Wikipedia: "The measles vaccine is effective at preventing the disease"
Wikipedia: "Smallpox was eradicated by a massive international search for outbreaks, backed up with a vaccination program, starting in 1967."
(This was stolen from a YouTube comment, but I have lost the original.)
@alexbuzzbee wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and is run by a bunch of leftists who believe cutting your genitals off is healthy.
@orangesec_0 The World Health Organization: "Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000– 2017, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 21.1 million deaths." https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles
@alexbuzzbee https://www.naturalnews.com/048518_measles_vaccines_CDC_data.html check the sources the site lists if you don't believe me.
@alexbuzzbee plus many people in the current measles outbreak were vaccinated.
@orangesec_0 Vaccination reduces the rate of harm. It does not eliminate it. Having a sufficient vaccination rate among people with healthy immune systems protects people with weak immune systems against diseases that would otherwise harm them.
@alexbuzzbee teachers also won't let you cite wikipedia as a source in an essay.
@alexbuzzbee check the sources and the studies then.
@orangesec_0 Only one of those links even points to a document related to vaccination, and that one that remains is a paranoid rant based on misinterpretation of data about the MMR vaccine.
@alexbuzzbee how is it misinterpreted?
@orangesec_0 Because it is taking the absolute figure of a few hundred people out of millions administered the vaccine and comparing it to zero deaths out of a much much smaller number of people exposed to the disease.
Cite a respectable paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal, or I will block you. If you complain about science being “censored” or studies being “repressed,” I will block you. If you cite another pseudoscience Web site, I will block you.
@alexbuzzbee so basically you are in denial?
@orangesec_0 I wish to see actual evidence from a source that can be respected. That is not denialism. You have failed to provide that evidence. Do it now or I will block you. This is your last warning.
@alexbuzzbee I'll get blocked no matter what I do because you already made your mind up of what is true and what is not.
@orangesec_0 Your evasive response leads me to conclude that you are either unable or unwilling to find and present authoritative evidence supporting your position.
I will leave you with this paper, which finds that while vaccines can cause allergic reactions, which can be severe (and are almost certainly the source of the deaths reported by the government), they are rare and other commonly-claimed negative side effects are unsupported. http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2011/Adverse-Effects-of-Vaccines-Evidence-and-Causality.aspx
@orangesec_0 The WHO is a more reliable source than some random website.
@alexbuzzbee don't forget the same can be said for the same mainstream media that believed the Russia collusion hoax. Only naturalnews actually cites sources at the bottom.
@orangesec_0 I find it very hard to believe that "only" this one specific site, among all of those on the Web, cites its sources.
@alexbuzzbee cnn and many others usually just say "sources say", but that is off topic so whatever.
@orangesec_0 CNN is not the only other site on the Web.
@alexbuzzbee I said and many others. Including msnbc cbc, bbc, ect.
@orangesec_0 If you read their Web articles, the closest comparison, they do usually link to sources within the text of the article.
@alexbuzzbee example of what the sources look like
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.