The Onion totally nails it again (Vaccinations)

[bill shearer]

This timely article is from the Onion

https://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-vaccinate-my-child-because-its-my-right-to,37839/

I Don’t Vaccinate My Child Because It’s My Right To Decide What Eliminated Diseases Come Roaring Back

As a mother, I put my parenting decisions above all else. Nobody knows my son better than me, and the choices I make about how to care for him are no one’s business but my own. So, when other people tell me how they think I should be raising my child, I simply can’t tolerate it. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I fully stand behind my choices as a mom, including my choice not to vaccinate my son, because it is my fundamental right as a parent to decide which eradicated diseases come roaring back.

The decision to cause a full-blown, multi-state pandemic of a virus that was effectively eliminated from the national population generations ago is my choice alone, and regardless of your personal convictions, that right should never be taken away from a child’s parent. Never.

Say what you will about me, but I’ve read the information out there and weighed every option, so I am confident in my choice to revive a debilitating illness that was long ago declared dead and let it spread like wildfire from school to school, town to town, and state to state, until it reaches every corner of the country. Leaving such a momentous decision to someone you haven’t even met and who doesn’t care about your child personally—now that’s absurd! Maybe I choose to bring back the mumps. Or maybe it’s diphtheria. Or maybe it’s some other potentially fatal disease that can easily pass among those too young or too medically unfit to be vaccinated themselves. But whichever highly communicable and formerly wiped-out disease that I opt to resurrect with a vengeance, it is a highly personal decision that only I and my family have the liberty to make.

The bottom line is that I’m this child’s mother, and I know what’s best. End of story. Politicians, pharmaceutical companies—they don’t know the specific circumstances that made me decide to breathe new life into a viral infection that scientists and the nation at large celebrated stamping out roughly a century ago. It seems like all they care about is following unexamined old rules, injecting chemicals into our kids, preventing ghastly illnesses that used to ravage millions and have since been erased from storming back and wreaking mass havoc on a national scale, and making a buck. Should we really be listening to them and not our own hearts?

I am by no means telling mothers and fathers out there what to do; I’m simply standing up for every parent’s right to make his or her own decision. You may choose to follow the government-recommended immunization schedule for your child, and that’s your decision as a parent. And I might choose to unleash rubella on thousands upon thousands of helpless people, and that’s my decision as a parent.

It’s simple: You don’t tell me how to raise my kids to avoid reviving a horrific illness that hasn’t been seen on our shores since our grandparents were children, and I won’t tell you how to raise yours.

Look, I’ve done the research on these issues, I’ve read the statistics, and I’ve carefully considered the costs and benefits, and there’s simply no question in my mind that inciting a nationwide health emergency by unleashing a disease that can kill 20 percent or more of its victims is the right one for my child. People need to respect that and move on.

[sharingwisdom]

Sarcasm has nothing to do with real truth and statistics.

Measles Transmitted By The Vaccinated, Gov. Researchers Confirm
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/me...rchers-confirm

The Disney Measles Outbreak: Evidence Reveals a Failing Measles Vaccine is to Blame
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-di...-blame/5426016

...
I Don’t Vaccinate My Child Because It’s My Right To Decide What Eliminated Diseases Come Roaring Back

[Shandi]

A call for parents imprisionment if "medical compliance" refused?

See complete article on Natural News.com

https://www.naturalnews.com/048445_vaccine_skeptics_imprisonment_USA_Today.html

[Scott McKeown]

Sarcasm has nothing to do with real truth and statistics.

Measles Transmitted By The Vaccinated, Gov. Researchers Confirm
https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/me...rchers-confirm

Regarding the "Gov. Researchers Confirm" link, the non-doctor, non-medically trained writer of this blog is also claiming there is a link between thimerosol-containing vaccination and autism. I followed the links in the blog to the PubMed site where I found numerous studies (more current) that came to similar conclusions as this one:

CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous scientific studies have not identified links between autism and either thimerosal-containing vaccine or the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825

So I'm questioning if this blogger is really the best source of the truth.

