Specter claims that people in the US are getting LESS vaccines, not more, and this is due to scare-mongering.
Many studies have indicated that vaccines do not cause things such as autism, but people believe the hype more than they believe figures and facts.
I then recalled seeing a Kent Hovind lecture and one of the things he whinged about was vaccines, he said they "will kill you" and devoted one of his "lectures" to the subject.
So my question is, why do Religious people not wish to take vaccines, and what scriptural reasons would there be for not using them?
The more Religious people who don't get life saving vaccines the better imo, though that might be the chip Dawkins implants into all babies who don't get christened </sarcasm>
1. Most if not all US domestic vaccine makers have gone out of business or quit making them due to law suits.
2. There is a small movement of nattering nabobs who blab about the above autism and other nonsense, relying on everyone else to effectively protect them because everyone else is vaccinated.
However that doesnt account for misinterpretation. Most vaccines are by-products of a host, so on a slim technicality it can be seen as blood sharing, which is forbidden Biblically.
However there is a word of difference between a blood pact and a blood transfusion, let alone a vaccination. You just try telling the JW's that.
Anti-vaccination doctrines are far more common in cults than extreme churches. Restricting access to the medical profession is a central theme of cult control. You might not need to wonder too deeply what Scientology has against psychiatrists, anit vaccination is the same thing but on a looser scale.
The real doctrine I think is: keep the medical profession away if you want to brainwash. Which makes sense in a horrid way.
Yep. Vaccination can be interpreted to be a violation of the prohibition on sharing blood, but that interpretation is pretty rare.
More common in "cult" groups (as distinguished from the word Cult as used by sociologists) is the theme of control and limiting members' access to the outside world, including medical professionals. I don't think limiting their access to medicine specifically is called out on Bonewits' cult danger evaluation frame (the ABCDEF), but it fits in well.
The main thing in the US though, as Fraz pointed out, is that some people have convinced themselves that vaccines are dangerous and might be a cause of autism and other issues. These people, sometimes misguided but desperately wounded parents of autistic kids themselves, understandably make it a crusade to help others. Sadly, their premise is flawed, and their efforts counterproductive.
So Orlanth, would you keep a child from getting a life saving blood transfusion? Im pretty sure you wouldnt after what you just said.. so this makes me wonder, what do Jehovas witnesses have against it? Does it all just boil down to the way different sects have interpreted the bible?
mattyrm wrote:Woah i agree with Orlanth as well...
So Orlanth, would you keep a child from getting a life saving blood transfusion? Im pretty sure you wouldnt after what you just said.. so this makes me wonder, what do Jehovas witnesses have against it? Does it all just boil down to the way different sects have interpreted the bible?
To be clear, don't misinterpret Orlanth providing info with agreeing with said info.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gwar! wrote:The more Religious people who don't get life saving vaccines the better imo, though that might be the chip Dawkins implants into all babies who don't get christened </sarcasm>
in the US its not the religious nuts who are the vast majority not getting vaccines.
mattyrm wrote:Woah i agree with Orlanth as well...
So Orlanth, would you keep a child from getting a life saving blood transfusion? Im pretty sure you wouldnt after what you just said.. so this makes me wonder, what do Jehovas witnesses have against it? Does it all just boil down to the way different sects have interpreted the bible?
To be clear, don't misinterpret Orlanth providing info with agreeing with said info.
Aww.
Frazzled wrote:
Gwar! wrote:The more Religious people who don't get life saving vaccines the better imo, though that might be the chip Dawkins implants into all babies who don't get christened </sarcasm>
in the US its not the religious nuts who are the vast majority not getting vaccines.
Now I am agreeing with Frazzie. This thread is getting wierd quick.
Common hysteria and scaremongering rather than religion is to blame. Most vaccination programs are aimed at the young, after childhood you only really need shot very infrequently and mostly revolving around foreign travel. So the majority of vaccination withdrawals are related to scared parents, adults don't get vaccinated for different reasons, normally idleness and a personal dislike of needles.
