Printable View
I spent five years as a biomedical science major at Texas A&M, a very rigorous science school, and everything I learned indicates that even a fairly low percentage of a population's refusing to be vaccinated against a given disease significantly increases the incidence of the disease in that population. We all know, "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose"; well, one person's (or their parents') refusal of vaccination raises the risk of disease to everyone in the vicinity. A person has a right to commit suicide, but not by opening a canister of cyanide spray or setting their apartment building on fire. No one has the right to inflict increased risk on those around them, and certainly no adult has the right to put a child at such risk.
If someone has information showing that anti-vaxxers don't impact their neighbors' health, tell us where we can find that information in a juried publication. Yes, a large percentage of what the US government says is dishonest, but does that mean every single thing it says must be a lie? No, we need to figure it out case by case. Please don't value your "freedom" not to be vaccinated by denying others the freedom to live out their full lifetimes, in reasonable bodily comfort.
I can see how an unvaccinated person might be a danger to other unvaccinated people, who presumably have accepted that risk, and would therefore have no right to complain. But I don't see how an unvaccinated person could be any threat to all the vaccinated people, who are all supposed to be protected. Unless, of course, the vaccinations don't work, in which case no one should be vaccinated.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Moon:
FYI
My baby became extremely ill after his first round of vaccinations.
He was very healthy immediately before the vaccinations.
After extensive research I chose not to vaccinate him or my other children.
There are people who cannot be vaccinated (the immuno-compromised, very young infants and others). As long as a certain percentage (different for different diseases but commonly in the 85-90% range) of people are vaccinated, a phenomenon called herd immunity protects them. (Do not be distracted by the odd name: it is not suggesting we are being treated like cattle). Vaccinations, like all medical procedures, carry risks, but the risks are much lower than those involved in getting the disease (talk to people who lived before the polio vaccine). People who refuse vaccinations are unfairly taking advantage of the fact that others assume the risk, while they themselves are protected by the herd immunity. If enough refuse then herd immunity fails and that puts all unvaccinated at high risk, including the immuno-compromised. And again, like all medical procedures, vaccinations are not 100% effective even for the vaccinated, so a certain number of the vaccinated would also be endangered. This is a matter of social responsibility and shared risk.
Patrick Brinton
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by comodin:
This is an example of "post hoc ergo proper hoc" or the belief that because something happened immediately after something, it was caused by that thing. The only way to judge whether one thing causes another is to study large populations and see whether this is a general phenomenon or just coincidence. That is what medical researchers do, and vaccinations have been extensively studied, and the overwhelming evidence is that while, like all medical procedures, vaccinations carry risk, the risks of the diseases prevented are far higher. In a world where they are very rare it is hard to appreciate the very real dangers of diseases such as measles back when it ran rampant in the population, to say nothing of polio and smallpox.
Patrick Brinton
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:
This: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/78548...ath-toll-rises
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by comodin:
Here is an excellent short video to discuss all the points.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=4Hmok3TjXIc
Several decades ago, it was the wacko ultra-right wingnuts who were against vaccination, fluoridation, public health generally, and science. They said that these things were communist plots. Now individuals from the left side of the political spectrum, including some who are educated enough to know better, that protest public health measures. Perhaps some people just get stuck in protest mode: if government does it is must be bad. Somehow, they make an exception for public health care, which the rest of the civilized already world has. Maybe that's because the US has not enacted adequate universal health care.
Once upon a time, plagues periodically ravaged Western Europe. Syphilis was a horrible, widespread disease, until the invention of penicillin eradicated it. Tuberculosis, often called consumption, used to be a highly contagious killer. Then there was smallpox. In my youth, the leading epidemic was polio. Successful public mandatory vaccination programs largely eliminated these killers.
We have more than enough important battles to fight if we want to make this a better country and a better world. Please don't waste your time or political capital trying to undermine public health.