Scott

[Shandi]

To know the truth, you'd have to at least know the details of each "scientific study", who it was done by, for how long, how it was paid for, etc. and then, dig even deeper to figure out who might benefit from the outcomes.

Who really benefits the most from vaccines? Who benefits the most from drugs? Who's looking out for our health? We may discover a "difficult" truth....

Regarding the "Gov. Researchers Confirm" link, the non-doctor, non-medically trained writer of this blog is also claiming there is a link between thimerosol-containing vaccination and autism. I followed the links in the blog to the PubMed site where I found numerous studies (more current) that came to similar conclusions as this one:

CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous scientific studies have not identified links between autism and either thimerosal-containing vaccine or the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825

So I'm questioning if this blogger is really the best source of the truth.

Scott

[sharingwisdom]

Always good to question things. And when you give the reference to doctors who are funded by corporate medicine, I personally doubt that is what is called independent research. Especially with the article implying that thimersol doesn't cause harm...it's Mercury! Check how toxic Mercury is. The Medical establishment refuses a placebo controlled (defined as complete absence of any interference with control group subjects) and double blind study determining vaccine safety and effectiveness.Anyways, there has been a blackout with corporate media in even saying that.
https://worldtruth.tv/courts-quietly...tism%E2%80%8F/

Dr. Gayle DeLong wrote, “Conflicts of Interest in Vaccine Safety Research”. In the citation, the Committee described Dr. DeLong’s publication as “an excellent exposition of ethical issues and biases in the examination of conflicts of interests related to vaccine safety research. The main thrust of this paper is the questioning of the ethics of industry sponsorship of vaccine use.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/re...e-autism-link/

Dr. Brian S. Hooker, PhD, PE, an Associate Professor of Biology at Simpson University in California commented, "Of all of the papers I have reviewed over my 26-year career as a research scientist, this is perhaps the most flawed and disingenuous study I have encountered.”
https://www.examiner.com/article/ph-...k-study-flawed

In a 2012 class action lawsuit and court trial that you probably never heard about — United States v. Merck & Co. and Chatom Primary Care v. Merck & Co. – two virologists from Merck showed that the drug giant “falsified testing of the efficacy of the drug and misstated the drug’s efficacy to the government as having a 95 percent efficacy rate.” It was discovered that, “Merck incorporated the use of animal antibodies to artificially inflate the results, but it too failed to achieve Merck’s fabricated efficacy rate. Confronted with two failed methodologies, Merck then falsified the test data to guarantee the results it desired. Having reached the desired, albeit falsified, efficacy threshold, Merck submitted these fraudulent results to the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) and European Medicines Agency (“EMA”).”

Dr.Larry Palevsky a former fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics and trained at the New York University School of Medicine, says:

"I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals. But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.

• Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?
• Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it's injected into your body?
• Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? And is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?

More and more studies are coming out to show that:

• The proper studies haven't been done and antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
• There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
• There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
• There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain and there are foreign DNA particles that get into your body

[I]For many health professionals, it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied... in my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we're trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe."

And for more info, check the movie, "Bought: https://www.yekra.com/bought

Regarding the "Gov. Researchers Confirm" link, the non-doctor, non-medically trained writer of this blog is also claiming there is a link between thimerosol-containing vaccination and autism. I followed the links in the blog to the PubMed site where I found numerous studies (more current) that came to similar conclusions as this one:

CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous scientific studies have not identified links between autism and either thimerosal-containing vaccine or the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614825

So I'm questioning if this blogger is really the best source of the truth.

Scott

[Scott McKeown]

Check how toxic Mercury is. The Medical establishment refuses a placebo controlled (defined as complete absence of any interference with control group subjects) and double blind study determining vaccine safety and effectiveness....

