Outlawing ALL unproven medical practices,

[Eilonnwy]

I don't own a car. I take the bus sometimes, every now and again I get offered a ride. Usually I walk. I am not lying, I am trying to point out how silly an argument it is that riding in a car is more dangerous than Vaccine Medicine. Apples and oranges.

It is not comparing apples and oranges, I'm showing the cognitive dissonance in the risk assessment we make all the time. People take an acceptable risk of dying or serious injury in order to travel faster. The rates of which these injuries occur is enormous. Not a week goes by that I haven't heard of a few car crashes. However, 1 person out of hundreds of thousands has an allergic reaction to a vaccine and it's the vaccines that people get up in arms about. If people are so hypersensitive about the risk of vaccines, they need to lock themselves in a bubble since there are things out there that will kill them faster.

No it does not. I know enough about Vaccines, the human body, and especially the track records of the companies and global entities (WHO) involved. I am against the Swine-Flu vaccine program because it was a clear sign of fear mongering, of using fear to sell millions upon millions of questionably safe, and wholly unnecessary new medicines by companies that have proven how far they take the bottom line

Evidence?

Was it? I thought that the disease seemed pretty weak (other than in the Ukraine) and that for the most part the medicine was poorly tested, and not available in time. I was not offered the shot until a month after they were available. If there had been wide ranging H1N1 in my city, I would have gotten it. The disease did not act as badly as some had feared, and we are concerned that the same thing that happened with Monsanto and the FDA is happening with Big Pharma and the WHO. The fear mongering is on the pro-vac side, the anti-vac has been here for decades.

The anti-vac side promoted the same old lies about vaccines. The trotted out a woman that they claimed got dystonia from a flu shot. After a single kelation therapy she was "miraculously" better, proving that it was not dystonia but a psychogenic disorder. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=1152

This case was trotted out in front of the media to scare people about vaccines and barely any accurate and critical analysis was done. She didn't get dystonia from a vaccine and was used by the anti-vac side to scare people. It's disgusting.

How about another example? Dr Steven Novella along with other prominent skeptics were put in a picture where they are eating a baby. This was done by the anti-vac people. Once again showing the depths to which they will sink to spread their propaganda.

http://skepchick.org/blog/2009/11/the-mi...tion-cult/

I think it proved it as well, but that we need better international entities (the WHO, other UN groups, our Governments) to not let the greedy and sociopathic Chemical Corps be in charge of marketing new diseases. the overall point is that the swine flu shot, with all of it;s concerns was unnecessary. The thing that makes bad medicine worse is when it is taken without need.

Evidence?

That is beyond disingenuous. Jut because you love the way the vaccine was distributed doesn't make it effective either sweet heart.

Nice attempt at a comeback, but I did not say the vaccine was effective because of it's distribution. I admitted there were distribution problem based on the outdated method of using chicken eggs. That needs to change. I stated the effectiveness was based on the fact that it's the same type of shot as the seasonal and is even more targeted because we know the exact strain.

Do not put words in my mouth.

Thank you for reminding me that Down Syndrome is genetic, I did in fact know that. I used the example of down syndrome to reference debilitating mental and physical disorders (like on the autism spectrum) knowing that DS itself cannot be caused by Vaccine Medicine. It was kind of an exasperated tongue-in-cheek jab, but missed it's mark sorely. I apologize that it made you think I was stupid and did not understand human developmental disabilities.

Still, as I have shown, large epidemiological studies show absolutely no connection between autism and vaccines.

I fear that the majority of those studies may be untrue. There is a long line of Pharma Corps spending a ton of money flubbing tests and studies (since the new name of the game is not inventing new medicines, but inventing new uses for old medicines (like gardasil) more money is spent on false "testing" and "independent" studies payed for by the corp than on R+D. I would only offer that there is also a wealth of information showing that something is causing a rise in cases of asthma diabetes, MS, and especially things on the autism spectrum. I wouldn't count someone with Aspergers as being fully autistic, but a disorder is a disorder. I have heard that Autism used to be around 1 in 600,000 Then it was 1 in 6,000, then 1 in 600. Now I have heard that in America children born with something on the autism spectrum are about 1 in 200. I know you guys love you wiki quotes, so please scurry off and find the "right" numbers. The point stands is that this is an endemic. Until we find out what is causing a giant growth in auto-immune disorders, we need to look carefully at all medicine and other modern influences.