While vaccinations have done much good, they have also caused immense harm. Way too much, way too soon. If you take the time to research the millions of children (especially) who've been seriously impaired or killed by vaccinations you'll come to know that for yourself. Their parents have formed organizations and made films - lots of information. See for yourself. So, you can have a flu shot. I won't.
Regarding fluoridation, I looked into long ago that and come away with clarity: fluoride (what would need to be paid to be disposed of as "hazardous waste") is lucratively contracted to be put into public water supplies and becomes enforced medication which people can only avoid if they have the time and money to buy water. The supposed reason is for dental health (of children), and many dentists dispute that too. You can drink it. Not I.
Genetic modification also has 'reasons' for being good for everybody - which are being challenged by the awakening public. Much of our modern way of life - "better living through chemistry" - has gone too far or off on a tangent and needs to come back to simple, organic, natural to be truly good for our life and nature and planet.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Finell:
Not every unvaccinated person has made a choice and accepted risk. Measles vaccinations aren't given to anyone under the age of 9-15 months; and there are immuno-compromised people who cannot get the vaccine. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_i...thout_immunity
Additionally, not everyone who gets vaccinated is guaranteed to be immune, about 3% of the population who receive vaccinations are ultimately not protected.
As long as all the people who are deciding to not be vaccinated hang out with their unvaccinated-by-choice cohort and not interact with the community at large, they can do what they want. This doesn't happen though. Here's a snippet of the Wikipedia page about the MMR vaccine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine):
+++
Of the 66 cases of measles reported in the U.S. in 2005, slightly over half were attributable to one unvaccinated individual who acquired measles during a visit to Romania. This individual returned to a community with many unvaccinated children. The resulting outbreak infected 34 people, mostly children and virtually all unvaccinated; 9% were hospitalized, and the cost of containing the outbreak was estimated at $167,685. A major epidemic was averted due to high rates of vaccination in the surrounding communities.
+++
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by comodin:
I hope we are all open minded enough to watch the video sharing wisdom has given us a link to.
Some of you who want to force everyone to be vaccinated (or possibly be arrested?!!!) state that you are aware that there are "small" risks.
If it was your child or someone that you care about who reacted terribly to being vaccinated, you might feel very differently about folks taking that "small risk".
Please watch the video sharing wisdom posted, and do more research .
I've seen children and adults---multiple times-- come down with disease they'd been vaccinated against. I've also seen unvaccinated children and adults, who get sick and recuperate much more quickly.
And no--the vaccinated folks did not get infected by the unvaccinated.
I don't have time to write more about this, but I"ll say that the difference in severity of disease was extreme.
Someone posted a response about "This is an example of "post hoc ergo proper hoc" or the belief that because something happened immediately after something, it was caused by that thing.".
Though I wasn't aware of that particular term, I am well aware of the scientific method of research etc,. that the writer continued to post about.
And, as a former teacher of children with special needs, including children with autism, I have met, seen, and heard waaaaay too many true stories to ignore.
This isn't a left/right political thing. Its about doing extensive research--including multiple perspectives(various pro / con vax) from reputable sources, and doing what you choose is best as an individual.
As usual--it's also wise to "follow the money".
No one makes money from folks not being vac'd.
Those who choose not to vax., don't have corporate funding to back their positions.
I hope we can all respect each others' opinions, and --watch that video from sharing wisdom!
I have frequently been involved with threads where people stick to their opinions no matter what--ie., are not open minded-- and are not open to even watching a video that might give them reason to do more research, and perhaps change their mind.
I offer all this with good intentions and sincerity.
Layna Berman's website probably has lots of excellent info about well researched reasons not to vaccinate. (She has the KPFA radio show "Your Own Health and Fitness", I"m sure if you try you can find her website.)
Dr. Michael Lipelt also has a video online, where he discusses vaccinations. You can do a search for it and find it easily.
Both he and Layna Berman are highly respected local people that I have met and consulted with.
I can confirm their wisdom and integrity--but don't take my word for it--check their info out for yourself!
And--neither of them have anything to gain from their opinions about vaccinations.
