Outlawing ALL unproven medical practices,

[Tiberius]

Pippy, after all we've been through together, you should know by now that "do your own research" isn't a reply we respect around here. You see, we have done our own research. You've just done some different research. If you tell us to search google, we might not come across the same research that you hold dear.

Thus, there is a very simple rule. If you claim to have proof of something, you back it up. You've pulled this trick before, so please don't do it again. All it does is get on our nerves, and you really don't want to get on our nerves again.

[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.

[Eilonnwy]

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine

Because new evidence comes out all the time destroying the fallacious claim that vaccines lead to autism.

[leo-rcc]

Medical journal retracts study linking autism to vaccine

Because new evidence comes out all the time destroying the fallacious claim that vaccines lead to autism.

It was kind of unexpected that this happened with the Lancet. It is a highly respected journal.

[Pippy]

I was right and you were wrong. The "anti-vac people" really exist and I am a paid provacateur for them. There is no group out here with genuine concern for medicine, we are misinformation agents and evil monkeys that hate science and goodness.

I don't have time to respond fully tonight. I would be happy to continue, as there are a lot of things I want to respond to in your post. I assure you there is no Anti-Vac crowd, we are not organized.

Adrian, I type two key words into google and grab a couple out of the first 5 results. It is easy to do, do it yourselves. I don't need to literally "prove" what I claim by posting links, because for people as big as myself, posting internet links are not "proof". So search for you own links. Or disagree. I am not here to prove myself and "win" arguments to compliment my ego boner. I am here to share my point of view. I certainly woulnd't want you to get mad again. Please no. Please don't hurt me. From London.

[Eilonnwy]

Pippy, has it not gotten through your skull what a strawman is?

[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

[Tiberius]

Adrian, I type two key words into google and grab a couple out of the first 5 results. It is easy to do, do it yourselves. I don't need to literally "prove" what I claim by posting links, because for people as big as myself, posting internet links are not "proof". So search for you own links. Or disagree. I am not here to prove myself and "win" arguments to compliment my ego boner. I am here to share my point of view. I certainly woulnd't want you to get mad again. Please no. Please don't hurt me. From London.

If all you are doing to back up your assertions is "type two key words into google and grab a couple out of the first 5 results" then I hold that you aren't in any position to make claims about vaccines. As Eilonnwy pointed out, the results you did pick were fear-mongering websites, not scientific sources at all.

Of course, posting links doesn't constitute proof. However, in terms of fulfilling the burden of proof, posting links to scientific studies does. You cannot deny scientific studies, unless some error in the study was shown in a subsequent study, or if the study is retracted by the scientist who did it in the first place.

So no, we won't search for our own links. If you want to discuss your opinion, you can do so. However, if someone calls you out on your bullshit, and you refuse to post the evidence that convinced you of your position (since *most* people don't just form opinions on something by pulling ideas out of their ass), your opinion is instantly discounted as mere speculation, or in most of your cases, a whacky conspiracy theory.

If you don't want to win your arguments to feed your ego boner, why not win them to see the truth justified? Showing people the truth is a virtue, and you don't have to make this an ego issue if all you want to do is enlighten people.

[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.

[Pippy]

I appreciate your candor.

I don't trust the companies and governmental agencies in charge of Health Product Safety. Nor food saftey, nor School saftey, but the WHO and regional local agencies are not serving us as best they can. I repeat that I am only fear mongering if I am trying to get people to act i na certain way. I speak only for myself, and I don't think it can count as fear mongering. May be delusion, and self deception, but I am the only one involved...

I don't mean that HPV shots let you be promiscuous, but that they are only effective if they are effective. If a lot of young women have become sterile or very, very sickly from taking the shot, then there are questions about the saftey and efficacy of the medicine.

I don't think it is some big conspiracy, I have always found flaws in the modern worlds problem solving capabilities. The companies that make vaccines could make a much better and safer and more useful and more effective product, but it seems sometimes will medicate people with useless are dangerous stuff in the interests of profit seeking.

Please feel free to trust them and take whatever they offer you. You said you get the Flu shot every year, I am surprised that you are curious as to who makes the shot, what they put into the shot, and what thir prior saftey record is. I assure you the the swine flu shot was not exactly the same as the seasonal flu shot. It was the same kind of shot (an attenuated adjuncated virus), the same kind of science, but it was a different shot made in a different manner by a different company.

I can offer easy links to evidence that the Pharma Corps are evil, it is something I learned a little bit at a time from living here. I have doubts and unanswered questions, and the websites you suggest just don't reassure me. I am not a conspiracy theorist, or some crazy like on the cartoons. I am an intelligent and aware human being doing me best to stay safe. I am not fear mongering, I am not motivate by the need to see as many people adopt my ideas and stay unvaccinated and get as sick as possible. I am only motivated by my natural self preservation. I assure you that my involvment in the anti-vac crowd started long before that label existed, and that my motivator is safe and effectice medicine. I am trying for a world were we are not lied to day in and day out.

I appreciate you taking your time. Thanks.

-Pip