Outlawing ALL unproven medical practices,

[Pippy]

Hey,

Thank you for the time you spent going through this. I am sorry that we cannot agree, but I will try to represent my side of the argument with all the maturity and mutual respect I can muster.

It is not comparing apples and oranges, I'm showing the cognitive dissonance in the risk assessment we make all the time.

I agree that there is this cognitive dissonance. I am arguing not that I do not see the balance of right and wrong, but that I have come to a different conclusion about the risks and benefits of Vaccination medicine, more so in this most recent example, but it total as well. I know that we are weiging the good against the bad, and ma not ignoring that fact. But the question of whether or not I drive a car and it's relativity to Vaccine saftey is a bit of a stretch. But point taken, for what it was worth.

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.

But if you will please recall, I said very clearly that my problem wasn't with the possible allergic reactivity of Vaccines, but with the production methods, and whether or not they are all absolutely necessary. I have qualms with the ethical business practices of the leading pharmaceutical companies and the actions of global structures like the UN's WHO who are, i feel, failing us. This has nothing to do with allergies.

Evidence?

Of the Swine Flu Pandemic being fear-mongering in the worst way, for profit and against peoples health? Well I refuse to go find wiki links, so let's keep it in our own realities. In the world you live in how did the WHO, Baxter and Glaxo-Smith-Cline handle the pandemic situation? Was there a conflict of interest? Or do you want evidence of these companies track records I was alluding to? I have also presented that here before. Look up GSK's law suits, look up Baxters Bird Flu accident, and the HIV tainted Hemophilia medicines. These are all public record, they really happened. It is your responsibility to know who made the stuff you are putting in your bloodstream, not mine to inform you against your will.

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.

But if you will recall, again, that I am not arguing about the reactionary possibilities, but only about the overall theory and the production methods. I am arguing about predatory capitalism living in the place it can cause the most damage, the health care and media sectors. I am sorry you were disgusted, but I speak not for this illusive group you keep referring to as the anti-vac crowd. Like Ted Kennedy? Or is that too close to home?

Evidence?

Of what this time? That the Swine Flu jab was unnecessary? Well that is a statement of opinion, and I assure you it is a fact that I do hold that opinion. One place to look is the EU taking Baxter to court recently for the very same reasons, fear mongering to sell potentially dangerous medicine. Should I post the link to the story about it? Or did you want evidence that it would be best if there was not a cartel of chemical companies inventing new diseases? That is kind of a given. Or did you want evidence that the thing that makes bad medicine worse is if you take it without need? Also kind of obvious, and also a statement of opinion.

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

And as I have alluded to but not produced, there are other studies that come to the opposite conclusion. A=So instead of 'My proof is much proofier than your proof, I attempt to keep the debate within the parameters of our own thoughts and opinions. My ideas of the world are not based solely on the peer reviewed journals. you would, I'm sure say that I don't read them or accept them. I assure you I read it all, all sides of the debates. But I keep my conclusion close to my chest because I don't like to make statements of truth based on third party information. I have read these studies, and taken it into account, but it takes a lot more than a fancy magazine to convince me of certainty. I know you guys will love this, as it is a widely held belief here that my reality conforms to what I want it to be. I certainly hope that I am wrong, because I haven't even scraped the surface of the monsters I see that every assures me are windmills.

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.

But I argued that you were wrong when you said they had removed Thimerisol, or an Mercury based preservatives, and you conceded. Why should I have to still prove my point if you've taken it as true? There most certainly still is Thimerisol in most if not all Vaccines and Injected Medicines. No proof, I just know that. I have seen the proof because I went to the trouble to learn about this. I will not post liks here to be demonized, all the while being demonized for not posting links. As Adrian said, I should know how it works here by now.

Until you can prove anything you're saying you're simply fear mongering.

Only if I am trying to coerce anyone. I am stating my own opinion, I will not get a Swine Flu shot. I am not telling you what to do, and if you feel confidant, then by all means go get one. It is not fear mongering if the only person I am trying to control is myself, there needs to be coercions by the very definition of mongering.

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

There is a difference between these straw men you seem to see everywhere and a joke. That your children, with chemicals added to their bloodstream are chemically altered children is not an argument. That I will try no to cough on them show my disdain for your judging me based on my potential danger to your precious herd immunity. It was a quip, not a fallacious argument. I will try a more New England style of humor if you prefer.

So you're a psychic now? Awesome.

Again with the humor. I get so frustrated sometimes, I know you do too.

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 then, what is the recourse? If I am a threat to you because I did not get vaccinated, what do you do about it? You can try to convince me to get vaccinated, but I am 99% sure you can not. So then what. It may lead to a situation where you would vaccinate people against their will "for their own good". If you think not, then that is fine. I am only pointing out the flaw in that line. If I am a threat to you and your loved ones because I may get TB and they are vaccinated, what choices does that frame?

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.

I apologize for misunderstanding. I think it is a strong parallel between my beef with Vaccines and HPV vaccines (figure that). I think that a young girl is better served learning to take herself seriously and with respect. So we should try to teach our children not to be promiscuous to apoint where it may endanger thei health. And to give the HPV shot, with many of the same quality control and efficacy questions as the overall Vac Programs seems a bad way to solve the problem.

It's as if you gave a child a knife to cut her meat and she stabs her sister and blamed the knife. Absurd.

Not at all. I am asking if the medication will A)solve the problem and B)not cause new problems. In the case of the HPV shot, it is a very expensive and fancy way to deal with promiscuity. And if it does, like many reports have said, cause more problems than it solves, there surely is no good reason to take the medicine. My problem is that we need to have effective problem solving mechanisms from our medical society. Nothing to do with blaming the shot for promiscuity, but only asking whether the shot is, with all good an bad considered, a pertinent choice.

When I posted factual claims, such as vaccines do not cause autism

So when I state an opinion, it is unverified conspiracy? But when you state an opinion it is a fully factual claim? The stupid website I found in under a minute are bullshit, but the sites you posted are the holy grail of truth? This is why I don't like posting links, because it is damned if you do and damned if you don't. From now on, I will stop posting these "links" of "proof" if that is the response. I don't base my opinion on the three websites I posted, in fact I have never been to them before. I base my opinions on ALL available information, not weighing any one as relatively perfect. So you go ahead and base you opinions on one trusted source, let them tell you what you think, and hope that you made the right choice.
When I say "vaccines may have causes in the rise of auto-immune disorders," you say I am a crazy anti-vac'er. But then you say "Vaccines don't cause Autism,". It is a fact, 100% true. No speculation, no 'but I might be wrong', no, you have 100% faith in your sources. Well congratulations, I'm glad you have such a strong grip on reality. It sure is kind of you to enlighten us little people.

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

Again, no coercion. I am not telling anyone what to do. I am stating what I do, what I would do, and my thoughts on what others do. But feel free to please live your life as you want. I am not a prude, I am gentleman. Because I see a flaw in having sex (which can be dangerous unless you get this vaccine) purely as an ego-boost or an act of hedonism doesn't mean I have a mental flaw, or does it? Do they have a shot to cure me of my prudism yet Eilo?

You demonize modern medicine because you do not understand it. That is plainly obvious.

Is it? I wouldn't put your neck out that far. I am very intelligent, and quite learned in Medicine and the Human Body for a prole. My father is a doctor, and was a war medic. My Mother is a micro-biologist. I was certainly raised knowing a little more than the average bear about these topics. I have also added copious encyclopedic amounts of knowledge in my adulthood. If you feel that my fear of Vaccine Medicine is based on a lack of knowledge, I would have to strongly disagree. I am the only one who seems to care and know about the laws broken by the same companies that offered us those shots. Is that not pertinent information? I would argue that it is the amount I know about it that makes me draw the conclusions I do, and not the lack of knowledge. I appreciate your concern though.

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.

How touching. I always shudder with this argument. I too am a modern miracle baby. I was born 10 weeks premature, and had a hole in my little heart. If it wasn't for steroids, incubation and hard work I would certainly have died. Does that mean I owe unfaltering allegiance to modern medicine? Not at all. As much as you love them, I feel this is a straw man argument. Whether the risks of Vaccine Medicine outweigh the gains is a fact. It certainly is debatable, but there is an answer out there. Does my birth trauma (and subsequent brain damage, I do my best though ) make Vaccines safe or unsafe? No. They are two completley different questions. Again, for the third time (and I skipped a couple more in there somewhere), I am not arguing about the 1 in 1,000,000, that have allergic reactions. My argument against Vaccines has nothing to do with allergic reactions. I am talking about a much bigger picture of which such reactions are the final end point. I am arguing the need, the cause and the means. Not the result. Please stop with the allergic reactions. If that is how you think I am coming to my conclusions, than I appreciate your opinion, but I have to strongly disagree.

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

This is a sentence that lost me. So I am right that not every (to use your weird term) "anti-vac'er" holds to this 100% efficacy fallacy? Or by my own words (?) I am committing the fallacy? I am lost as to what you mean. I agree that that fallacy can exist. It is like the God of the gaps. But not every believer believes in the god of the gaps, and not every "anti-vac" person holds the 100% efficacy fallacy.

There. I am happy to agree to disagree. You can think what you will of Vaccine Therapy and it's uses, and make your own choices as per it. If it offends you so much that I have a different opinion than you, I will try to assimilate further. thank you kindly for your time.

-Pip