I'm outta time for all this!
I truly hope that we can respect each other and differing opinions...
'
Thanks for reading this, and I hope you check out some of the sources I've written about in this post, and also view the info from sharing wisdom as well as other varying opinions you find yourselves!
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:
Thank you for your open minded research, and post. As usual, it's those people who have been personally affected by the various vaccines, who speak the loudest against them. And those of us who haven't been, but have empathized, and researched to the best of our ability.
Back to vaccines; I chose not to get them, with the exception of the Shingles vaccine last year. I was prompted to do this because of the suffering I saw in friends. I was told that it won't prevent Shingles, but will make it less painful. The side effect was a very bruised and painful arm, for several weeks.
During this time of year, whenever I go grocery shopping or anywhere that's visited by the many people I see who cough or sneeze into their hand, and proceed to grab the shopping cart, and all the various items they touch, I wear gloves. It does make it more inconvenient to pick some things up, but I rarely get a cold or flu in all the years I've lived. The few times I've gotten a serious cold or flu has been when I've cared for young children, with snotty noses and coughs.
So, it's o.k. if I'm hated because of my choices. Actually, it may not be the only choice I'm hated for, but I think of those who are hated because of their religious or non-religious positions, the color of their skin or their culture, or their choice of partner due to their in born sexual preferences, or so many other things that create diversity.
There are so many ways that we hurt each other, and not getting vaccinated is only one of many that we're vilified for. So be it....
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gaiasophia:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Jude Iam:
I detect a pattern here. On one side of the debate we have people who give reasoned responses, which address the concerns raised by the other side, and explain clearly why someone might, from their own personal experience and that of others they know, form a false impression of the truth. On the other side we have people who simply persist in repeating over and over those experiences, saying "do your own research" by which they mean watching videos and reading accounts of people who believe the same things they do, such as the one linked to in this thread. They are not participating in a dialog, and make no effort to answer any of the arguments on the other side, but simply reiterate their assertions.
This is not research,
it is propaganda.
I did watch this video all the way through, and found no hard evidence whatever to support the views offered. I am willing to believe that the maker of the video believes what he is saying, but he has no basis for those beliefs (or at least none that he shows). Instead he relies on familiar techniques of persuasion such as dramatic music and emotionally charged stories with absolutely no way to verify the truth of any of it. This is not research, it is propaganda. I also looked at the two websites mentioned (but not linked to) and found zero information about vaccination.
If I want legal advice I consult a lawyer. If I want to know if my house is structurally sound I consult a structural engineer. These are people who have been trained in their fields, and have the relevant expertise. Similarly if I want reliable information about the effects of medical procedures I look to people who are trained in medical research. People who have studied the proper methods that have been developed over centuries to judge the truth or falsity of medical claims. Fortunately we have a great many such people, and others who specialize in what is called meta-analysis, which is collating the conclusions of many researchers concerning a topic and observing the agreement or lack of agreement between them. By these painstaking efforts we have successfully fought many previously rampant diseases to the point where many of them are no longer a threat. Many of the conclusions they have arrived at seemed at first quite counter intuitive. The germ theory of disease is a good example. The resistance to that theory when it was first proposed was intense. Blame diseases on tiny invisible organisms that cannot even be seen except by an expert? Ridiculous! Everyone knew diseases were caused by evil humor or miasmas or the devil. After all, Aunt Agatha got sick after she was cursed by a witch!
I simply do not understand why people are willing to ignore the conclusions of those who spend their lifetimes studying a matter, and who explain the reasons behind their conclusions such that others can verify or falsify them, while believing those who offer no verifiable evidence for their assertions. I understand mistrust of commercial and political interests, but the institution of science is designed to recognize and eliminate bias and falsehood. All of the caveats I have written about in other posts apply. No knowledge is 100% reliable, and no doctor will claim otherwise. That is precisely why we take such care and go through so many processes to arrive at the best possible truth we are capable of. It is also why we should not put our trust in people who have no training or expert knowledge of the subject, but rather in those who spend their lives studying it. Do you seriously think that hundreds of doctors who have sworn an oath to do no harm are conspiring to make you sick? One or two perhaps, but not the vast bulk of the medical profession.