Whether that is true or not, that wasn't at all what I was addressing, so I'm not sure why you were specifically responding to me with this. I can understand why some people have some hesitancy giving their one-year-old child multiple shots with mercury, etc. What I was objecting to was the claim by the blogger that vaccination is linked to autism which so far isn't supported by any solid evidence or science (as no linkage has been supported by solid science) and was long ago discredited by virtually every credible institution and professional working in the field throughout the world.

Scott

[sharingwisdom]

I guess I misunderstood what you were asking about. I do have the studies and they have only been discredited by corporate interests not true science. If you can understand why people would be hesitant giving a one year old child multiple shots with mercury, or a 6 year old, 48 shots with mercury, you're on a more open path to investigate. Since most of my links were not read, I'm not going to go further with the 55 pages of links that I have about this issue. But I'm grateful that you were open.

Whether that is true or not, that wasn't at all what I was addressing, so I'm not sure why you were specifically responding to me with this. I can understand why some people have some hesitancy giving their one-year-old child multiple shots with mercury, etc. What I was objecting to was the claim by the blogger that vaccination is linked to autism which so far isn't supported by any solid evidence or science (as no linkage has been supported by solid science) and was long ago discredited by virtually every credible institution and professional working in the field throughout the world.

Scott

[Scott McKeown]

I do have the studies and they have only been discredited by corporate interests not true science.

To clarify, are you saying that the linking of vaccination to autism has only been discredited by corporate interests and not by true science?

[sharingwisdom]

Yes. I have already put this in past links, but people aren't reading them. And it's a race issue as well...just like the CDC doctors gave Afro-American men syphilis in Tuskegee in the 30's, Afro-American boys rates of autism skyrocket after vaccines. They know it too. Dr. Hooker tried for over 10 years to obtain data from the CDC that was suspected of revealing the link between mercury in vaccines and autism. With the help of Congressman Bill Posey, he was able to obtain much of that data in 2014, but apparently Dr. Thompson (CDC Whistleblower) has revealed even more disturbing data concealed by the CDC. I invite you and anyone who keeps asking similar questions, to watch it, to know the truth. Dr. Thompson admits all this with great regrets (3:55). I applaud his courage.

CDC Whistle Blower admits MMR Vaccine causes Autism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q62DcaNs_0M

https://healthimpactnews.com/2014/cd...ink-to-autism/

To clarify, are you saying that the linking of vaccination to autism has only been discredited by corporate interests and not by true science?

[Valley Oak]

.
Huffington Post, 2.5.2015

6 Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments Analyzed, Explained, And Shut Down

Science has provided ample evidence that childhood vaccines are safe and effective, and public health authorities maintain that vaccines are as important as seat belts in protecting our children. Even President Obama has urged parents to have their kids vaccinated.

So how can it be that many parents opt against having their children vaccinated--even in the face of the measles outbreak that has sickened more than 102 people in 14 states?

It's complicated, of course. Trust in government--or the lack thereof--has been identified as a key factor. But many parents become anti-vaxxers as a result of plain-old misinformation.

Here are six misguided anti-vaccination arguments--and the truth about each.

Bad argument #1: There's no proof that vaccines don't cause autism. It's hard to prove a negative. But the American Academy of Pediatrics has released a list of more than 40 studies showing no link whatsoever between vaccines and autism.

Bad argument #2: One study from England did show a link between vaccines and autism. Yes, a study published in The Lancet in 1998 did find such a link. But the study was retracted, and the physician-researcher who led it, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was shown to have falsified the data and was stripped of his medical license.

Bad argument #3: There are lots of anecdotes about children developing autism after being vaccinated. But anecdotes aren't proof, and there's no reason to believe that vaccines caused the children to become autistic. As scientists put it succinctly, correlation simply doesn't imply causation, despite the assumption that many parents make.

To point out how misguided this assumption is, Redditor Jasonp55 posted research showing that organic food sales and autism diagnoses increased at the same rate and time. He pointed out that organic food is no more to blame for rising rates of autism than vaccinations are, despite the correlation.

