Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Alchemist
Original Poster
#1 Old 18th Feb 2015 at 8:04 PM
Default (Mandatory) Vaccines
Pro Vaccine argument:
*Vaccines can save children's lives
*The ingredients in vaccines are safe in the amounts used
*Major medical organizations state that vaccines are safe
*Adverse reactions to vaccines are extremely rare
*Vaccines protect the "herd"
*Vaccines save children and their parents time and money
*Vaccines protect future generations
*Vaccines eradicated smallpox and have nearly eradicated other diseases such as polio
*Vaccine-preventable diseases have not disappeared so vaccination is still necessary
*Vaccines provide economic benefits for society

Anti-Vaccine argument:
*Vaccines can cause serious and sometimes fatal side effects
*Vaccines contain harmful ingredients
*The government should not intervene in personal medical choices
*Mandatory vaccines infringe upon constitutionally protected religious freedoms
*Vaccines can contain ingredients some people consider immoral or otherwise objectionable
*Vaccines are unnatural, and natural immunity is more effective than vaccination
*The pharmaceutical companies, FDA, and CDC should not be trusted to make and regulate safe vaccines
*Diseases that vaccines target have essentially disappeared
*Most diseases that vaccines target are relatively harmless in many cases, thus making vaccines unnecessary

(Reasoning behind said arguments.)

My personal opinion is that both sides can be narrowed down to 2 very basic ideas: Idea 1 is that what's best for the group overrides what's best for the individual, whereas idea 2 argues in favor of the individual. I would have to side with the former, given that there are many out there who are too young for the vaccine who depend on the more developed (And ideally, more intelligent) beings around it to be immune in order to not get sick, themselves.
Especially with something like the latest measles outbreak. That stuff can linger in the air and on surfaces for hours before it dies. Refusing to have your child vaccinated for something like that, and then taking them to a place that's densely populated with other people's children who do not have a choice about catching it (Such as an amusement park or pediatricians office), strikes me as borderline psychotic.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Advertisement
Scholar
#2 Old 18th Feb 2015 at 8:28 PM
I'm not a fan of mandatory vaccination. Not because I'm anti-vaccination (although the ingredients in the shots my doctor gave me were horrifying) I just don't like the government (US in my case,) which is supposed to get its power from the people (everyday people) making decision for them.

The secret ingredient is phone.
Growing up means watching my heroes turn human in front of me.
Thank you, O Mighty Doom Deity! - BL00DIEHELL
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#3 Old 18th Feb 2015 at 8:50 PM
I disagree with you about what the arguments boil down to, in that the anti-vaccine position can't be about what's best for the individual because vaccines are good for the individuals who get them. Vaccines are not harmful, it's a complete myth. So it's really more about individuals being allowed to put the safety of everyone at risk for the sake of their superstitious beliefs (whether religious or medical in nature). Which I am not in favour of.

ETA: The reason why vaccines should be mandatory (except for those with compromised immune systems, or maaaybe religious exemptions) is the same reason why taxes are mandatory. Because sure, if one person goes "Well everyone else has done their bit, so I can slack off and we'll probably all be fine", we probably will all be fine. But it never stays at one person for long.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#4 Old 18th Feb 2015 at 10:15 PM Last edited by maxon : 18th Feb 2015 at 10:41 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
Anti-Vaccine argument:
*Vaccines are unnatural, and natural immunity is more effective than vaccination

Pfffffft - hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Are people seriously making that argument? I mean seriously.

I can't remember where I got this infographic but those people really should take note. On the left hand side is the annual morbidity rate in the US from preventable (i.e. vaccinated) diseases BEFORE vaccines were introduced (i.e. relying on 'natural immunity'). The right hand column is the recent (i.e. a couple of years ago) annual morbidity rate in the US from the same diseases, that is AFTER vaccines were introduced of course. I said I forgot where the infographic came from but the data is from the dear old government. I'm wondering why they recommend innoculation?


Or maybe this makes the actual numbers clearer:


I just can't myself, given that diseases like Measles kill (and it is STILL the biggest killer of children under 5 the world over - that piece of info from WHO), see that's there's any argument to be made.

Quote: Originally posted by SuicidiaParasidia
*Diseases that vaccines target have essentially disappeared
*Most diseases that vaccines target are relatively harmless in many cases, thus making vaccines unnecessary

Sigh - I guess some of these people must be shooting for a Darwin Award. Trouble is they'll take others along with them.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Theorist
#5 Old 18th Feb 2015 at 10:34 PM
The real argument is:

"Vaccines are safe and save millions of lives."

vs.

"I believe bullshit science and I'm a terrible parent, a terrible person, and the only compelling reason for not forcing me to get vaccinated is because bullets are cheaper and more certain to prevent future disease outbreaks related to me being a complete and utterly irresponsible moron."

OR

"I live in Pakistan, and the CIA is a bunch of assholes who fucking ruin shit for doctors by being assholes."

Which is really only an argument to kick the CIA's ass for its illegal bullshit posing as doctors and giving fake vaccinations, not actually an argument for avoiding real vaccinations which, as I said, are safe and save lives. But I can sympathize with a certain amount of incredulity when the CIA's out there willfully being dicks in ways that are almost guaranteed to cause preventable disease outbreaks that kill people.

So fuck anti-vaxxers and fuck the CIA. People who fuck around with diseases aren't just stupid, they should be put under the prison as an example for future assholes.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#6 Old 18th Feb 2015 at 11:10 PM
Yeah, the CIA's actions there were just completely inexcusable. I mean, how the living fuck did they end up deciding that catching Bin Laden was more important than saving countless children from dying of preventable diseases? What the hell? I think we're lucky that the mistrust of doctors caused by that hasn't spread a lot further and faster than it has in the middle east, because that CIA bullshit could easily have set back progress on eradicating big killers by decades.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Theorist
#7 Old 19th Feb 2015 at 12:08 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nysha
I mean, how the living fuck did they end up deciding that catching Bin Laden was more important than saving countless children from dying of preventable diseases?

The thing that bothers me the most about all of it was that it would have been a pittance of cost and training to have simply given out the proper vaccines. Then everyone would be like "The CIA are kind of dicks for posing as doctors, but at least they saved a bunch of kids' lives while they were posing as doctors." How hard can it be to train someone to even half-ass administer a vaccine? Frankly the only way it makes any amount of sense is if someone waived it off because they were intentionally trying to be an asshole and get more sick children. If that's ever proven I only hope we set the bastard on fire before we hang him... a slow, smoldering fire.

It's been sort of an open secret that the CIA infiltrates aid groups for years, but I always assumed that in addition to doing their spy shit they were actually doing some sort of good things out there too. Like, "Imma gonna spy on you, but meanwhile, here's this bridge I built and the well I dug." That would have been awesome. It's the way things should work if you're doing stuff like that. I still hold out hope that that's the normal way we do things, and it was just Dickhole Cheney and President Dipshit who decidered that changing things (because they were stupid about every single other thing and why not another) was a good idea because in general I think most people in government are regular sorts of folks who don't intentionally do evil shit just because they can, even in the CIA.
Mad Poster
#8 Old 19th Feb 2015 at 2:39 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 20th Feb 2015 at 12:11 PM.
I think that vaccines against the more severe and deadly diseases is necessary, because when people don't take the vaccines the diseases tend to sneak back into the communities and cause trouble.