Patrick Brinton
Just to add diversity to this post, I got the new Shingles shot, and a flu shot on afternoon. The shingles shot arm was sore for 2 days, but the flu shot stopped hurting after a day. Everyone has different reactions I guess. I am sure that it was much less painful than getting Shingles.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Shandi:
What's currently posted on the Centers for Disease Control's site--www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/meas.html--says that the vaccination is 95% effective when administered at 12 months and 98% effective when given at 15 months. Those are, to use the clinical term, darned good efficacy rates, but they're not 100%. That's how vaxxers catch the measles.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by comodin:
Which Side AreYou On?
When Ignaz Semmerlweis suggested in 1847 that washing hands between doing autopsies and delivering babies would lead to better results for mothers and children, it was not "Aunt Agatha" who drove him out of his profession and into an insane asylum. It was his colleagues, the male doctors of Germany and all of Europe. Today, of course, he is revered as the founder of antiseptic medicine.
In the 1970's, when I first became interested in "alternative medicine", we came across pamphlet entitled "How to recognize a Cancer Quack". It was a joint publication of the American Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration and the American Cancer Society. The professionals, the government and the philanthropic community. The number one way to recognize a quack, according to these experts, was if they said there was a connection between food and cancer. Suggesting that there was a link between what we put into our bodies and a deadly disease could lose you your license, and possibly your freedom as well.
Throughout the 20th century doctors routinely endorsed various brands of cigarettes. They also told us that eating artificial eggs ("eggbeaters") and synthetic margarine was "heart healthy". In my 40's I went to one of the leading cardiologists in Los Angeles for a routine checkup. He told me that my cholesterol was "slightly elevated" and that I should start taking Lipitor on a daily basis--for the rest of my life.
The doctors aren't always right.
Growing up in Chicago I often visited the Museum of Science and Industry. This pairing of science and industry was the foundation of the future, the combination that would lead us to heaven on earth. Today we stand on the precipice of environmental catastrophe, living on GMO's and wondering how we are going to clean up our nuclear waste.
Today, when a scientist or doctor finishes their education and training they are more than likely to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. They need good, high paying jobs to pay off that debt and make a life for themselves (and perhaps even a family). These jobs come from industry. They don't come from criticizing industry or questioning the wisdom of the day. It is the rare--very rare--scientist or doctor who is willing to be a martyr for public health or scientific progress. Semmerlweis makes a better cautionary tale than a role model.
The pharmaceutical industry stands convicted in Federal Court of routinely using addiction as a marketing strategy. That is a fact. The institution that is principally responsible for supplying our medicines is an international drug cartel-only much larger than their illegal counterparts.
This should not be news to us. The miracle drug of antibiotics has been so overused in both animal and human populations that the World Health Organization has identified this as one of the greatest threats to health facing the world. "If one antibiotic is good, a hundred are a hundred times better", according to the logic of the market, where the health of the corporate bottom line outweighs any consideration of h human health.
what could possibly
go wrong here?
The miracle drug of synthetic opioids? How many lives and communities decimated by legal Oxycontin? See the above lawsuit...
Now, finally, we get to vaccines. Another set of miracle drugs. Undoubtedly of some value and for some populations and certain conditions. Smallpox and Polio seemed self evident. But if we can sell two, why not five, or ten? Today, according to the CDC schedule of recommended vaccinations, American children should receive around forty shots before the age of eighteen--not counting routine flu shots once or twice a year. Why not--what could possibly go wrong here? Not much, according to the experts.
I am not a trained (or untrained) physical scientist. My degrees are in sociology (University of Chicago) and History (UCLA), and I know a lot about "regulatory capture" (putting the foxes in charge of the hen-house) and the influence of industry over both government and the educational establishment. I know who gives grants and builds research buildings, and how much the Sackler family and their class control our culture.