I think vaccination scares are similar in nature to paedo scares, the number of children kept from using parks by worried parents well outweighs the risk of attack. In surveys most parents overrestimated the risk of a paedo attack by 200 times the actual risk. Yes paedos exist, and yes kids do die from incorrectly prepared serums or occassionally from an allergic reaction, but the risks are lower than negligible. It would make a lot more sense to avoid all car journeys, but that means no trips to McDonalds of course.
Yea it was mainly Montel Williams and Oprah that screwed the whole thing. They had a few shows with a couple of sobbing women that said their children got messed up because of vaccines. Even though all the mothers are doing is just blaming something for why their kids have what they have. Its really a natural thing any parent would do.
I dont get what you Europeans are worried about, if this trend continues we Americans will die off from the flu
Frazzled wrote:2. There is a small movement of nattering nabobs who blab about the above autism and other nonsense, relying on everyone else to effectively protect them because everyone else is vaccinated.
The problem with the colossal scare of the last few years is that many others have failed to take it up, it's not religious groups. Actually I've looked at various forums online and the ones often still refusing to vaccinate their children because they want them to get immunity 'naturally' (From what mumps and measels? They can cause infertility and brain damage) are these extreme organic greeny sorts. Not the reasonable ones, the freaky fundamentalist sorts who have coffee enemas and need internet forums full of anti-vaccination sorts as some kind of middle class support group. They really are an ignorant and dangerous bunch of people.
When everyone was being vaccinated the odd person not being covered wasn't a huge issue because we had what is described as herd immunity. But these anti-vaccination groups and the health scares whipped up by the media have spread paranoia into the public and take up of vaccines is now insufficient to give herd immunity. Not only are the unvaccinated at much greater risk, but now even those who are vaccinated are at greater risk of exposure which puts them at increased risk too. There have been outbreaks of measles and mumps for the first time in years in the UK. Most people who are young parents are about my age and have probably grown up with no personal experience of these diseases which is why they aren't taken seriously. I read a few articles says that they were not far off eradicating some of these diseases but that work has been set back decades. It's bad news and it's all down to the media creating a health scare and ignorant selfish people refusing to vaccinate their children when the facts are plainly obvious. There's a good argument to make vaccination compulsory to protect these children from their own parents, as well as everyone else in society.
Only dumpkoffs believe this. I am religious, and I KNOW that vaccines are, in fact, good for you. The only people who believe this are fear mongering idiots who don't understand how vaccines work. How is a dead/weakened virus going to cause a genetic disease such as autism?
It isn't restricted to religious beliefs.
We had a similar issue regarding the triple MMR vaccine
(Mumps, Measles,Rubella) which was said to increase the chances of Autism.
There was iirc no proven grounds for the connection between MMR and Autism, but parents got very worried and refused to have their children vaccinated.
Pressure groups had no connections to religion afaik.
I would have said the cult of Daily Mail readers, but it all amounts to the same thing!
I don't think religious fruitiness has much to do with the fear of vaccines. Blame flawed reporting from medical professionals (& charaltans) and the media.
There was a serious piece published in the Lancet in the mid-90s, arguing for a causal relationship between autism and vaccinations. It was theorised that the small dose of mercury in the vaccine might have been the cause.
This sparked off a lot of follow up studies, none of which replicated the original findings. Peer review of the original study showed it to have serious methodological problems. The Lancet formally retracted the study in 2007 or thereabouts. Even if it had been a problem there hasn't been mercury used in vaccines for about a decade.
But the seed was already sown among the general population. Unfortunately autism become apparent around the same time as the MMR vaccine, and there is a natural human condition to look for something to blame for any problems our children might have. So you get sobbing Mothers telling their stories on daytime television, and that's more influential to people than science.
Frazzled wrote:2. There is a small movement of nattering nabobs who blab about the above autism and other nonsense, relying on everyone else to effectively protect them because everyone else is vaccinated.
The problem with the colossal scare of the last few years is that many others have failed to take it up, it's not religious groups. Actually I've looked at various forums online and the ones often still refusing to vaccinate their children because they want them to get immunity 'naturally' (From what mumps and measels? They can cause infertility and brain damage) are these extreme organic greeny sorts. Not the reasonable ones, the freaky fundamentalist sorts who have coffee enemas and need internet forums full of anti-vaccination sorts as some kind of middle class support group. They really are an ignorant and dangerous bunch of people.