Bad argument #4: It's nobody's business whether my children get vaccinated. Actually, parents who fail to vaccinate their kids may be jeopardizing the health of other children who are unable to get the vaccine because they are too young or for other reasons. When the number of unvaccinated children rises above a certain threshold, so-called "herd immunity" is compromised--and preventable diseases get a toehold in the community.

Bad argument #5: Vaccines can "overload" a child's immune system. That's simply not true. From the moment babies are born, they're exposed to all sorts of illness-causing viruses. So most doctors -- and even the CDC and the Institute of Medicine -- agree that a child's immune system can handle the immune-stimulating antigens in multiple vaccines. In fact, as San Francisco-based pediatrician Dr. Laurel Schultz wrote in a recent article, children are exposed to more antigens in the environment every day than to those in all of their vaccinations combined.

Bad argument #6: "Natural" immunity is better than the immunity that comes from vaccination. So-called "natural" immunity results from the body contracting and successfully battling an infectious illness--and research shows that the immune response of people who have been vaccinated against various diseases is just as good as that of people whose immunity comes from an infection.

Seth Mnookin is the author of "The Panic Virus," contributed to this article.

[jbox]

6 Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments Analyzed, Explained, And Shut Down

Edward, it would seem that the fringe of the right wingers and the fringe of the left wingers are the anti vaccine folks. Which goes to show you that the real shape of the political spectrum is an omega, where the extreme left and right are close. Think Hitler and Stalin.

[Shandi]

Some other points to consider:

The media continues to ignore the most likely cause of the recent measles outbreak, viral shedding, which occurs after a child is vaccinated:
https://www.naturalnews.com/048519_vaccines_measles...
Another fact the media ignores is that CDC reports reveal no deaths from measles in 10 years but more than 100 deaths from the vaccinations:
https://www.naturalnews.com/048518_measles_vaccines...
The American Cancer Society is also completely ignoring science. They're telling us food choices play little or no role in reducing and preventing the disease:
https://www.naturalnews.com/048515_American_Cancer...

6 Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments Analyzed, Explained, And Shut Down

[sharingwisdom]

6 Dangerous Anti-Vaccination Arguments Analyzed, Explained, And Shut Down

Corporate media again. No reading of what has been posted... just corporate rhetoric. No independent peer review studies.

Corporate-tied scientists + lab results not expected or wanted – lack of independent peer review = Falsified results + fraudulent claims/statistics = Pseudo science

When you scream that corporations can vote, and the Koch brothers pay for the corporate takeover, why? They have you right here believing them anyways. You're voting for them! So when you talk about how these corporations are affecting many of you in other national topics of concern, I will know it's not true.

And others attempting to put us in boxes of political parties and extremists when 100's of 100's of doctors, nurses, medical professional associations, lawyer associations say differently than you...this is not progressive to me.

Be well.

Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing power to make great decisions for good or evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparallel catastrophe. ~ Einstein

[podfish]

The American Cancer Society is also completely ignoring science. They're telling us food choices play little or no role in reducing and preventing the disease:
https://www.naturalnews.com/048515_American_Cancer...

so this does kind of come down to who you find more believable as a source: the big-pharma shills at the American Cancer Society, relying on the CDC and major university researchers, or the reporters at Natural News and their representation of the same studies. "Completely ignoring science" is actually applied to the wrong target; the NN reporter completely misunderstands science. Even in their own article, they acknowledge that the sin of the ACS is that they think the "evidence regarding these factors [is] 'unclear.' " That's indicative to me that they don't have studies that are strong enough to substantiate that claim as fact.

I think it's funny that critics of 'big science' take opposite views on this depending on the issue. Those who don't believe in climate change think the scientific community leaps to unsubstantiated conclusions, while the anti-vaxers article thinks they're unwilling to reach conclusions on what they're claiming (and to me, credibly) is too weak evidence to support such conclusions.

[bill shearer]

Hi folks,
Dodie here, Bills partner and the one who started this thread with the excellent satire from The Onion.

I want to say that I do so appreciate people who are skeptical and are not willing to take things at face value; who want to examine the evidence; and are willing to change their minds when better evidence becomes available. Good for you! This is the very basis of scientific method and is by far the most effective way of understanding reality.

Now, upon critical examination of the antivaccine arguments versus following the medically recommended vaccine schedule, I have to say that the evidence is extremely one sided that vaccines do work. The antivaccine arguments mostly consist of accusations from non experts. Compared to more than a hundred years of dramatic reduction of vaccine preventable disease wherever vaccines are used and a near universal consensus of experts in the field.
The antivaccine movement very much resembles the climate science denial movement in that in both cases one must ignore mountains of actual evidence assembled by nearly unified qualified experts in their fields, in order to support ones unfortunate belief. And just like the climate science deniers standing in the way of taking steps to slow global warming, deciding to withhold the recommended vaccines has tragic real world consequences for all of us.

I totally get it that getting vaccinated is scary and you want to do the best thing for yourself and especially for your children. This is why I encourage all of you, for all of our sakes, to take a close critical look at the evidence and then do the right thing for yourself, your family and your community by getting protection for all of us from preventable disease by being vaccinated.
Peace out,
Dodie

[Shandi]

"So this does kind of come down to who you find more believable as a source:"

This reminds me of religion, and how we choose the one that will tell us how to live when our own conscience is unreliable. I realize that science is very different from religion, but they can both tweak things to their advantage in an attempt to substantiate a hypothesis.

Trusting that any entity will provide us with the "truth" is a serious mistake. People have been told that they would never "walk again", but they refused to believe that "truth" handed down by a well educated medical doctor.

The "truth" may be related to your perspective, like the 3 blind men describing the elephant in 3 very different ways.

Also, vocabulary lends itself to leading people in a desired direction, and fear is a strong motivator of belief. Oh, I just realized that I made a full circle back to religion!

so this does kind of come down to who you find more believable as a source: the big-pharma shills at the American Cancer Society, relying on the CDC and major university researchers, or the reporters at Natural News and their representation of the same studies....

[Valley Oak]

Interesting take, Shandi. Just one thing though. Not everyone believes in a religion. Your argument falls pretty flat from the point of view of an atheist.

Just saying.

...
This reminds me of religion, and how we choose the one that will tell us how to live when our own conscience is unreliable....

[Scott McKeown]

To clarify, are you saying that the linking of vaccination to autism has only been discredited by corporate interests and not by true science?

Yes.
....Dr. Hooker tried for over 10 years to obtain data from the CDC that was suspected of revealing the link between mercury in vaccines and autism. With the help of Congressman Bill Posey, he was able to obtain much of that data in 2014, but apparently Dr. Thompson (CDC Whistleblower) has revealed even more disturbing data concealed by the CDC.

The entire thing with Dr. Hooker and Dr. Thompson is fraudulent as detailed here in Snopes.com: https://www.snopes.com/medical/disea...stleblower.asp

Florida Republican Bill Posey is famous for introducing a bill requiring presidential candidates to submit an original birth certificate, related to charges Obama is not an American citizen.

The claim that the linkage of vaccination to autism has not been discredited by science is refuted by these studies below, which is just a small smattering:

From the Institute of Medicine:

https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2004/Immunization-Safety-Review-Vaccines-and-Autism.aspx

With the National Academy of Sciences:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669467

Department of Health, UK:

https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/https://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4002972

The Cochrane Library:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...5B357BC.f03t02

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

https://web.archive.org/web/20080407015528/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/mmr_autism_factsheet.htm

Canadian Pediatric Society:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...?dopt=Abstract

European Research Program for Improved Vaccine Safety Surveillance (EUSAFEVAC) Project:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...64410X03002718
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12922131

Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...tent/134/2/325

The list goes on and on, with probably dozens of other institutional and independent scientific studies confirming the same thing. A good overview can be found in this Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy#cite_note-136
If you don't consider Wikipedia a good source then just follow the source links.

