Outlawing ALL unproven medical practices,

[Eilonnwy]

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.

It's not a stretch when trying to explain how minimal the risk of vaccines are. Nevertheless, I'm glad you understand the point I am making.

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.

The efficacy of vaccines is irrespective of the distrubution methods. No matter how corrupt "Big Pharma" may be, and I don't agree with that, but let's assume for the sake of argument they are and they are pushing vaccines for a profit using questionable methods, that doesn't make the vaccines unsafe. You are using an ad hominem attack against the corporations to prop the idea that vaccines aren't safe, furthermore without providing evidence that these companies are doing bad practices. Most doctors I have heard from agree that the chicken egg method is outdated, that they need a new breakthrough in vaccines to produce more on demand. That however has nothing to do with the company that produces them and whether they have bad practices, nor the efficacy of vaccines. Therefore you have done nothing to prove the underlying point which is that vaccines have done so much for longevity and healthy living.

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.

I do know what's put in my bloodstream and that the h1n1 is exactly the same vaccine as the seasonal flu shot, which I get every year.

I'm not doing your work for you, you want to convince me then show me your work. I'm not going to entertain your conspiracy theories on your say so.

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?

Production methods is a different discussion and not related to the underlying discussion which is the efficacy of vaccination and the effect on the world. As for theory, do you mean the theory behind the efficacy of vaccines? That it's better to vaccinate instead of treat the disease. I wholeheartedly disagree if that is what you mean.

The health care system is another debate far removed from vaccines. What is your point about Kennedy? I in fact live in the only state with universal health care which was provided by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. After years of struggling with asthma and health care providers refusing to cover me, health care reform got me covered. I now have access to medication that I couldn't get before.

The health care system is fucked up and I wholeheartedly agree, but once again that is a debate that has nothing to do with the effect and efficacy of vaccines.

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.

I want you to back up your claims with reliable evidence. It's easy to cherry pick instances of bad practices but you need to prove on a whole that all vaccines are being tampered with and that fear mongering is being used to poison the population. You have failed to do anything remotely close to that.

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.

And alluded to is not providing proof. I'm not going to read your mind and figure out what study, likely a component taken out of context or the one recently discredited by Lancet with bad ethical practices and results that have not been reproduced. The studies I linked to are accredited and have been put through the ringer by other scientific minds.

Your doubts, your assurances, your paranoia are not enough, not by a long shot.

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.

I incorrectly made it seem like thimerisol was removed from all vaccines, which is true. However, the fact still remains that in instances that thimerisol was removed or lowered that the rate of autism diagnoseses have not changed at all. Therefore my point is still entirely valid and you have not met your burden of proof.

You are not demonized for posting links. You are called out for refusing to back up your claims, complain when you are called out, insist we google things ourself. And then when FINALLY you come around to providing a shred of evidence it's to conspiracy websites with, what you have admitted, comes from a cursory google search. On the other hand the evidence I provided took me time to find because I didn't post the first link I found that agrees with me but looked for accredited sources with actual scientific studies also well sourced. There's a difference, I'm sorry you can't see it.

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.

If you don't want to get the h1n1 shot, that's up to you. If you start telling people that you shouldn't get the vaccine, that it's chemicals poisoning your blood, that the corporations are trying to victimize people through bad medicine and profit models, then you are fear mongering. Plain and simple.

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.

The comment you made did not suggest humor but an incorrect notion of what his happening to people when a vaccine is introduced. Therefore it's a strawman.

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

You were making a slippery slope argument. How am I supposed to take your points seriously if you want to mischaracterize the conversation with your little "jokes" and insist I'm advocting taking children away and then pretend it's a joke later on. Argue the points with facts and evidence, not strawmen, ad hominems, and slippery slope fallacies and then try to pretend they were only jokes.

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?

Better education. I hold no illusion that there are people who will refuse to listen to reason, but the better we educate people with truth and not conspiracies and fear mongering then I think herd immunity will be built back up and we will continue on a path that is better for children.

I hold no illusion that we can create some kind of Nirvana where everyone gets vaccinated as they should, but I do think most people are reasonable and can respond to good evidence the right way.

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.

Your logic is the same as suggesting to people not wear their seatbelt. Seatbelts save lives from bad accidents, bad accidents happen from bad driving. So hey, if they don't wear seatbelts they will be better drives. It's a flawed logic that ignores reality.

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.

Medication will protect women from a cancer that is essentially sexually transmitted. It is not a license to be promiscuous. A woman can be completely abstinent and marry a man and contact the HPV. You are ignoring that fact and instead characterizing it as a promiscuity issue when it's a general health issue. Women have sex, irrespective of morality issues, women can get this virus and subsequently cancer. The vaccine takes away the virus and protects ALL WOMEN. Promiscuous or not. It is a valid medical choice.

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 completely miss the point. I was making the distinction from when I make factual claims, I will back them up with accredited sources. However, when I make opinion claims, my sources may be biased. I was making a distinction from types of sources.

And by factual claims I mean statements that are backed up by the evidence that convinces me of their efficacy. Provide good sources, reliable and accredited and I will reconsider. I have always been consistent in this stance. I am more than willing to correct myself on factual claims, as I did when you correctly pointed out that not all thimerisol was removed in all cases.

By insisting factual claims have to be 100% with no shred of doubt is once again a strawman. No one insists that unless they are an idiot. You take that shred of doubt to try to use it to tear everything down, where as reasonable people with allow that shred of doubt to change their stance if, and only if, the evidence changes or more is acquired that affect the claim.

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 can state what you do, but insisting a vaccine promotes promiscuity is just plainly false.

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.

I am basing my opinion on your own words and your innability to back up your claims and your consistent mischaracterization of the facts.

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.

It is not a strawman but anecdotal at best, some people respond to anecdotal.

Neverthless, saying that my appreciation for surviving as a child means I uncritically accept modern medicine IS a strawman.

Anyway, if you want to argue that corporations and distribution make vaccines flawed then I think we've veered way off topic as the original point was that vaccines have done more for the general health of the population than most other medications. I really have no interest in delving into your conspiracy theories about these companies. Honestly, the results speak for themselves. Diseases that once devastated children, gone. Now they are making a comeback with the drop in vaccinations. There's the need, child fatalities. The cause is the disease. The means is vaccines. Until you can prove that without vaccines that these diseases will not wreak havoc on the population, that the vaccine's side effects and risks are far greater than the millions of lives saved, then I think we have no more to discuss.

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

The fact that you focus on the corporations themselves, look for any bad practices or perceived fear mongering to justify not getting vaccines shows me you will not accept something unless it's 100%. There are problems with distribution, which you then construe to be a big conspiracy about the companies. Distrubution problems =/= bad vaccines. That's where you're making the fallacy. In a perfect world vaccines would have no risk and get to everyone who needs them when they need it. I hope I don't have to tell you this is not a perfect world.

And once again, you attack my argument by suggesting I want to "assimilate" you rather then provide facts and evidence in a vain attempt to change your mind about vaccine. If you wish to ignore the evidence, I can't change that and I accept that fact.