I look at this "controversy" over mandatory vaccination and see the most powerful forces in our society on one side. I see the same forces who stand in the way of cleaning up our planet if it interferes with their profits and who are willing to make addicts of us all if it feeds their addiction to power and money.
On the other side I see mothers whose children have been affected by routine and mandatory vaccination, supported by one of the most respected and fearless environmental/people's lawyers of our time--Robert Kennedy Jr, whose whole career has been about protecting people and the planet.
Which side am I on? I'll stick with mom and Bobby on this one.
Abraham Entin
Santa Rosa
Dec. 2019
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Are you the same Abraham Entin who wrote "Living on the Fringe". I recently finished it, and would love to pass it on.
Thank you for your very extensive comment on this topic of vaccinations. Much appreciated.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:
Well, here's some news to consider... Jude
Vaccine FAIL: “Whooping cough outbreak closes Texas school despite 100-percent vaccination rate: officials”
Sunday, December 22nd 2019 at 5:45 am GMI Reporter
I appreciate Abraham's points but I don't see them as a rebuttal to Patrick's, but rather as context. Of course there are complicating and conflicting factors. Pharma in a capitalistic environment will frequently put economic interests ahead of what's best for public health. Doctors aren't scientists and science doesn't give perfect results. But amateurs' opinions don't have equal footing either. For most of us, don't fool yourself and think your hobbyist research towards a conclusion you prefer is giving you a path to truth. The times where the people opposing the scientific concensus are right stand out because they are rare.
You make the best case I have yet seen for the anti-vaxx position, but I remain unconvinced. To respond point by point:
The sad tale of Dr Semmelweis, if anything, supports my case. In the mid 1800s medicine was little better than witch doctoring, and there was nothing like the modern system of medical research. In fact he could be seen as an early exponent of true research, since he came to his realization through observation and keeping rudimentary statistics on puperal fever. In those days they did not have the benefit of modern communications and information gathering. Now we do. Nothing like what happened to him would happen today.
The Cancer Quack pamphlet is hard to comment on without reading it, but it is not my position that the medical establishment got it right all of the time. Nobody is saying today that there is no link between food and medicine. This shows that the research establishment is continuously improving its methods and when it finds sufficient evidence that it has been mistaken, or correct its mistakes. Do you ever stop to think what a rare and courageous act that is, to admit that you got it wrong?
The "doctors" who appeared in cigarette ads were actors, and there is no evidence that any of the "research" behind these claims were not simply made up by advertising agencies. You cannot condemn medical researchers for what cigarette companies claimed.
It is true that doctors and scientists often have large student loan debts, along with everyone else, and perhaps this makes them somewhat more vulnerable to the temptation to sell out to industry, but medical researchers publish their findings, along with all of the information needed to verify them. You can (if you have the patience) read the studies and satisfy yourself that they really support the conclusions. This is how we should approach the question, instead of questioning their motives and honesty.
It is also true that both opioids and antibiotics are a serious problem (though for different reasons) But neither can be parody at the feet of the medical research establishment. Part of the problem is that the US is the only developed country that allows the advertising of drugs to the public, and we also have a privatized health care system. This puts doctors in a difficult position. They are under pressure from the paymasters to minimize the time they spend with patients, and they are pressured by the patients to give them whatever drug they saw on TV last night. So yes, they often take the easy way out and reach for the prescription pad. These are indeed serious problems, but have nothing to do with what we are discussing here, which is the efficacy of vaccines. Also the antibiotic problem has much to do with the fact that the meat we eat is laced with them, and Americans have an obsession with absolute hygiene, so they overuse antibiotic soaps.
40 shots in 18 years averages out at about one every six months, which hardly seems excessive on the face of it, and says nothing about their efficacy. What I see is on the one hand medical researchers who fully publish their findings and the research methods behind them, and on the other side people who cry "do the research" without themselves doing anything that even approaches true research. If you want to disprove the researchers you need to actually do research of the same quality as that you are doubting.
