Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is it time to consider compulsory vaccinations?
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 736 of 930 (762407)
07-11-2015 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by Faith
07-11-2015 8:50 PM


Re: It's the Safety Song and Dance that raises suspicion
Faith writes:
YOU are the one who said parents should be charged with murder who choose against vaccinating their children, so why are you playing dumb about that?
No, what I said was:
In my opinion, parents who refuse to vaccinate their children should be charged with murder if their child dies of a preventable disease or infects another child that dies.
And I don't understand what you mean about playing dumb about it.
Faith writes:
You all may disagree profoundly with this choice, and think it profoundly wrong or crazzzy of us to make it, but there is no need for this punitive attitude, this accusation of evil motives or selfishness, if you'd just respect that other people have different opinions from your own and you aren't the arbiter of all truth.
I stated my opinion that I think parents who let their children or other children die because of their overt negligence in not vaccinating their children should be held accountable. In our society adults are not allowed to cause the death of a child without consequences.
I make no claim as being an arbiter of truth and neither are you.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 8:50 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 737 of 930 (762411)
07-11-2015 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by Faith
07-11-2015 8:57 PM


Re: Etiology
Your examples of the discovery of causes and cures of diseases are not relevant. We're talking about something that is IATROGENIC, induced by the medicine that is promoted by irresponsible people.
But there's no particular reason why parents should have magic powers to figure out the etiology of iatrogenic illnesses affecting their children more than other illnesses that aren't iatrogenic. In fact, one example I gave was iatrogenic: aspirin causes Reye's syndrome. This was discovered by, guess who, doctors doing medical research, not by mothers of children with Reye's syndrome.
THEY aren't looking for a cure, they are too busy denying the problem.
See also: chemtrails, alien abductions, and Bigfoot attacks.
That leaves the parents who couldn't help noticing that their child who had been alert and active stopped being alert and active right after, or soon after, being vaccinated. Or in the case of infants, died.
Right. Like all those cases where a child got ill soon after being looked at by an old woman. This was obviously caused by witchcraft, we can trust the parents to know this, and anyone who says different isn't looking for a cure, they are too busy denying the problem. And probably in league with the devil, to boot.
One puzzle still remains. Many children who fall ill have previously been vaccinated and been looked at by an old woman. In such cases, how do we figure out whether to blame witchcraft or vaccination? Does it merely depend on the whims of the parents?
---
Seven Accused African Witches Burned To Death
Witchcraft accusations follow some unexplained misfortune such as an accident, a sudden sickness or a village drinking well drying up. If there is no obvious, immediate explanation, the event may be blamed on a suspected witch.
Do you have "respect" for the witch-burners and "assume" that they're intelligent enough to figure out why they got sick? Then why favor one superstition over another ... oh, right, because one of the superstitions is yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 8:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 738 of 930 (762413)
07-11-2015 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 735 by Faith
07-11-2015 9:01 PM


Try respecting the parents who have had such experiences and stop making absurd comparisons as if anyone is giving them the status of experts in medicine or other related field.
But if their experiences don't give them diagnostic expertise, then why should we respect them so much as to reason and act as if they do in fact have such expertise? That goes beyond ordinary respect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 735 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 9:01 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 739 of 930 (762414)
07-11-2015 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 732 by Faith
07-11-2015 8:43 PM


Re: It's the Safety Song and Dance that raises suspicion
Recognize for starters that removing mercury from vaccines, even if not completely (and it wasn't completely), is a tacit acknowledgement that those who had been calling it safe were either lying or irresponsible and why should anyone trust those same people when they continue to tell us they're safe now?
That's one way to interpret their actions. Another is that if the use of thiomersal was causing people to avoid vaccinating, which it was, then it's a good idea to ditch the thiomersal whether or not their fears were well-founded; or just on the principle that it's better to be safe then sorry. In fact, it turns out that the removal of thiomersal was based on an overestimate of the risk. According to WP:
Since then, it has been found that ethylmercury is eliminated from the body and the brain significantly faster than methylmercury, so the late-1990s risk assessments turned out to be overly conservative.
Are you now going to castigate as "lying or irresponsible" the people in the late 90s who said it might be dangerous?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 732 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 8:43 PM Faith has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(6)
Message 740 of 930 (762415)
07-12-2015 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 734 by Faith
07-11-2015 8:57 PM