You have absolutely no evidence, nothing to even vaguely corroborate what you're saying. I'm quite aware that the rates of autism have increased, in part because the criteria for diagnosing autism has been changed to be broader. Furthermore, as I pointed out in my last post (With a source), thimerisol was removed from the vaccines because people felt the mercury in them caused autism. This change was made in direct result to the fear mongering without any corroborating evidence and guess what? NO CHANGE! We always need to test medicine carefully and we do. Until you can prove anything you're saying you're simply fear mongering.

I'm pretty sure that Thimerosal was not removed. Go check the label of the ingrediants of the Swine Flu shot. Baxters Pandrexa had Thimerosal in it. After using it as an adjuvant and shelf life increaser, they did stop putting it in the vials as much. But it is certainly still there. And the argument wasn't with heavy metals in the shot we give to children (which has it's own merit). The argument was with adjuvanted vaccines in general, that a side effect of poking the immune system with dirt (adjuvants) might create auto-immune issues. The problem was the entirety of the medicine and it's uses, not just putting heavy metal residue in our blood stream.

It has been removed in some vaccines or significantly lowered. It depends on the vaccine, in either case NO CHANGE.

Anyway, once again, back up your claims. You have failed to do any of that.

Well you smart herd people go take your sketchy medicine. I will have faith in the machine I live in (my body) and it's fantastic and fascinating ability to heal and protect itself. I promise not to breathe on your chemically altered children if it makes you feel safer.

Chemically altered children? Can you argue anything without strawman fallacies? Seriously?

I am not showing my ignorance, but speculating. If I have an obligation to you (in your head) to tkae medicine that Wikipedia says is safe, but I have strong doubts, where does that end? If you feel the need to force me to comply with your vaccine regiment (isn't it 22 shots before a child is 1 year old?) beacuse my not doing so endangers your and your children's lives (also in your head) based on my failure to hold up my end of "herd immunity", where does that end? It ends with people like yourself forcing people like me and my children to get medicine we don't want to get because (in your head) it serves the greater good. So I am speculating into the future that your line of argument ends with taking peoples children away against their will... It's not that I'm stupid, it's that I can tell the future.

So you're a psychic now? Awesome.

I would never advocate taking children for not vaccinating. I may have my opinions that the parents are parasites and I may speak loudly against it, but I would never advocate such actions. So please stop with your strawman attacks. Your argument about what you think I may do in the future is absurd.

So you think that the whole 'don't be too promiscuous, have self-respect' line is beside the point. You know, kids will be kids, having sex all the time with multiple partners. Let's not try to teach our children to act right, let's just give them dangerous drugs so that they may be better able to lead a dangerous lifestyle. This is not sexist, unless your the Cosmopolitan kind of Feminist that thinks a woman's promiscuity and sexual activities are her femininity. I am a strong old-school feminist, and the battle was fought for equality and freedom, not for the right for young women to objectify themselves.

You are completely off base. I never once said I support young females having sex with multiple partners. That discussion is handled by the parents/gaurdians. A vaccine does not promote promsicuity, it protects lives. A woman can get HPV from their married partner, the first person they ever have sex with and this person will be protected with the vaccine. Your argument amounts to blaming the vaccine itself for the action of the child. It's as if you gave a child a knife to cut her meat and she stabs her sister and blamed the knife. Absurd.

http://www.whale.to/vaccines/gardasil_q.html
There's one, but I already know you'll just mock and deride it. I don't like posting proof, please do your own research. It is the same argument. The medicine may not fix the problem. The people selling us the medicine might be lying. It is snake-oil, but very very dangerous and widely accepted snake-oil.

Considering your evidence amounts to a list of quotes with anecdotal evidence, cherry picking personal experience and people's opinions of the vaccine without any credibility. When I posted factual claims, such as vaccines do not cause autism, I linked to a credited website that contains the information of these studies, which in turn links to it's credited sources. That's how you verify information isn't just something Joe Schmoe said on a website once.

I think that is completley relevant. We are working to show that Gardasil has not use in young women, and it is dangerous, and what do they do? Try to offer gardasil to young boys. It is called off label prescription, and these companies get sued all the time for it. Prescribing a medicine for a use it has not been fully tested for. And again, gentile warts (hehe gentile warts hehe) are an unfortunate side effect of unprotected sex with dirty people. So we should start with education that if you have unprotected sex with dirty people, you might well get sick. Not that it is OK, and natural to want to have as much gross sex as possible, and that we should medicate.