Can you cite one respected institution, Government agency or NGO, university, medical institution, or hospital, or any professional journal from any country that supports a link between vaccination and autism? Or for that matter, any gold-standard, peer reviewed study?

Again, I am not addressing issues around vaccination other than the link to autism.

Scott

[Scott McKeown]

(Related to the argument that vaccination is scientifically linked to autism and not related to misgivings about vaccination for other reasons.)

Some of the discussion on this thread has inspired me to identify a new term to be added to the Wacco New Terms Dictionary.

Inepticism (noun)

A belief system often found on Waccobb.net where all authoritative sources of information are dismissed by definition merely because of the fact they are authoritative. In this belief system all expertise, particularly if supported by respected institutions whether they be NGO's, professional organizations, non-profit institutions, professional journals, universities, medical institutions, and particularly governmental agencies regardless of the country, is not to be trusted, leaving remaining only amateur bloggers and those with little or no training in the field to be cited as sources of truth. The anti-authority excesses of inepticism readily dismisses hundreds of thousands of trained professionals who have dedicated their lives to a given field in the belief that they have all either been paid off or are beholden in one way or another to corporate interests or shadow government conspiracies and have all sacrificed their integrity to harm the public good. As in, "I cited the CDC report on Wacco and it was immediately poo-pooed by some inepticists as obviously misinformation simply because it came from the CDC."

[rossmen]

typical vaccine propaganda, most of these arguments are not the main ones made by vaccine careful caregivers. lets examine #6 which is. the study cited for "just as good" actually provides evidence that disease survival is better than the vaccine. all the authors could conclude is that both are effective. the study was linked out of context to support a lie.

...
Bad argument #6: "Natural" immunity is better than the immunity that comes from vaccination. So-called "natural" immunity results from the body contracting and successfully battling an infectious illness--and research shows that the immune response of people who have been vaccinated against various diseases is just as good as that of people whose immunity comes from an infection.

[Valley Oak]

.
The Young Turks Network, 2.3.2015

Measles Vaccine Now A Debate Thanks To Ugly Stupid Politics



“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention urged Americans to vaccinate their children against measles as the number of people hit by a new outbreak of the disease climbed past 100.

CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden said in an interview with CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday that he was “very concerned” about the possibility of a large outbreak and said the best way to prevent the disease was with vaccinations he called “safe and effective.” He blamed a lack of vaccinations for the resurgence of a disease that the CDC said was eliminated in the U.S. in 2000.

“What we’ve seen is, as over the last few years, a small but growing number of people have not been vaccinated. That number is building up among young adults in society, and that makes us vulnerable,” Frieden said. “We have to make sure that measles doesn’t get a foothold in the U.S. It’s been actually eliminated from this country for 15 years. All of our cases result, ultimately, from individuals who have traveled and brought it back here.”

The CDC said that 102 people from 14 states have been reported to have measles, and that most of those cases were tied to a December outbreak at Disneyland or Disney California Adventure Park in Anaheim, Calif.”* John Iadarola (Think Tank), Jimmy Dore (The Jimmy Dore Show) and Dave Rubin (The Rubin Report) break it down.

*Read more here:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...s-exceeds-100/

[Shandi]

My post wasn't an argument for or against anything. I was just sharing my personal perspective.

You're right of course, not everyone believes in a religion. Not everyone believes in science either! But many people believe that health professionals and organizations are looking out for their well-being. Just as people believe that vets are looking out for their pet's well-being. And even when confronted with facts, people won't allow themselves to let go of these beliefs. As more is revealed, some people have faced the "difficult" truths of those unquestioned beliefs. Remember the slogan from the 60's..."Question Authority". It's become more important as time goes on.

Atheists have done some rational thinking with regard to religion. It takes a lot more than that to wade through the ocean of information on vaccines, etc. Even when confronted with certain "facts", people will be influenced by their personal experience or belief system. However, that can also be challenged by "fear", and if parents are threatened with fines or jail time for not vaccinating, or if their kids are barred from school, then they will probably re-consider.