When everyone was being vaccinated the odd person not being covered wasn't a huge issue because we had what is described as herd immunity. But these anti-vaccination groups and the health scares whipped up by the media have spread paranoia into the public and take up of vaccines is now insufficient to give herd immunity. Not only are the unvaccinated at much greater risk, but now even those who are vaccinated are at greater risk of exposure which puts them at increased risk too. There have been outbreaks of measles and mumps for the first time in years in the UK. Most people who are young parents are about my age and have probably grown up with no personal experience of these diseases which is why they aren't taken seriously. I read a few articles says that they were not far off eradicating some of these diseases but that work has been set back decades. It's bad news and it's all down to the media creating a health scare and ignorant selfish people refusing to vaccinate their children when the facts are plainly obvious. There's a good argument to make vaccination compulsory to protect these children from their own parents, as well as everyone else in society.
The vaccinated are immune no matter how many un-vaccinated there are in the herd.
I would say it is the revenge of nature upon the foolish but of course it is the innocent children, at the mercy of their parents, who suffer the evil consequences.
Is there anyone here who's actually experienced an issue with a vaccination personally, or had a close friend/family member have one? I have.
My wife is an Occupational Therapist. For those of you that don't know (and don't feel like googling it), an OT helps you figure out how to live with whatever disability/trauma/syndrome you may have. Anyway, my wife specializes in pediatric early intervention (from birth - three years old). She had a family with two boys both on the spectrum (meaning they both have autism). Both boys were completely normal until their 18 month vaccination course. Exactly one week after the eldest got his shots he began to rapidly lose cognitive and motor functions. The family took a just in case approach and told their doctor to not administer the vaccine to their youngest.
Apparently this wasn't properly communicated to the doctor's staff. When the mother brought the youngest in, they came in to draw blood. Immediately after that they gave him a shot. The way my wife tells it is that the mom immediately freaked. Sure enough, one week later the kid follows in his brother's footsteps and is labeled as autistic.
My wife is currently working with 8 kids all under three and within a 15 mile radius that all have autism. She can't remember the last time she had a CP (Cerebral Palsy) kid. Her biggest problem is that if we treated autism like we did cancer we would quickly realize that we have an epidemic on our hands and should devote considerable resources toward figuring out the root cause.
Now she and I haven't completely jumped on the bandwagon, but her experience is just one of many that she's had that may have some link back to vaccines. Unfortunately there has not been nearly enough competent studies done to rule this in or out.
Oh, and I used to work for a pharma company that dealt with vaccines. You would not believe the amount of money on the line should there come a time when a link could be established.
Yad wrote:Is there anyone here who's actually experienced an issue with a vaccination personally, or had a close friend/family member have one? I have.
My wife is an Occupational Therapist. For those of you that don't know (and don't feel like googling it), an OT helps you figure out how to live with whatever disability/trauma/syndrome you may have. Anyway, my wife specializes in pediatric early intervention (from birth - three years old). She had a family with two boys both on the spectrum (meaning they both have autism). Both boys were completely normal until their 18 month vaccination course. Exactly one week after the eldest got his shots he began to rapidly lose cognitive and motor functions. The family took a just in case approach and told their doctor to not administer the vaccine to their youngest.
Apparently this wasn't properly communicated to the doctor's staff. When the mother brought the youngest in, they came in to draw blood. Immediately after that they gave him a shot. The way my wife tells it is that the mom immediately freaked. Sure enough, one week later the kid follows in his brother's footsteps and is labeled as autistic.
My wife is currently working with 8 kids all under three and within a 15 mile radius that all have autism. She can't remember the last time she had a CP (Cerebral Palsy) kid. Her biggest problem is that if we treated autism like we did cancer we would quickly realize that we have an epidemic on our hands and should devote considerable resources toward figuring out the root cause.
Now she and I haven't completely jumped on the bandwagon, but her experience is just one of many that she's had that may have some link back to vaccines. Unfortunately there has not been nearly enough competent studies done to rule this in or out.