Often times when we produce medication we can find it has other benefits. While I do not find genital warts to be a priority, certainly it is the cancer, if it can benefit people in a way and they choose to pursue it, that is their choice.

You can't police people's sex lives, Pippy. Not everyone is as prude as you.

About fluoride? All I did was type Fluoride danger into Google, and then clicked the other suggestion of Fluoride Toxic Waste. I know all of this already, but it is that easy these days to learn it for yourself.

Pippy, finding sources isn't just about cherry picking websites that agree with you, but looking for credited sources. When providing links regarding studies, I looked for ones with no agenda to put forth, but facts and sources to back it up. As Adrian said, your refusal to back up your claims and your mockery of the demand for evidence is tiresome. I know how to Google...do you know how to evaluate evidence and claims to determine what is most likely to be true? I think not.

Try these:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemica...ouride.htm
http://www.garynull.com/documents/Dental...oride2.htm
and one that is in the fully controlled media, http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/29/fluor...than-good/
Man, look at that web title, fucking long, eh? I like it.
Please, debunk and laugh at my "proof" that I was chagrined to offer. Please learn to web search on you own.

I asked for studies, not fear mongering websites. Besides, I'm honestly not interested in the fluoride controversy. It amounts to people reacting about something with which they don't understand. My statement about clean water had nothing to do with fluoride and everything to do with simply separating the water that we wash and shit in from the water we drink. I was talking about sewage, not fluoride. Two completely separate issues. You have gone off in a direction I have no intention of arguing about, especially with all the vaccine crap I'm responding to.

I am just trying to do my best, I just woke up on this planet like the rest of you. I am trying to figure out what is good and what is bad, but we always argue. I really thing 90% of modern medicine is dysfunctional at best, and criminal at worst. You're allowed to think it is great, and feel free to yell at me and declare the famous "people like me" the problem. I am just trying to figure out what is causing the rise in medical problems over the generations. We could be on the same side, but you're a smart Massachusetts girl and I am some loon who is somehow endangering you by not shutting up and getting on board. I do appreciate your post though, I can see you put a lot of time into it. I wish I could say you were right, and I was wrong, and I see it your way now. I truly wish I could.

You cannot find any truth in what is going on if your evidence amount to testimonials and refusing to listen to any of the verified data. You have decided what is true and ignore any evidence that does not fit with your preconception. You demonize modern medicine because you do not understand it. That is plainly obvious.

The evidence that modern medicine is efficacious is obvious to anyone who opens their eyes and sees that people are living longer, the rate of infant mortality is significantly lower and the average lifespans significantly higher. In a way, we're a victim of our own success as our population continues to grow beyond what is actually sustainable.

If I lived in a world without modern medicine, I would have died as an infant. That's a plain fact. You look for the one or two people that may have been adversely affected and ignore the millions that are alive as a result.

Vaccines scare people because they're being asked to take medication when they are not sick. It flies in the face of what seems reasonable, and yet the fact remains that the best way to save people from sickness is to make sure they don't get sick at all. Vaccines are also a victim of their own success. It's easy to look at and cherry pick instances when things go wrong but it's hard to measure the millions of lives saved by the fact that people never got sick to begin with.

Life is a constant risk assessment. Nothing is 100% safe and nothing is 100% terrible. You can choke on the food you eat, should you not eat it? You can fall down stairs, should you not walk them? Vaccines can cause a few allergic reactions, do you not give them to the millions of people who lives will be saved as a result?

And to respond to you after word, you're right that some people want a 100% efficacy rate, or it's poison. You're right, and there are also some people who beleive in a god of the gaps. But not everyone skeptical of modern medicine fits into the all or nothing bubble, and not all of us believers are falling into gaps. It is a fallacy that exists, yes, but it is not a staple. I don't have the 100% efficacy rate flaw by proxy, just because I have doubts and concerns about some modern medicine.

Thank you kindly for sharing. I hope to be able to hold up my end of the debate, while not being too mean or stupid.

The,
-Pip

No you don't have the 100% efficacy rate flaw by proxy, you do by your own words.