Re: Etiology
That leaves the parents who couldn't help noticing that their child who had been alert and active stopped being alert and active right after, or soon after, being vaccinated.
The son of friends of mine was diagnosed as autistic, following them noticing symptoms which manifested themselves shortly after his MMR jab. His mother was convinced that the jab caused his autism (she's less convinced now, but more of that later). The point is that the correlation of his symptoms, and recently receiving the jab, is, I would agree, certainly a very good reason to ask the question whether the MMR jab causes, triggers, or contributes to autism. Fair enough on that one - the question should definitely be asked.
And asked it was. Scientists were asked, many times, and after a large amount of research, and a couple of false leads, the answer was arrived at that the research shows that there is no cause and effect between the MMR jab and autism. It's simply correlation.
The thing is, the symptoms of autism tend to become noticeable at around the stage that children tend to receive the vaccination. My stepson-to-be is strongly autistic, and although I only met my fiance after his diagnosis, I have watched videos of him when younger, and spoken with her at length about it. An autistic baby behaves the same as a non-autistic one (or certainly within the range of non-autistic behaviour at that age) - you start to get an inkling that something isn't quite usual somewhere between age 1 and 2, which is when the MMR vaccine is given. In a lot of cases, the symptoms manifest themselves before the jab, but often after (sometimes immediately after) it. This correlation is virtually a statistical certainty.
I really do understand people's concern about this issue - and the coincidence of the timing of the vaccine and the administration of the vaccination should not be ignored - they should prompt proper and serious research.
The thing is, they did. And the research overwhelmingly concludes that MMR vaccines do not cause, trigger or contribute towards autism. Parents will of course wonder whether the jab caused it, but like my friend, they learn ever more about autism (it's one hell of a journey - and far from a negative one), and come to the understanding that MMR is irrelevant to it.
Which leaves us (and the parents of your grandchildren) with a simple choice. Do we continue to worry about the correlation, and withdraw the vaccination, in the face of a worry which (whilst understandable) has been shown scientifically to be incorrect. Or do we let the children run the equally well known risks of catching and being seriously debilitated by (or killed by) measles, mumps or rubella ?
Given that we have coincidence and concern on one side of that choice, and expert scientific opinion on the other, don't we owe it to the children to go with the expert research on this ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 8:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 741 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 1:14 AM vimesey has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 741 of 930 (762416)
07-12-2015 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 740 by vimesey
07-12-2015 12:52 AM


Re: Etiology
Sometimes scientific research isn't scientific but manipulated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 740 by vimesey, posted 07-12-2015 12:52 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 742 by vimesey, posted 07-12-2015 1:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 743 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2015 1:55 AM Faith has replied
 Message 747 by anglagard, posted 07-12-2015 3:29 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 762 by JonF, posted 07-12-2015 2:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 742 of 930 (762417)
07-12-2015 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 741 by Faith
07-12-2015 1:14 AM


Re: Etiology
Sometimes, but rarely. And when it is, the peer review process is there to challenge and expose the manipulation.
In this case, there has been a lot of scientific work done, and an awful lot of peer review, given the controversy.
Would you accept that, equally, sometimes people's fears are unfounded ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 1:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 743 of 930 (762418)
07-12-2015 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 741 by Faith
07-12-2015 1:14 AM


Re: Etiology
Sometimes scientific research isn't scientific but manipulated.
But I think you're being less than candid. You write: "I'd love to be convinced vaccines are safe", but when told that there is evidence to that effect you take refuge in the thought that the evidence might be fraudulent --- which is itself an entirely unsupported conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 1:14 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 744 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 2:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 744 of 930 (762419)
07-12-2015 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 743 by Dr Adequate
07-12-2015 1:55 AM


Re: Etiology
I'm trying to download the movie Trace Amounts which is where the fraudulent research is demonstrated. I no longer trust anything anyone says about research validating vaccines.
Downloading the movie turns out to be beyond my lowtech abilities, or maybe I just need to sleep on it and come back in the morning. They tell me I need something called Active X and to go to this menu and that menu and another menu, and some of the menus obscure the instructions I'm trying to follow and goodnight for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 743 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2015 1:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 745 by vimesey, posted 07-12-2015 2:22 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 746 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-12-2015 2:37 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 763 by JonF, posted 07-12-2015 2:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 745 of 930 (762420)
07-12-2015 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 744 by Faith
07-12-2015 2:13 AM


Re: Etiology
I'm trying to download the movie Trace Amounts
If we made a movie, would you then believe us ?

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 744 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 2:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 746 of 930 (762422)
07-12-2015 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 744 by Faith
07-12-2015 2:13 AM


Re: Etiology
I'm trying to download the movie Trace Amounts which is where the fraudulent research is demonstrated.
Demonstrated or alleged?
Why do you need to download a movie? If this has in fact been demonstrated, wouldn't there be actual publications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 744 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 2:13 AM Faith has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 747 of 930 (762423)
07-12-2015 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 741 by Faith
07-12-2015 1:14 AM


Re: Etiology
Faith writes:
Sometimes scientific research isn't scientific but manipulated.
Care to rephrase that statement so it bears more resemblance to the truth?
Something like: sometimes a very few foolish scientific researchers manipulate data to achieve a foregone conclusion but they are quickly discovered as the frauds they are and banished forever from the community.
Seems a lot more strict than what apparently passes as supposed truth in some people's understanding of religion and politics.
Makes sense, unlike religion and politics, the practice of science has a very clear vetting process.

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 Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 741 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 1:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 748 of 930 (762427)
07-12-2015 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by Faith
07-09-2015 3:46 PM


Faith writes:
quote:
No fear, I know I'm well tuned into reality.
In a single year, 1965-66, 11,000 miscarriages and 2,000 deaths from rubella alone, Faith.
Out of more than 2.5 billion doses of vaccine from 2006 to 2014, how many people have died from vaccine, Faith?
Where is this "reality" you're talking about? Help us out: What evidence would you need to see to have you consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 3:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 749 of 930 (762428)
07-12-2015 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by Faith
07-09-2015 6:00 PM


Faith writes:
quote:
Sometimes I find myself wishing one of you self-righteous know-it-alls would have the experience of somebody close to you having a serious adverse reaction to a vaccine and knowing it.
My roommate and best friend was one of the people who came down with measles in the last major outbreak in 1991, Faith.
Would my experience only be valid to you if she were one of the 123 people who died? Remember, that, Faith: 123 people died. Don't their lives count?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by Faith, posted 07-09-2015 6:00 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 750 of 930 (762430)
07-12-2015 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 702 by Faith
07-11-2015 11:04 AM


Faith writes:
quote:
From my point of view it seems you all are wishing adverse vaccination effects on other children
Huh? That makes no sense. Please give a single example of anybody wishing anybody would have any sort of bad reaction to a vaccine. The only person in this thread who has even hinted at wishing someone would have a bad reaction was you, Faith.
quote:
And it would be nice if my point was recognized, which isn't that I'm ignoring the research out of sheer stubbornness, but because nobody is seriously acknowledging the problems with vaccines
I quote myself:
All medical treatment has risks.
So why don't you tell us these "problems with vaccines"? So far, all you've said is, "They contain poison!" But they don't, so why should we "acknowledge" something that literally does not exist? By your logic, we should "acknowledge the problems with Hogwarts."
You're shifting the burden of proof, Faith. You're the one claiming that there's a "problem." You're the one who needs to put forward the evidence. So far, all your examples have been shown to be fallacious. Your only response to that is to claim a Vast Conspiracy to Suppress the Truth (C).
quote:
just insisting that they're fine fine fine and that the research supposedly proves it.
Incorrect. You have been shown many studies that have directly looked at vaccine and many pieces of indirect evidence that indicate that vaccines are safe. In direct studies of the ingredients of vaccine, no toxicity has been found. In indirect studies of injuries caused by vaccine, we find that it is quite literally a one-in-a-million chance of being injured at all by a vaccine.
What more do you need? What evidence do you need to see in order to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?
quote:
At the very least since there used to be mercury in some vaccines that you all agree has been removed, how about simply acknowledging that they used to be unsafe though they were said to be safe back then too? Otherwise why remove the mercury?
Because vaccination is so important, we should get rid of the fallaciously-maligned antimicrobial agent rather than risk people refusing to get vaccinated.
Do you remember the Red Dye #2 scare, Faith? Back in the 70s, a single study in the Soviet Union found the dye to be unsafe. Despite multiple other studies that could not find any problems, the FDA banned the dye.
You may recall that the Mars company, who makes M&Ms, stopped making red M&Ms. But here's the thing: Red M&Ms never contained Red Dye #2.
So why on earth would they stop making red M&Ms if they didn't even use Red Dye #2? After all, the FDA approved Red Dye #40 to be a substitute for Red Dye #2. Why stop making red M&Ms completely?
Easy: Consumers were in a panic over red dye. Even a rumor that they were using Red Dye #2 would lead to a disastrous result. So even though there was nothing to be worried about, they decided to avoid the issue altogether.
The same thing with regard to thimerosal in vaccine: There is no evidence that it is a problem, but too many people have a false idea that it is toxic. Vaccination is too important so even though there was nothing to be worried about, they decided to avoid the issue altogether.
That's why thimerosal is still used in some vaccines. It isn't toxic.
quote:
Somebody gave assurances of safety that turned out to be false
Incorrect. You have the completely backwards. Somebody gave assurances of toxicity that turned out to be false.
Your own sources say so, Faith.
quote:
until you acknowledge THAT
Why should anybody "acknowledge" something that isn't true, Faith? You are starting from a false premise which you know means that no conclusion drawn from it can be justified. So why should we "acknowledge" it and treat it as if it were valid?
quote:
Maybe I can get another copy of the movie
It has never occurred to you that you having to continually pay for this "movie" might be a hallmark of a scam, Faith?
Remember, your "movie" confused three different mercury compounds and that none of them were thimerosal.
quote:
Well, the reason I'm not inclined to listen is that nobody is acknowledging the history of former lack of safety as above
That's because your claim that there was a "former lack of safety" is simply not true. Again, why should anybody "acknowledge" something that literally does not exist? Should we "acknowledge the problems" of Hogwarts?
quote:
the real possibility of fraudulent research by vested interests
It hasn't occurred to you that someone who has to sell you their "movie" might be a "vested interest"?
quote:
the suspicious fact that vaccine manufacturers are exempt from lawsuits
Do you really not understand how and why the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program exists and works? Vaccination is too important to leave to the "free market." We require the entire population to be vaccinated. To leave an individual manufacturer liable to tort would mean nobody would make vaccine. It wouldn't be worth the risk to any company. Thus, because we would be facing massive epidemics (remember...11,000 miscarriages and 2,000 infant deaths from rubella alone in a single year, Faith), we decide to transfer liability to the public. The VICP exists precisely because no medical treatment is without risk. Therefore, there is a place for those who are injured by vaccine to get recompense.
And the VICP is actually much more lenient than the normal court system. Those seeking compensation need only have the barest preponderance of the evidence to prevail.
And yet not one case of autism has been found to be the result of vaccine.
quote:
So if you want to persuade me you have to start with acknowledging these facts
But they're not facts, Faith. Why should anybody "acknowledge" something that isn't true?
quote:
show some genuine concern about them and interest in the question of how to go about making them convincingly safe.
But they are convincingly safe. More than 2.5 billion doses of vaccine have been administered from 2006 to 2014 and fewer than 2,000 injuries have been found. That's quite literally a one-in-a-million result. Remember, Faith, from rubella alone, 11,000 miscarriages and 2,000 infant deaths in a single year. What more do you need? What would it take to get you to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?
quote:
This constant refrain about how they are safe safe safe just sounds like the same old fraud.
But it isn't fraud. That you continue to claim it is so doesn't mean it is. Why should anybody "acknowledge" something that isn't true, Faith?
What more do you need? What would it take to get you to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, you were wrong?
quote:
Fetal cells from aborted babies? What is that all about?
You mean you don't know? It isn't what you think.
Certain vaccines (Vaqta and Havrix for hepatitis A and Pentacel for diptheria, pertussis, tetanus, HiB and polio) use a cell line known as MRC-5. The rubella part of MMR-II vaccine is made using a cell line known as WI-38. Varivax (for chicken pox) is made using both.
WI-38 comes from tissue derived from an abortion carried out in Sweden in 1962. MRC-5 has very few details about it, but it appears to also have been developed from tissue derived from an abortion in 1965.
Now, this doesn't mean that the vaccine contains "fetal cells from aborted babies." Instead, it means that the virus used to make the vaccine was cultured in those cells. It's very much like flu vaccine: It doesn't contain a chicken egg. Instead, the virus used to make the vaccine is incubated in chicken eggs. Now, the process to extract the virus from the cell line used to culture the virus will not be absolutely perfect and thus, some material from the cell line may be present (this is why those who are allergic to chicken eggs should not get flu vaccine.)
quote:
THERE's a Christian objection I would have to take seriously.
The vast majority of Christian groups from the Catholic Church on down do not have any problems with vaccine made from these two stem-cell lines. The abortions were not made for medical research and the cells being used are 50 years old. There is no ongoing abortion taking place in order to make vaccine.
The cell lines are required because the viruses for which the vaccine is being made do not culture in non-human cells. Plus, non-fetal stem cells are not robust enough to be used as culture.
quote:
You're going to have to remove that too.
Why? Not only is it impossible to do so given the biology, Christian organizations do not object to the use of these cell lines.
quote:
I would think the very thought would turn stomachs other than a Christian's.
Not when you understand what's going on.
Is there a reason you didn't do any homework regarding this before speaking on it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 702 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 11:04 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024