My Mother is an Anti-Vaccination idiot.

[Aractus]

A binary question has a correct answer. Does it not depend where the evidences lies. If the evidence lies with vaccines being a mostly good thing, then it's good to take a positive position on it. End of story.

It's not a binary question. Medicine affects different people differently - for me, for instance, penicillin is a great drug and works well. For others it does not.

You can't just lump every single drug together and then say they're all equal. There are pharmaceuticals that have been recalled, there are drugs that are legal in some countries and totally illegal in Australia. It's no different for vaccines - just because some/many/most are great doesn't mean that all are, and in fact some have been recalled in recent years proving that not all are safe.

There is no but, that is all you need to know.

Bullshit.

The default scientific position is scepticism.

Let's just pretend I'm conceded the harm aspect. What's the ratio of good vs. harm in vaccines then? if you're seriously going to bring such rare occasions.

Irrelevant because you're comparing the vaccines that are tested and proven already with new ones that are not. That's like comparing penicillin to some other fungus you've just discovered and just put onto the market with only 6 months of testing - not 6 years, and not the length of time we've had the existing drug.

Again, how often do recalls happen to how often the vaccines work?...

Would you take a recalled vaccination after it's been recalled? If not, then why would you want to take it before it's recalled?? Ignorance is bliss.

You and my mom would definitely get along. Complete horseshit, Vaccines have never been better and continue to get better.

I don't take the position your mother takes, in case you didn't notice.

Could you really name a vaccine you would refuse your child, this should be good...

Not off-hand, no.

[MJ the Skeptical]

It's not a binary question. Medicine affects different people differently - for me, for instance, penicillin is a great drug and works well. For others it does not.

You said those who take a strong stance for or against vaccines. That's the binary proposition at hand.

You can't just lump every single drug together and then say they're all equal. There are pharmaceuticals that have been recalled, there are drugs that are legal in some countries and totally illegal in Australia. It's no different for vaccines - just because some/many/most are great doesn't mean that all are, and in fact some have been recalled in recent years proving that not all are safe.

But vaccines are still an overwhelming positive. Which was my point.

Bullshit.

The default scientific position is scepticism.

So, saving countless lives means we need more skepticism about it. Gotcha.

Irrelevant because you're comparing the vaccines that are tested and proven already with new ones that are not. That's like comparing penicillin to some other fungus you've just discovered and just put onto the market with only 6 months of testing - not 6 years, and not the length of time we've had the existing drug.

You're the guy that kept changing scope and went on actual irrelevant tangents in another thread. I'll make this easy. I asked you a simple question, being this; What is the ratio of good vs harm in vaccines...But if you want to duck that again, fine by me.

Would you take a recalled vaccination after it's been recalled? If not, then why would you want to take it before it's recalled?? Ignorance is bliss.

Ducking another question to ask an obfuscating question. Typical creationist tactic. I'll give you another shot to be intellectually honest. Again, how often do recalls happen to how often the vaccines work?...

I don't take the position your mother takes, in case you didn't notice.

But there are things you would agree on. Just because you don't have identical viewpoints doesn't mean you wouldn't see closer with her on the subject. Unless you think we are more align. You're both religious folk, you would at least agree there xD

[Aractus]

I'm not discussing it further, I've said what I had to say. What I said is not politically correct. Vaccines are not special, I have the exact same scepticism towards any new pharmaceuticals. There have been pharmaceuticals that have been recalled in recent years too, you know.

[MJ the Skeptical]

I respect that you're skeptical of new medicines. I am too. Sorry there was a misunderstanding, sir, we agree there. But you did sort of hijack my thread which was asking for advice.

[Aractus]

It was not my intention to hijack your thread, all I wanted to do was voice my opinion - one which I've had for a very long time, and talked about before - which is neither "pro-vaccination" nor "anti-vaccination", but where I think the sensible "middle ground" lies.

You ask for advice in the op, and if you want mine it's that you should try to find the common-ground. Say that you acknowledge not all medicine has been beneficial, but that at the same time we have plenty of examples like paracetamol or aspirin that are beneficial, and that she would use and agree is helpful.

[Elskidor]

I first read that as anti- vacation idiot. It was much more funny that way.

[Heliocentrism]

Autism was first diagnosed in 1911.

Vaccines weren't readily available to the public until about 1958.

It's impossible for vaccines to cause autism.

Autism is biological. The "vaccine conspiracy" is an urban legend. Just like the claim that autism is caused by emotionally distant parents.

---

If I were you, I'd ignore it. My sibling has autism, and my mother claims the doctor who delivered him caused it by using forceps. I've read that it's genetic. It's not worth arguing about.

[LastPoet]

Women, the only ones capable of giving birth, are most probable to take guilt of a perceived 'flaw' on the offspring. It isn't really their fault, but it pains them the lack of an explanation. You may want to cuddle your mum and give her your support and knowledge.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Women, the only ones capable of giving birth, are most probable to take guilt of a perceived 'flaw' on the offspring. It isn't really their fault, but it pains them the lack of an explanation. You may want to cuddle your mum and give her your support and knowledge.

I appreciate the kind words of encouragement. I do feel that she wants to place the blame of my brothers Autism on something other than herself and I think that hurts her deep down to the core.

Honestly at this point I'd rather just drop the subject from now on to ease her suffering on the subject as she is not open to discussion and has called me ignorant on the subject. Even though I think I am being more objective and open to new evidence.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Autism was first diagnosed in 1911.

Vaccines weren't readily available to the public until about 1958.

It's impossible for vaccines to cause autism.

Autism is biological. The "vaccine conspiracy" is an urban legend. Just like the claim that autism is caused by emotionally distant parents.

---

If I were you, I'd ignore it. My sibling has autism, and my mother claims the doctor who delivered him caused it by using forceps. I've read that it's genetic. It's not worth arguing about.

The Autism linked to MMR scandal has also been comprehensively debunked and its author (Andrew Wakefield) has been struck off the medical register in the UK for being a fraud.

His 'research' (in the loosest send of the word) involved unethical and unnecessary invasive procedures on children whose parents were paid to encourage them take part. His sample was tiny, and his conclusions were already pre-formed based on backhanders he'd received from interested parties who wanted him to reach the conclusion that MMR was linked to autism.

He now operates in the US on a radio station spreading more lies and deceit. He should be in jail!