Patrick Brinton
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:
Questioning research is right of every human, especially when that research is used to compel medical procedures. It is not the duty of the questioners to disprove the research with their own studies. Its the duty of the researchers to answer the questions. To dismiss those questions and prosecute the professionals who ask them is the state of the current vaccine debate. Why support a corrupt process?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Thanks for your appreciation--even if you remain unconvinced.
A couple of questions:
You are right that "40 shots in 18 years does not seem excessive...": How about the fact that 25 of those forty take place in the first 18 months of life. That is about shot one every three weeks to a new-born baby. Does that begin to "seem excessive"? If not, what number would begin to seem excessive to you?
I do not question the "motivation or honesty of individual researchers or doctors" but rather a system that only funds research that furthers its aims and that tends to suppress inconvenient truths. It is called corruption and it is pervasive in our entire society. Do you sincerely believe scientific research has developed immunity to thissocial disease? I do know what a "rare and courageous act" it is to admit when one is wrong--especially when one's work and basic assumptions are called into question. That may be why, even though one may not go to jail for talking about food and cancer, 99% of the research is still concentrated on "slash, burn and poison" approaches rather than health building prevention and natural based solutions.
Do you sincerely believe
scientific research has
developed immunity to
this social disease?
You talk about "America obsession with absolute hygiene". Is that something that comes with being born on the North American landmass or is it part of a culture that makes us fearful of nature and of the germs, microbes and bacteria that inhabit our bodies, and that only modern medicine can protect us from?
Ultimately, it is not my intention to "convince you" of my position. All that I want, and that others who oppose mandatory vaccinations want, is the freedom to make medical decisions based upon our own conclusions about what is the best way to protect our health and the heath of our families. I am not trying to prevent you from vaccinating your children. You are trying to make me vaccinate mine. I understand the "pubic health" argument. I find it less than compelling in a society that ignores far more more serious and pervasive threats to children health and development (such as routine exposure to gun and other forms of physical and emotional violence, constant exposure to invasive advertising and so on). Of course, these assaults come from the most powerful elements of our world. It takes more courage than most of us have to stand up to that. Those who question routine vaccination are a small and politically powerless minority. Beating up and portraying us as the "enemies of humanity" is a lot easier then speaking truth to power.
Abraham Entin
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
I totally agree with Abraham. The proof is in the outcome. I have a friend who had a healthy child until she was vaccinated as baby. She had such a serious reaction that she became severely autistic. There is one example and there are many more horror stories that affect more than some want to see. That is one of the best and informative postings I have read for the benefit of others in a long time. Thank you, Abraham.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:
for you vaccine fans, here's another. enjoy, jude
FDA Approves Merck's New Live Ebola Vaccine Which It Says Can Shed and Cause Immunosuppression
This is a false dichotomy. Nobody is denying your right to question research, or the duty of researchers to answer questions about their research. Both happen on a daily basis. However questioning research is one thing: denying the validity of the research by attacking the credibility or motivations of the researchers themselves is altogether another, and that is what I see happening here.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by rossmen:
Scientific research is a methodology developed precisely to as far as possible eliminate human shortcomings as a factor affecting the results. This is done by including in the published results all the data that led to the conclusions arrived at. If a research paper does not do this it does not qualify as research and is not to be relied on.
Are you really trying
to make the case
that the entirety of
the scientific community...
are conspiring to
hide the truth from you?
Download a research paper (the paper itself, not what you find in the reports about the paper) and you will find the methodology used and the raw data produced by that methodology. You can verify the numbers yourself. You can critique the questions asked and who provided the answers.
Furthermore no public policy is ever made as a result of a single research project. Any single example can be fatally flawed. This is why meta-analysis is so important. This is the process of comparing multiple surveys and determining the extent to which they agree. Only if substantial agreement is found between multiple sources all verified by the scientific community as being validly conducted is a consensus reached that a conclusion is valid.