I personally do not get vaccines. My immune system has been pretty good, and at 72 I've only had a handful of colds/flu. Each time my Kaiser doctor asks me about getting vaccines, I just smile and say "You know it's against my religion."

Interesting take, Shandi. Just one thing though. Not everyone believes in a religion. Your argument falls pretty flat from the point of view of an atheist.

Just saying.

[Sara S]

Oh, I love it!

(Related to the argument that vaccination is scientifically linked to autism and not related to misgivings about vaccination for other reasons.)

Some of the discussion on this thread has inspired me to identify a new term to be added to the Wacco New Terms Dictionary.

Inepticism (noun)...

[Valley Oak]

So, you have never gotten any vaccine in your entire life? Not even as a child? Not even once since you were born in 1943?

...I personally do not get vaccines. My immune system has been pretty good, and at 72 I've only had a handful of colds/flu. Each time my Kaiser doctor asks me about getting vaccines, I just smile and say "You know it's against my religion."

[podfish]

"So this does kind of come down to who you find more believable as a source:"

This reminds me of religion, and how we choose the one that will tell us how to live when our own conscience is unreliable. I realize that science is very different from religion, but they can both tweak things to their advantage in an attempt to substantiate a hypothesis.

Trusting that any entity will provide us with the "truth" is a serious mistake.

yeah, my bad for bringing the word "believable" into it. That's the real difference, science isn't a matter of belief at all, at least in the same sense as religion is.

The scientific method is a way of observing the world and trying to draw conclusions about how it works. It provides a way to evaluate data as more or less credible, (ok, that's Latin for believable - I've done it again) and ways to use that data to either generate new hypothesis about the mechanisms we see operating in the world, or to test the plausibility (ok, belief again.. damn) of existing hypotheses.

The flaw we see in so many arguments here is that a few pieces of data (studies, often) are interpreted as either strongly supporting or strongly challenging some hypothesis when in a broader context, they don't. Wakefield was pretty thoroughly discredited, so from a statistical point of view alone it make his data less useful for either proving or disproving any hypothesis. You have to assume that he was discredited unfairly if you want to rely on his data; that alone introduces another term of uncertainty into the weighting of his data's contribution to his thesis. Of course, you have to weigh everyone's data the same way. The odds that CDC's data is good are better than the odds that Wakefield's data is, just because there's more evidence of good data from CDC in the past. Not so much from Wakefield. There's evidence of bad data from CDC too, but the ratio's better for them than him.

Bringing in the word "truth" is the giveaway, though. That's not something science is able to offer. Some say religion is...

[bill shearer]

I write this approving your entry into the WNTD with some trepidation lest my sanctioning you cause peripheral damage to your credibility.

My source for my thinking is in print {on a bumper sticker] If you idiot proof it they'll build better idiots

(Related to the argument that vaccination is scientifically linked to autism and not related to misgivings about vaccination for other reasons.)

Some of the discussion on this thread has inspired me to identify a new term to be added to the Wacco New Terms Dictionary.

Inepticism (noun)

A belief system often found on Waccobb.net where all authoritative sources of information are dismissed by definition merely because of the fact they are authoritative. ...

[podfish]

And here, from the LA times, is an outline of the history of measles. This isn't particularly subjective and certainly isn't advocacy. It's just a clear description of why the issue's a bigger deal than many others that otherwise seem similar.

[bill shearer]

Scott, this is brilliant !
Have you considered writing for The Onion?
Cheers, Dodie

Inepticism (noun)

A belief system often found on Waccobb.net where all authoritative sources of information are dismissed ...

[Shandi]

My father was against vaccines, but I do believe I got the polio vaccine, tetanus, and smallpox as a child because it was required. Also got a booster tetanus a couple of times.

So, you have never gotten any vaccine in your entire life? Not even as a child? Not even once since you were born in 1943?