There are some arguments against giving kids vaccines against the 'children's diseases' like rubella, varicella, measles and so forth, because some of these vaccines don't give as good a protection as getting the disease in the early years, and as long as the kids get the diseases before puberty, they don't cause a lot of troubles (unless it happens in countries with very bad health care). A lot of the diseases have however been mostly swiped away by vaccines being introduced, so whether or not there's any hold in the arguments is up to research (done by 3rd parties, not producers of vaccines) to decide. What is true is that some of these diseases can cause major problems in teen years, in immunocompromized people, people with chronic diseases, pregnant women, and so forth. If there isn't a certain level of immunity in the community (flock immunity), we risk more people getting sick from diseases that can be prevented. Most of these diseases are those you get once and they're gone, and the viruses usually don't have a very high mutation rate, so the vaccines tend to work for most people. Vaccines are also extremely important in developing countries, where simple diseases cause major outbreaks and lots of deaths. If the healthcare system doesn't work, and people in general have bad hygiene habits and don't quite understand how diseases spread and how to stop them, vaccines is the only way to stop outbreaks from happening.

As for the whole thing with autism after vaccines, it's probably for more special cases. Maybe there's an underlying condition that something in the vaccine triggers, or perhaps it's a coincidence. I'm pretty sure me and my entire flock of cousins have had the regular baby-to-teen vaccines, and there's no autism going around in my family, as far as I know. Can't remember anyone from school having it, either. I used to know one person with the related Aspergers, but there were a couple of other things too, so I don't think that was vaccine related.

When it comes to influenza (the seasonal kind), I'm a bit more skeptical. The influenza viruses have a high mutation rate, so you risk not getting the protection you need from that season's vaccine (they tend to use last season's batch of viruses for the vaccines, and it doesn't always match up with the next season's batch). I read in a science report that 71 people have to be vaccinated to avoid one case of the flu, which means that many who get the vaccine still get sick. Personally, I haven't gotten a flu vaccine in ages, not seasonal nor the more special ones (not since the mandatory ones when I was a baby, anyway). If I once in a while get sick it's usually a mild cold. I think I've only had the flu some 2-4 times in over 20 years, usually somewhat mild, and really don't want to jinx that. When that's said, risk groups (people with chronic diseases, etc.), people who work or live close with risk groups, and people who tend to get sick when there's flu in the air might benefit more from getting the vaccine than regular, healthy people who almost never get the flu. Not sure if it really helps, though. The influenza viruses are nasty little buggers, but unless they mutate into creepy monsters (swine/bird/spanish/etc.), they're usually not very harmful for most of the otherwise healthy population. However, for people with chronic diseases who get very sick from the flu, the regular seasonal flu probably claimed more lives every year than the swine flu did while it raged. The difference was that the swine flu gave otherwise healthy people a very bad version of the flu, and could cause serious complications for them, too. Then again, some of the swine flu vaccines might have had some suspicious bi-effects (I know people who had weird side effects after getting the vaccine, things that didn't have other explanations than the vaccine - but that's only the vaccines for swine flu).

Washing hands and having good hand and food hygiene in general is more helpful against the flu or a cold than the flu vaccines are. That, and being outside in fresh air a lot when the worst flu season is going on. Enclosed spaces (like the doctor's waiting room, class rooms, offices, etc.) are the worst places to be if you don't want to get viral infections, because the viruses don't have anywhere else to go, and so they stick around in the air. They also love to stick to door handles, money, phones, water taps, computer mouses and keyboards, and other places where people don't usually wash their hands before/after having touched (yup, your cellphone is probably swarming with bacteria/viruses right now). Changing your toothbrush, washing your water bottle, along with wiping places in your home you might have touched with alcohol wipes can be very smart if you've already been sick, so that you don't re-infect yourself. Doing it on a regular basis might hinder infection. When you're in public toilets, wash your hands thoroughly all over with soap. The rubbing is what removes bacteria - and 30 seconds is the minimum for clean hands. When you're done, use the paper to close the tap plus to open the door - otherwise there's not much use in washing your hands, because most of the population don't wash their hands properly, and those taps and door handles are dirty! This might sound like paranoia, but just so you know, this is usually how I've done it in daily life since at least the beginning of my teens, and I rarely get sick, so I'm pretty sure it helps.
Test Subject
#9 Old 19th Feb 2015 at 4:58 AM
I'm a diabetic, I've had flu, 3 weeks in hospital on an IV to stop me running out of fluids, having gone through that, I'd implore people to get any vaccine they can, I can't deal with that again, and If one person getting vaccinated reduces my chance of getting that ill again, I'll mortgage buckingham palace if I have to, and PAY people to get vaccinated so I can reduce the chances, for me and others.
yes I'm biased, but I don't care, I hate hospitals, I hate being sick, diabetes is bad enough, even after 20 years, I don't need my health getting any worse, thanks.
Alchemist
Original Poster
#10 Old 19th Feb 2015 at 8:48 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Nysha
I disagree with you about what the arguments boil down to, in that the anti-vaccine position can't be about what's best for the individual because vaccines are good for the individuals who get them. Vaccines are not harmful, it's a complete myth. So it's really more about individuals being allowed to put the safety of everyone at risk for the sake of their superstitious beliefs (whether religious or medical in nature). Which I am not in favour of.