One of the beauties of Science is that when it is properly conducted the various biases involved become irrelevant. This is because it is both cooperative and competitive. The cooperation is systemic: to be valid all relevant data and metadata must be published in a manner that makes it verifiable by others. The competition is personal: scientists love to pick holes in each others' work.
So what questions are you asking here that are relevant to the truth or falsity of the data? Are you really trying to make the case that the entirety of the scientific community, all of the doctors, scientists and researchers, are conspiring to hide the truth from you? Most of what I see is not questioning at all, but rather assertions, and assertions that challenge the results of the verification process I have described need to be held to a standard at least comparable to that of what they are challenging. Nobody on that side of the debate is "doing the research" in that sense. If they were they would probably arrive at much the same conclusion that the actual research arrived at.
Everyone, on both sides of the debate, has biases, both conscious and unconscious. The difference here is that those on one side acknowledge their biases and take great care to eliminate their effect, while those on the other side make no such effort. Their opinions cannot therefore command equal weight.
Patrick Brinton
Much of this is covered in my response to Rossmen. It does not contribute to your argument to describe medical procedures in emotionally charged language. I imagine that a similar kind of description of, for instance, an organ transplant procedure could make it seem horrifying. I am not qualified to judge (and I strongly suspect neither are you) what number of shots are safe in what period of time. That is why I put my trust in those who make it their life's work to determine such things, and who use methods specifically designed to arrive at verifiable conclusions (again, see my response to Rossmen).
The fact that nobody
is immune to corruption
is precisely the reason
why scientific research
methods were developed
in the first place.
The fact that those conclusions are to the financial benefit of drug companies may be a reason to look closely at the results and how they are derived, but is not in and of itself a reason to reject them outright. The fact that nobody is immune to corruption is precisely the reason why scientific research methods were developed in the first place.
The obsession with hygiene is a peculiarly American phenomenon, and is perhaps connected with our Puritan origins. The medical community spends a great deal of time and effort attempting to combat the overuse of antibiotics. Medicine does not try to protect us from germs, microbes and bacteria; that would be absurd. Much of our being is composed of such, and without them we could not exist. Medicine attempts to determine which of these are harmful, which beneficial and which are simply harmless, and take appropriate actions.
If you truly understand the public health argument you will realize that each issue stands our falls on its own merits. Our unhealthy obsession with guns has no bearing on the vaccination issue (and I would question whether it really causes more harm than the unchecked spread of infectious diseases) and the same applies to the other social ills. By all means address the public health argument and your objections to it in its own terms rather than by referencing irrelevant "what abouts".
Finally, please do not play the victim here. I am not beating up on you or portraying you as an enemy of humanity. I am simply saying that your arguments do not justify your conclusions.
Patrick Brinton
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Abraham Entin:
I'm glad you agree that questioning medical research is a legitimate aspect of vaccine discussion. One question I have is the accuracy of reporting negative effects of vaccination. As you know, many medical strategies which are approved are pulled after real world use. The liability structure and peer pressure within the medical community supress data collection on vaccines. I know doctors who don't vaccinate their own children on schedule.
Your description of science is beautiful. Humans and our health are very difficult to study, then add politics and money. Public health policy is best if it's data driven. So why is the data refused? I'm curious enough to have an educated guess why, while also understanding that it comes from the best of intentions. Why do you think the data collection system for vaccinations is set up to suppress negative results?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:
Just another anti-vaxxer dogpile. What is interesting here is how organized pushback worked to calm things down.
USA Today: Doctor's pro-vaccine TikTok went viral. Then came hate and threats from around the world
But vaccines are not safe, though incredibly useful. What I found interesting is how the organized pushback had the power to ban social media accounts. I could be banned for writing this. Also interesting is the articles analysis that the problem with the critique of the doctors song is that hospitals are a business, it could affect patient load.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:
This is just a side note on fluoride, given you mentioned it and it was in the news in the past months. Sometimes the science isn't as settled as we're lead to believe.
CNN: New study raises questions about how fluoride affects children's development
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Finell: