Childhood Vaccinations – Necessary or Overkill? Sequal Thread

I want the choice not to vaccinate myself or my child. I also support the choice of others. Theoretically what you are saying makes sense, but the fact remains that we don't know what the substances contained in vaccines are doing to the human body. In the act of trying to help people, you could end up injecting them with something that's going to make them ill. Who knows? Agreed. Not to mention the fact that antibiotics are non-selective and kill beneficial as well as harmful bacteria.

yes, but if we don't vaccinate, we KNOW we will hurt people.

quote:

---

I've learned something interesting about creationists on this forum. They are open-minded.

---

No they aren't.They believe what they do despite all evidence to the contrary. They are NEVER willing to entertain the idea that they could be wrong.Just as nothing that anybody could show you can convince you that you could be wrong. You've said as much.That is an intellectually bankrupt method. It will always lead to error.You are a True Believer and are therefore immune to anything that you don't already agree with.

OK, open-mindedness is perhaps in the eye of the beholder. Certainly I would not call a hardline skeptic an open-minded person.There are True Believers in science, studies, peer review, etc. Science is an excellent way of learning about the world but it is not the only way; and as I said, I do not believe it is wise or accurate to think one can put the universe in a neat box and study it under completely controlled and unbiased conditions. In my view, the people who think this way are the ones who aren't seeing the bigger picture.How much are we going to quibble about this? I don't believe my method always leads to error and I do not believe that science always leads to truth. Sometimes this can also depend on how you define "truth." Sometimes meditation or other similar practices will get you there in a way that science cannot.

Can you tell me where this supposed anomaly comes from? The only references to autism and the amish I can find in the scientific literature are in a paper discussing a genetic disorder causing language regression similar to that seen in autism (Strauss et al., 2006).TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

my bet is that it's coincidental. the amish also have a restricted gene pool, and if autism is genetic, then it might not have been introduced to that gene pool yet. see if those cases with vaccinated children also have one non-amish parent.

quote:

---

Certainly I would not call a hardline skeptic an open-minded person.

---

We already know this.Of course, you are wrong.Skeptics are very open-minded...to any and all evidence.They can, and do, change their views in the light of new evidence.What you call "open-minded", I call "sloppy and lazy thinking".Your tendency is to believe something because you like how it feels to believe it, not because there's any evidence to support it.

quote:

---

There are True Believers in science, studies, peer review, etc.

---

Sure, but nobody you've been arguing with is one of them.Calling us "closed-minded" is just an insult to cover up your failure to provide a convincing case, as if it is somehow our fault that the evidence doesn't support what you wish it did.

quote:

---

Science is an excellent way of learning about the world but it is not the only way;

---

The scientific method is the only way that has EVER led to the reliable discoveries about natural phenomena regardless of what anyone believes or hopes or wishes were true. It is the ONLY way of "learning about the world" that constantly corrects for mistakes and bias.That's why science eliminated smallpox, rather than any other method.

quote:

---

and as I said, I do not believe it is wise or accurate to think one can put the universe in a neat box and study it under completely controlled and unbiased conditions.

---

We know you believe this.Why not try discussing what people write instead of simply repeating your beliefs over and over again?No scientist thinks that the universe is able to be put in a neat box, nor can it be studied under completely controlled or 100% unbiased conditions, so your exaggerated misrepresentation is a strawman. Indeed, a central tenet of science is the idea of tentativity, which states that we can never have perfect knowledge and all scientific theories are subject to change or rejection in the light of new evidence.What you have yet to do is explain how any other method is superior to scince for discovering the truth about natural phenomena.

quote:

---

In my view, the people who think this way are the ones who aren't seeing the bigger picture.

---

At this point, WE EFFING KNOW WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE.There is no need to repeat them. Please, please stop repeating them and start supporting them.

quote:

---

How much are we going to quibble about this?

---

Look, I'm not the one repeatedly spouting my beliefs instead of actually discussing the topic. That's you.

quote:

---

I don't believe my method always leads to error and I do not believe that science always leads to truth.

---

Nobody is saying that, so that's another strawman.What we have been saying all this time is that your method is very likely to lead to error, since it has no measures to prevent it, and the scientific method is very likely to encounter fewer errors, since the method itself exists to eliminate as much error as possible.Remember, being "science-minded" means always being open to evidence that you are wrong. You aren't, are you? That means you are closed-minded.I'll cut n paste a message I wrote to you in the amalgam thread: Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Nator's recent post echos what I've been saying for some time now, so I will quote her: In other words, could we please have a rational discussion focused on the topic, based upon valid evidence, and responsive to what people say? If you'd like to discuss "other ways of knowing," please propose a new thread.--Percy

In a democratic society, we give the responsibility for deciding what constitutes "significant harm" to our government.Unvaccinated children constitute a very real danger of "significant harm".Therefore, it is well within the government's right to require that children be vaccinated.You do not have the moral right to put your child or other children in harm's way.As I said in the earlier version of this thread, I hope that, eventually, Antivax Hysterics are prosecuted much in the same way that HIV+ carriers who are aware of their infection are prosecuted when they pass on the virus to an (unsuspecting) partner.Much in the way that woomeisters who fail to treat the their child's cancer with recognized treatments and opt instead for BS "alternative treatments" have been successfully prosecuted.Much in the way that religious fanatics who fail to treat a child's (immanently) fatal disease out of their religious conviction have been successfully prosecuted.It's called "forseeable harm".Parents who refuse to vaccinate are failing to take reasonable steps to prevent forseeable harm to their children ... and those of others.

That's fine Percy. It's just that if people are going to label me "True Believer" etc, then it's tempting to respond. If you're well aware of what my beliefs are, then I'm well aware of the derision in which they are held, and I have been told about it many times now. I will try to make sure I just stick to the evidence presented here if others will do the same.

It's clear you disagree with me. By this token, anyone in power should be able to force me to do anything they feel is in the best interests of my child, whether I agree or not. I don't call that democracy, it's more like totalitarianism.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

That's certainly a possibility, Brenna.Page not found. | MedPage Today Even if the genetic defect were introduced into the population, there's a 50% chance it would disappear.Rare traits introduced into small populations tend to get "fixed" at 1 or 0. (1 = very common, 0 = absent)I'd like to add, however, that autism is not unknown in Amish communities.The following shows that a genetic defect that causes autism has become established in the Amish community. ABE: I'm talking about the same thing as the link Wounded provided in his post.
Recessive symptomatic focal epilepsy and mutant contactin-associated protein-like 2.
N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 30;354(13):1370-7.Edited by molbiogirl, : added info

There is no such paper. Check the link provided at the site you referenced if you don't believe me. Check pubmed. No paper. There are no cites so that I can check the primary sources of the information. For all I know, Dr. Moxon never said anything of the things this site claims that he said. Google provided no quotes of this sort from Dr. Moxon either. 900 claims were paid between 1979 and 2000. That's 21 years. That's 42/year.Vaccination rates for the UK during that period were between 89-92%.The population of the UK during that period was (on average) 56,000,000.That's .000071%. Well within the expected adverse reaction rate of vaccines.No, it's not zero.But you take a bigger chance getting into your car every day and driving to work.Hell, you have a bigger chance of getting hit by lightning. (1:1000)

It's called a society, where people get together and establish the rules under which they will live. In both our countries we do this democratically.Quarantines were common in the early 20th century. Depending upon the particular disease, the board of health might slap a quarantine on a house where no one is allowed to leave or enter, except medical staff.Widespread vaccination seems much more humane, certainly much more successful, not to mention much less extreme, than quarantines.It seems only fair that those who refuse to live by society's rules should lose the right to live in that society. We lock criminals in prisons. Perhaps we could quarantine an area of your country and place all those against vaccinations there. You could protect yourselves from epidemics with quarantines. How about a nice little island in the Hebrides? But what does your dislike for living under society's rules have to do with the topic?By the way, touching on something MBG said, here in the US a significant proportion of the states have laws protecting parents from prosecution for any harm that might come to their children due to choices of medical care influenced by religion. Some states, such as Oklahoma, have extremely liberal laws and include a wide range of medical care choices having nothing to do with religion, such as healers who claim they draw upon the healing powers inherent in the energy of the universe.--Percy

Please provide evidence of harm done by any of these ingredients.Remember. There is NO mercury in the vaccinations given to children. So just focus on the rest.Check your sources before posting them. Don't make me do it for you (again).Also. It isn't enough to show that formaldehyde (for example) harms people when injected. We know that it does. You need to show that, in the concentrations found in vaccines, formaldehyde presents a demonstrable harmful effect.