ETA: The reason why vaccines should be mandatory (except for those with compromised immune systems, or maaaybe religious exemptions) is the same reason why taxes are mandatory. Because sure, if one person goes "Well everyone else has done their bit, so I can slack off and we'll probably all be fine", we probably will all be fine. But it never stays at one person for long.


I misphrased. I meant "best for the individual" as in, the individual who overly prizes their sense of personal choice in the matter, typically the sort of person who lords their every opinion over everyone else. Such an individual would likely prefer their personal choice over anything (And I do mean anything) else and thus see it as the "best" in the sense that it's more power to exercise in the matter for themselves.

"The more you know, the sadder you get."~ Stephen Colbert
"I'm not going to censor myself to comfort your ignorance." ~ Jon Stewart
Versigtig, ek's nog steeds fokken giftig
Scholar
#11 Old 19th Feb 2015 at 5:12 PM
I kind of knew the anti-vaccination movement had hit its peak of hysteria the second I heard it was causing autism and even turning children gay (oh, dear god)

Personally, I think that parents who deny their children adequate medical care (aka vaccines in this instance) should be labeled as some sort of child abusers. I honestly don't care if it's because your bible told you or some pretty blonde celebrity lady in a magazine did, give your child proper medical care. The problem here is that people have begun believing almost anything they hear as credible and true without checking sources or facts. Or believing things they see on the internet instead of a doctor that went to medical school for 8+ years. I'm not necessarily saying to just blindly believe the scientific/medical community either, but this is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no reason to not vaccinate your perfectly healthy child for polio. Yes, I'm aware that if ONE child doesn't get vaccinated, it's unlikely they'll die of polio or some other disease eradicated decades ago, but as Nysha said, it rarely stays as one for long. A lot of parents seem under the impression that their child is magical, special, gifts from god completely different and unique (if not above) other kids.

Just call me Blake! :)
Hola, hablo español también - Hi, I speak Spanish too.
Spice Pony
#12 Old 19th Feb 2015 at 9:57 PM
A point I saw made recently is that vaccines aren't foolproof, so it can't really be argued that by not vaccinating your children, you're not putting anyone else in danger, because, really, the way vaccines work on a societal level is by starving out the pathogens by eliminating disease vectors, and if a lot of people aren't vaccinating, that doesn't really work. Just thought that point was intriguing and worth putting out there. Not sure how true it is, but it makes sense to me.
Theorist
#13 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 12:29 AM Last edited by Mistermook : 21st Feb 2015 at 3:00 AM.
Quote: Originally posted by ewenk7
A point I saw made recently is that vaccines aren't foolproof, so it can't really be argued that by not vaccinating your children, you're not putting anyone else in danger, because, really, the way vaccines work on a societal level is by starving out the pathogens by eliminating disease vectors, and if a lot of people aren't vaccinating, that doesn't really work. Just thought that point was intriguing and worth putting out there. Not sure how true it is, but it makes sense to me.

So endangering everyone else's children is better than maybe, possibly, kinda sorta not certainly endangering your own?

No. That's a bullshit nonsense excuse too.

EDIT: There, I highlighted the point that Ewenk declared other people made, that I responded to. So now Ewenk can stop whining about what a mean asshole I am for replying to his post as my vehicle for replying, right? Yes, that would be nice.
Forum Resident
#14 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 4:21 AM
Quote: Originally posted by ewenk7
A point I saw made recently is that vaccines aren't foolproof, so it can't really be argued that by not vaccinating your children, you're not putting anyone else in danger, because, really, the way vaccines work on a societal level is by starving out the pathogens by eliminating disease vectors, and if a lot of people aren't vaccinating, that doesn't really work. Just thought that point was intriguing and worth putting out there. Not sure how true it is, but it makes sense to me.


Yes, no vaccine causes immunity in 100% of the people it's given to. That's why you have multiple vaccines for the same disease, to increase the chances of actually creating immunity. (Of course in some cases the immunity wanes, like with whooping cough, and you need another vaccine to start again many years later - that's slightly different.)

It's why the bogus argument of "well, you're vaccinated, so why are you worried about me?" and "most of the cases of X are in vaccinated kids, so clearly vaccines don't work at all" are stupid - someone who has been vaccinated isn't necessarily immune (and maybe worried about people who can't be vaccinated...), and the diseases you see in vaccinated kids are the ones who didn't get immunity, or got reduced immunity, and because there are (thankfully) still a lot more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people in most places, a small percentage of a big number is bigger than a large percentage of a small number.

Personally, I think that the only reason for not getting vaccinated should be a medical one, certified by a doctor.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#15 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 11:02 AM
I think Mook misread ewenk's post, I did too the first time. Their point is that since vaccines work based on herd immunity, and that's why even a minority of people not vaccinating can be catastrophic, people should vaccinate their damn kids.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#16 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 1:38 PM
Thought people might be interested to see this infographic simulation about exposure in a population to measles infection and how it can spread. You need to run the simulation several times to see how it works but the most important point is how the highly vaccinated population (lower right) almost never gets infected (I only saw it get infected once in the times I ran the simlulation) and even when it does the spread of disease is stopped at (one in this case) a few cases.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...-get-vaccinated

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Theorist
#17 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 5:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nysha
I think Mook misread ewenk's post, I did too the first time. Their point is that since vaccines work based on herd immunity, and that's why even a minority of people not vaccinating can be catastrophic, people should vaccinate their damn kids.

No, I simply addressed the "some other people's point" portion.

Anti-vaxxers belong in the lowest rungs of mythological hell as far as I'm concerned. Fucking murderers and child rapists are less dangerous and potentially destructive to society as far as I'm concerned. I'm not letting an opportunity to shoot down anyone's "excuse," third party or not. If people are interested in being dicks, there's a wealth of material that doesn't involve the potentially painful, murderous, inexpressibly irresponsible evil lack of concern for your fellow human beings that risking other people's lives when you can avoid it with a simple health clinic visit does. People need to go mutilate a dog or shit on someone's face instead if they need to be a complete fuckup, but get vaccinated.

So no, I understood the overall message. I just want to punch people's faces in over this issue, and I'm not above cherry-picking parts of people's posts to start swinging.
Top Secret Researcher
#19 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 8:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by PlatinumPlumbbob
I am surprised that cost is not up there. My mom's employer pays for vaccines for all employees. Even if they decline to take the vaccine at one point for whatever reason, they must sign a form, announcing their wish to decline, but they are free to take the vaccine if they change their minds. The OP isn't clear about who is paying for the vaccines. Government organizations? Philanthropists? Individuals? Private employers? Public employers? In any case, I believe that cost should be up there, because that may contribute to the willingness to pay for vaccinations.


It would probably be the same as it is now; financially stable people pay for themselves or have health insurance that covers it, and people who can't afford it are on a government plan, so the government pays for it.
Top Secret Researcher
#20 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 9:34 PM Last edited by r_deNoube : 20th Feb 2015 at 9:45 PM.
I wonder how many people's views would change if we were asking this question a few months earlier. Then, we would have been talking about a different disease:

"A vaccine has been developed for ebola. Are there any people for whom vaccination should be mandatory?"

or even:

"Someone here worked closely with a foreigner who subsequently was found to have ebola. That person (evidently exposed, but not yet symptomatic) had not been vaccinated. Should they be quarantined during the incubation period of the disease?"

I suspect -- though I don't know any actual examples -- that there are people who would answer these questions "yes" for ebola and "no" for measles. It is hard for people to think clearly when they're scared.

Therefore I think the best course is to rely on the judgment of people who have actual knowledge of how diseases spread, what happens when you try to stop them with a vaccination program, and things like that.

But for people who prefer some personal story along with the dry professional arguments, here is what Roald Dahl wrote in 1988 about measles vaccine.
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#21 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 9:42 PM
Since vaccination is about public health, not the health of individuals, as far as I know essential vaccines are free to the individual everywhere.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Top Secret Researcher
#22 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 9:50 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Nysha
Since vaccination is about public health, not the health of individuals, as far as I know essential vaccines are free to the individual everywhere.

Certainly cost is not among the points the US anti-vax people are arguing -- and if there were any nation on Earth where individuals were charged for such things, the US would be it -- so I think this is right.
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#23 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 10:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by r_deNoube
But for people who prefer some personal story along with the dry professional arguments, here is what Roald Dahl wrote in 1988 about measles vaccine.

The sad thing (as well as the awful event he describes) is he was talking about the UK and said this:
In America, where measles immunisation is compulsory, measles like smallpox, has been virtually wiped out.
Seriously, that's a terrible thing.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Spice Pony
#24 Old 20th Feb 2015 at 10:19 PM Last edited by ewenk7 : 20th Feb 2015 at 10:37 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Mistermook
No, I simply addressed the "some other people's point" portion.

Anti-vaxxers belong in the lowest rungs of mythological hell as far as I'm concerned. Fucking murderers and child rapists are less dangerous and potentially destructive to society as far as I'm concerned. I'm not letting an opportunity to shoot down anyone's "excuse," third party or not. If people are interested in being dicks, there's a wealth of material that doesn't involve the potentially painful, murderous, inexpressibly irresponsible evil lack of concern for your fellow human beings that risking other people's lives when you can avoid it with a simple health clinic visit does. People need to go mutilate a dog or shit on someone's face instead if they need to be a complete fuckup, but get vaccinated.

So no, I understood the overall message. I just want to punch people's faces in over this issue, and I'm not above cherry-picking parts of people's posts to start swinging.


Except the point you were responding to was nowhere in what I said. Seriously baffled here…

Edit: I was gonna delete this post, as it didn't really contribute much to the thread, but since it already got some feedback, I'll just expand on it instead. Here's my two cents: in a weird way, I understand where the anti-vaccination people are coming from, as making vaccines outright mandatory seems like it's the sort of thing a dystopian government in a sci-fi movie would do to slip people mind-control drugs or something ridiculous like that, but still, a pretty-much unavoidable conspiracy scenario that is entirely hypothetical is a bad reason to reject life-saving medicine.

Obviously, the idea that vaccinations cause autism (I hadn't even heard the homosexuality one, but not only is that ridiculous, it's contradictory; aren't the main ones who think homosexuality is undesirable the ones who think it's somehow a choice, despite how little sense that makes?) is not only something that has been disconfirmed, but which doesn't even really make sense, if you know how vaccines actually work. So I don't think people have much of any sane reason to not vaccinate.

That said, the Nightly Show recently had an anti-vaccine person on who mentioned a confirmed case of a vaccine causing brain damage. While I'm still wary about the idea of endangering the population to avoid a rare side-effect, I am curious as to the details of this. It never hurts to be better-informed. Anyone know?
Top Secret Researcher
#25 Old 21st Feb 2015 at 2:03 AM
So if I'm bi, did I miss a booster shot or something?
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top