Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread

If you want to have a friendly chat, then use chat. Purpledawn is there on occasion, although I have never seen Buz. If you want to debate, then use the forum, just be prepared for interested parties to disagree with you.

Good Ol' Buzsaw Autism is largely, but not entirely, just a modern and more politically correct way to say 'mentally retarded,' the term they used to use when I was young. There is no such thing as more cases of autism, just more diagnoses of autism. I am sure I am not the first to point out this fact, but hey, who cares about facts when lives are at stake? How does diet cure cholera, typhoid, measles, smallpox, chicken pox, diphtheria, bubonic plague, pneumonic plague, malaria, HPV, AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS?Did all those plague victims in the mid 1300s in the Eastern Hemisphere need to die to satisfy your ideology? Do you feel that the cure for smallpox, which affected at least 25% of Europe and killed at least 80% of the indigenous population of the Western Hemisphere, is somehow worse than the vaccine, which has been around since 1798?Did all those Indian smallpox victims in the Western Hemisphere need to die for your ideology?I find it interesting that after all the railing against so called 'evolutionists' for supposedly spawning every 20th century dictator, you would condemn at least ten to a hundred times that many people to death for the crime of using science to cure disease.Wow, you really appear to hate science a lot more than you love God.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I was referring to the idea that autism (or largely in 60s talk mental retardation) is cause by vaccinations. Are you saying that the incidence of {autism/mental retardation/developmental disability in the mental sphere} prior to vaccination is greater now than in the past? Do you have any numbers to back this up? Perhaps I should have worded this a bit differently. You seem to me to claim that proper nutrition, whatever that is, prevents all communicable disease. Now logically according to your thesis, if you have perfect nutrition, then you can't get any of this type of disease. Since all people today in the US are written as having died of this or that disease, are you essentially claiming that your diet will allow you not only to never contract the flu but also to live forever, provided you don't die of a non-communicable disease? Like as in evolution or the germ theory of disease? Sorry, I have seen no evidence you ascribe to either. Well, I must agree it is important for claims of science to be vetted through legitimate criticism. However, as a bit of a pragmatist, to me if ten people suffer complications up to and including death, in order to save a million, the trade off seems more moral than the idea of saving the ten and letting the million die just because such math fits a preconceived and unalterable agenda. Well, it is possible we may have different definitions of science. To me 'creation science,' 'Ron Wyatt,' or 'granola prevents ebola' are not science, while to you they seem to be worthy of defending. Since judging by other threads you are against all of geology, nearly all of biology, gravity and the strong and weak force in physics (except when it is used to kill instead of learn), and any understanding of chemistry based upon the strong and weak forces, to me you are against most of the findings of the natural sciences.I suppose to be fair and more exact, I should say it appears to me you are against most the findings of natural science as currently understood using the definition of science used by scientists.After all, you are apparently now engaged in an argument against the germ theory of disease. In order to 'weigh and consider' one must first read and understand the evidence.The reason I am harder on you than others is because they claim perfect and infallible wisdom while still in high school. You are in your 70s, so IMHO you should be held to a higher standard. Edited by anglagard, : bit of physics clarity

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I think the problem is not so much the idea that science is perfect but rather you appear to be criticizing what is known with reasonable confidence using what is asserted with much less evidence or confidence.In a debate, if you take one rather strident side without qualifying your statements, the other side will do likewise. When it comes to matters of science, a field that is both immense and ultimately self correcting, it is easy to get in over one's head, particularly considering the number of highly educated members of certain subsets of the scientific endeavor around here.If you have a specific criticism of the findings of science regarding vaccination yet frame that within the understanding that vaccination is not always a bad thing, you may want to make that clear to everyone around her if you seek to avoid some pretty sharp and heated replies.Edited by anglagard, : beter englich

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Yes there are idiot savants. Unfortunately as recently as the 1960s in the US, anyone who appeared to lack the mental ability to function normally was labeled 'mentally retarded.' It is a simple fact of recent history, not necessarily a proper diagnosis under current practices in psychology. As others have subsequently pointed out, you make the assertion, now show us the evidence for the claim.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This article may be of interest, from:http://findarticles.com/...a3919/is_200610/ai_n17194971/pg_2

quote:

---

Although the use of modern medical technology is not prohibited by religious beliefs, the Amish are cautious and conservative in action (Hostetler, 1993) and may refuse health services if approval has not been granted by the community leaders (Wenger, 1991). For example, Amish families and communities vary in receptivity to the practice of immunization for communicable diseases, leading to increased vulnerability to epidemics (Trier, 1991). The Amish are at risk because they travel into the non-Amish community for periodic shopping and visits to relatives in distant Amish communities. Although the Amish account for less that 0.5% of the national population, they experienced nearly all rubella reported in the U.S. in 1991 (Briss, Fehrs, Hutcheson, & Schaffner, 1992), a clear example of their unique vulnerability.

---

For those who prefer anecdotal evidence, my wife lived in Lamoni, Iowa for the first 32 years of her life, a town that has recently seen the immigration of several hundred Amish. In our recent visits, I have personally observed their behavior and it is essentially the same as pointed out in this article.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza