are doing the right thing.

I did not hypothesize that vaccines do not help prevent some diseases. I am saying that there is more to the decision than simply "shall I avoid this disease or not?"
My brother got sick from a vaccine - he suffered for years. My cousin nearly died. I never had a reaction, but I still reserve the right to decide if this risk is worth it for my kids.
It is every parent's right to make the choice. They have to live with the consequences either way.
I think that someone who is prepared ask questions and do some investigating before they make such important decisions about their child's health is far more responsible than someone who is prepared to blindly do whatever they are told. I spent hundreds of hours researching before I made my decision. Most of my critics either just do it automatically, or ask questions for all of five minutes before they also do it anyway.

You can question my intelligence if you want, but I hear kids say 'you're just dumb' and that really is not much of a rational argument.



Last edited by BlackSabre7 on 16 Dec 2013, 7:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

BlackSabre7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 943
Location: Queensland, Australia

16 Dec 2013, 7:05 am

The_Walrus wrote:
BlackSabre7 wrote:

Anyone who thinks this is adequate proof that vaccines are safe either did not read it or did not understand it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... .pub3/full

* I accept that drug companies often withhold data about safety, but this is unlikely to be the case with vaccines. They aren't money makers, they've been on the market for so long that they aren't even protected by copyright any more. Without checking, I imagine most studies on vaccine safety are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, because they generally only fund studies before their product comes to market.

If you think this is NOT adequate proof that vaccines are safe- a rigorous systematic review by an independent body with a fantastic track record- then you don't understand empiricism.


I agree this is a great assessment and respect their work. It is THEIR conclusion that the research is inadequate.



doofy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 505
Location: Here

16 Dec 2013, 8:19 am

BlackSabre7 wrote:
I am not a sheep. (is that why they call it 'herd immunity'?)

Wouldn't that be "flock immunity"?