Oh, and I used to work for a pharma company that dealt with vaccines. You would not believe the amount of money on the line should there come a time when a link could be established.
-Yad
I think its much more likely that the 100s of thousands of kids that receive the same shot and DIDN'T develop autism... are a better data set to look at here.... So what commonality exists between the brothers?
I dunno... Genetics?
Seems like these autism cases come in... and unsurprisingly the people who develop autism are all related... I wonder what could cause that...
micahaphone wrote:Only dumpkoffs believe this. I am religious, and I KNOW that vaccines are, in fact, good for you. The only people who believe this are fear mongering idiots who don't understand how vaccines work. How is a dead/weakened virus going to cause a genetic disease such as autism?
And only idiots would post this. It wasn't the vacccine that was causing concern, it was the compound used to perserve it.
while i will not claim that the above link is a completely trustworthy POV it does provide us a lot of google and actual research fodder to decide for yourselves
Yad wrote:Is there anyone here who's actually experienced an issue with a vaccination personally, or had a close friend/family member have one? I have.
My wife is an Occupational Therapist. For those of you that don't know (and don't feel like googling it), an OT helps you figure out how to live with whatever disability/trauma/syndrome you may have. Anyway, my wife specializes in pediatric early intervention (from birth - three years old). She had a family with two boys both on the spectrum (meaning they both have autism). Both boys were completely normal until their 18 month vaccination course. Exactly one week after the eldest got his shots he began to rapidly lose cognitive and motor functions. The family took a just in case approach and told their doctor to not administer the vaccine to their youngest.
Apparently this wasn't properly communicated to the doctor's staff. When the mother brought the youngest in, they came in to draw blood. Immediately after that they gave him a shot. The way my wife tells it is that the mom immediately freaked. Sure enough, one week later the kid follows in his brother's footsteps and is labeled as autistic.
My wife is currently working with 8 kids all under three and within a 15 mile radius that all have autism. She can't remember the last time she had a CP (Cerebral Palsy) kid. Her biggest problem is that if we treated autism like we did cancer we would quickly realize that we have an epidemic on our hands and should devote considerable resources toward figuring out the root cause.
Now she and I haven't completely jumped on the bandwagon, but her experience is just one of many that she's had that may have some link back to vaccines. Unfortunately there has not been nearly enough competent studies done to rule this in or out.
Oh, and I used to work for a pharma company that dealt with vaccines. You would not believe the amount of money on the line should there come a time when a link could be established.
-Yad
They use synthetic mercury now. The last swine flu vaccine had it in. Doctors and nurses were refusing to take it. But as you guys say they were idiots over reacting.
Yeah, the paper that proposed the link was pretty soundly discredited to the point of being retracted by the journal that published it.
As for Yad's story it's very likely that the children had been having issues for a long time and the parents simply didn't recognize it or acknowledge it. When they did start to realize what had happened the whole "vaccinations will give your kids autism" thing jumped to the fore, they pointed to the latest vaccination and went apeshit.
I've had my own issues with vaccinations. My little boy had a really bad allergic reaction to one of his. He was/is fine but at the time it was a bit concerning. We still finished his vaccinations and got his sisters their shots as well.
Rural Kentucky is a great place. Hell, pretty much anywhere rural Appalachians is not only gorgeous but quite temperate and nice to live in. Of course if you love the big city you're SOL as the roads wind out of there and take hours to go what would take you 30 minutes on the highway.
Why would I care? If a large portion of the population is dying off, then I want the army helping insure their compliance, before they infect everyone.
but what age do kids get inoculated for...say, Measles? 1 year old?
Babies are usually protected from measles the first 6 months of their lives, PROVIDED that the mother was immune in the first place.
have you ever seen an infant who got measles? My aunt lost a kid that way.
With less and less people getting vaccinated, i think the tragedy my aunt had will be a more common occurance.
Before a child is born the parents if they are responsible people will register with a local doctor and hospital for the pre-natal cares and birth care.
The post-natal care includes a series of visits by a paediatric nurse, who will weigh and measure the baby and put the results in the baby's medical records book.
There are various vaccinations from birth onwards for several years. These are all noted in the medical record book.
I had all the childhood diseases when I was a child because it was before the vaccinations had been invented.
The only vaccine that isn't generally available now in the UK is Chickenpox. The young boy of a friend of my wife died of Chickenpox at the age of three, so we had our daughter vaccinated.
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the paper that proposed the link was pretty soundly discredited to the point of being retracted by the journal that published it.
As for Yad's story it's very likely that the children had been having issues for a long time and the parents simply didn't recognize it or acknowledge it. When they did start to realize what had happened the whole "vaccinations will give your kids autism" thing jumped to the fore, they pointed to the latest vaccination and went apeshit.
I've had my own issues with vaccinations. My little boy had a really bad allergic reaction to one of his. He was/is fine but at the time it was a bit concerning. We still finished his vaccinations and got his sisters their shots as well.
Yeah, that's entirely possible. My wife thinks that it's likely a predisposition to autism that is triggered through environmental conditions (including vaccinations). Like I mentioned before, I don't believe there has been enough research done on this subject. Personally, I think that the rate and volume of vaccine's being injected into our children is abhorrent. Family friends of ours just got their child vaccinated. 4 shots (1 in each leg, 1 in the arm, and 1 oral) containing multiple vaccines. Time after time we see the FDA not fulfilling its regulatory duty toward these pharma companies. My own two children are vaccinated. However, we've implemented our own schedule. Consulting with our doctor on what vaccines we think are most appropriate. And we never administer more than two at a time.
The previous post was a bit of a post hoc fallacy it would seem.
Yad wrote:is triggered through environmental conditions (including vaccinations)
Vaccinations aren't environmental.
Yad wrote:Like I mentioned before, I don't believe there has been enough research done on this subject.
There is a metric ton of research on the subject as was brought up before and almost all of it finds no link between vaccines and autism. We have a fairly good grasp of what vaccines do and don't do.
Yad wrote:Personally, I think that the rate and volume of vaccine's being injected into our children is abhorrent.
You will need to be more clear on this point as it doesn't seem to follow your line of reasoning. So your neighbor gets it all done at once and you do it over a series of visits, that doesn't show an abhorrent over use of the vaccines.
Ahtman wrote:The previous post was a bit of a post hoc fallacy it would seem.
Yad wrote:is triggered through environmental conditions (including vaccinations)
Vaccinations aren't environmental.
Yes but his meaning was quite obvious, that the child was prediposed to the condition and the vacination triggered it.
With vaccinations the point is simple, there is always a very small danger of mortality due to adverse reactions but the deaths of a few children (although terrible for their families) but this is alot better than having hundreds of children die.
With the increase in the number of people not being immunised it also leads to a higher number of virus mutations due to more host bodies leading to more reproduction.
As for Yad he has seemed to prove the original point, out of all of us he is the only one with an personal experience of an adverse effect, even if it is second hand and unconfirmed, showing vaccines to be as a whole safe. i come from a very large family we have all had vaccines and are all healthy.
BluntmanDC wrote:Yes but his meaning was quite obvious
So calling non-environmental factors environmental factors is ok as long as someone thinks they get it? It is not proper, especially in something involving clinical research by the wrong name becuase it skews the information, or creates discrepancies. There is a significant difference between searching for environmental and and non-environmental factors.
BluntmanDC wrote:that the child was prediposed to the condition and the vacination triggered it.
Besides again being a post hoc fallacy, there is nothing that says the child was also predisposed to it or that the vaccination had anything to do with it.
BluntmanDC wrote:As for Yad he has seemed to prove the original point
Uhm, not even close.
BluntmanDC wrote:out of all of us he is the only one with an personal experience of an adverse effect, even if it is second hand and unconfirmed, showing vaccines to be as a whole safe. i come from a very large family we have all had vaccines and are all healthy.
It seems more like whether something is actually true or not isn't as important as it feeling like it is true.
Frazzled wrote:1. Most if not all US domestic vaccine makers have gone out of business or quit making them due to law suits.
I would sooner blame the titanic pharmaceuticals which can absorb suits and compete on costs unfairly for the loss of mom and pop vacc... Wait a second, no. It's always been the same small number of titanic biomed corporations doing these under shell companies.
Yeah, the anti vac crowd is a bunch of simpering idiots.
BluntmanDC wrote:that the child was prediposed to the condition and the vacination triggered it.
Besides again being a post hoc fallacy, there is nothing that says the child was also predisposed to it or that the vaccination had anything to do with it.
I never said it was true, i was saying what his post ment, which i think was pretty obvious to everyone, all you had to say was that vaccinations were not an enviromental factor but that it could 'acctivate' the condition (could being the proper word seeing as it hasn't been proven)
Ahtman wrote:
BluntmanDC wrote:As for Yad he has seemed to prove the original point
Uhm, not even close.
BluntmanDC wrote:out of all of us he is the only one with an personal experience of an adverse effect, even if it is second hand and unconfirmed, showing vaccines to be as a whole safe. i come from a very large family we have all had vaccines and are all healthy.
With the original point being that vaccines are safe, with only one uncomfirmed example compared to multiple examples of people who have been vaccinated and are fine, it does lead to the conclusion that vaccines are safe.
and on another note using 'post hoc fallacy' is really annoying seeing as you are only using it to look superior
Yad wrote:Now she and I haven't completely jumped on the bandwagon, but her experience is just one of many that she's had that may have some link back to vaccines. Unfortunately there has not been nearly enough competent studies done to rule this in or out.
No, there's been more than ten years of study following the original Lancet study. All very competent, and not one finding a link, let alone a causal link.
Autism is certainly on the rise, and the most likely cause appears to be the increasing age of parents. Not vaccines.
Ahtman wrote:The previous post was a bit of a post hoc fallacy it would seem.
Yad wrote:is triggered through environmental conditions (including vaccinations)
Vaccinations aren't environmental.
Yes but his meaning was quite obvious, that the child was prediposed to the condition and the vacination triggered it.
With vaccinations the point is simple, there is always a very small danger of mortality due to adverse reactions but the deaths of a few children (although terrible for their families) but this is alot better than having hundreds of children die.
With the increase in the number of people not being immunised it also leads to a higher number of virus mutations due to more host bodies leading to more reproduction.
As for Yad he has seemed to prove the original point, out of all of us he is the only one with an personal experience of an adverse effect, even if it is second hand and unconfirmed, showing vaccines to be as a whole safe. i come from a very large family we have all had vaccines and are all healthy.
Yad wrote:Like I mentioned before, I don't believe there has been enough research done on this subject.
There really, really has. This is from a CDC report published in May this year;
"They evaluated the records of 491 children born between 1993 and 1997 who got vaccinations on time, 235 who got recommended vaccines but not on time, and 311 who didn't get all of the recommended vaccines."
"Children can receive their immunizations on time and expect to have the same neurodevelopmental outcomes as children with any other pattern of vaccine receipt."
BluntmanDC wrote: all you had to say was that vaccinations were not an enviromental factor but that it could 'acctivate' the condition
I never said it could activate autism, and most of the other posters seem to be saying the same. I said that vaccines do not fall under the category of 'environmental' because they are not.
BluntmanDC wrote:and on another note using 'post hoc fallacy' is really annoying seeing as you are only using it to look superior
Seriously? I mean really, seriously? I, or anyone else, should act like we don't know things so you won't feel belittled or talked down to? I use the term because that is what it is **** ****. It seems like that I have less of a problem here than you. You might want to do a bit of self evaluation and figure out why if someone uses the proper terms for things that it makes you uncomfortable enough to say something. If someone is talking about pneumonia and using the term pneumonia do you also feel that are trying to act superior because they don't say "really bad cold virus" instead?
As the old adage goes its not the word but how you use it, i was not stating that using the very correct term was wrong, but in the way you were using it, as i did not personally feel belittled seeing as i know what it means but you seemed to use it in such a way to undermine Yat. That is why i said it
and don't call me a silly boy as i am not.
@loki old fart:
this is one man, while multiple researchers have found similar and seperate results that there is no link between vaccinations and autism
BluntmanDC wrote:As the old adage goes its not the word but how you use it, i was not stating that using the very correct term was wrong, but in the way you were using it, as i did not personally feel belittled seeing as i know what it means but you seemed to use it in such a way to undermine Yat. That is why i said it
and don't call me a silly boy as i am not.
@loki old fart:
this is one man, while multiple researchers have found similar and seperate results that there is no link between vaccinations and autism
Yad wrote:Yeah, that's entirely possible. My wife thinks that it's likely a predisposition to autism that is triggered through environmental conditions (including vaccinations). Like I mentioned before, I don't believe there has been enough research done on this subject.
The MMR paper that triggered the panic wasn't a paper as such, it was a collection of case notes, that is when a Doctor observes a few things and makes what amounts to little more than speculation. Andrew Wakefield made no authoritative study, it was a tiny sample of children from parents already predisposed towards autism, he was paid by people who already associated vaccines with autism. He didn't present the data, even in its loose form, in a responsible and unbiased manner. When it started to kick off other groups started trying to reproduce the results and couldn't do it, because Wakefield's work was at best flawed and in retrospect fraudulent in their claims, likely the latter seeing as further investigation has found that he altered results to fit the MMR-autism link hypothesis.
It has been 10 years, there is a lot of work done on vaccines especially in relation to MMR and autism. Time and again the biggest studies show no connections, the meta-analyses for the whole literature show that there is no connection. Meanwhile Wakefield's papers have been retracted by their journals, Wakefield himself has been stuck off in the UK for misconduct charges among which included carrying out colonoscopies and spinal taps without approval. Wakefield then stripped of the right to practice medicine in the UK moved to the US where he's now bankrolled by anti-vaccination groups to continue his great work on autism. It's quite frightening, that someone struck off in the UK is allowed to work as a doctor in the US and people take their kids to him.
There is a wealth of research done on vaccines, it's usually the anti-vax mob that come out with the "there's not enough research" line and I would not like anyone to swallow it as being true. It's always worth paying attention to the sorts of people who sign off criticism especially in news items with "there needs to be more research". Often it is a disingenuous way to sound reasonable and open minded while covering for the fact that they have very little constructive criticism to make, or even prove they understand the subject beyond their opposition to it.
One reason why people associate autism with vaccinations is that autism tends to appear around the time children have vaccinations, but it's coincidental, autism tends not to show itself earlier and most children have several vaccinations aged about 5 in the UK. In fact research now is showing a stronger link to genetics, if children have autism in all probability their parents gave it to them, no one is to blame. But some people always need something to blame, maybe because they feel powerless or guilty (they shouldn't really, it's no ones fault), and vaccinations fit the bill perfectly.
First up, in a comparison between peer reviewed CDC reports and youtube clips, which one should be given more credibility? Second up, would your concern be the mercury they stopped putting in vaccines about a decade ago?
Gak Sebster you just don't get it do you? The evidence is staring you in the face. Its the short sleeved dress shirt !(we used to call those engineer shirts) Do you not see the conspiracy!
Yeah Loki, they tested and tested and tested them after the initial furore, they tested them in the USA, UK, Australia, Denmark, Sweden and all sorts of places i cant even recall from the top of my head..
The point is, they are safe.
For myself, i recall the government reacting to this by making our 3 Anthrax jabs "voluntary" before we went to Iraq, and i got all of them, in fact, i trust Science so implicity i took every single shot i ever got offered!
Yellow Fever, Anthrax, Rabies, Typhoid... the works!
Yad wrote:Personally, I think that the rate and volume of vaccine's being injected into our children is abhorrent.
-Yad
Wait... what? Children being vaccinated so that they won't have to deal with potentially deadly or debilitating diseases is abhorrent? Is your issue with the child getting multiple vaccines in one trip to the doctor? What's the problem with that?
BluntmanDC wrote: all you had to say was that vaccinations were not an enviromental factor but that it could 'acctivate' the condition
I never said it could activate autism, and most of the other posters seem to be saying the same. I said that vaccines do not fall under the category of 'environmental' because they are not.
BluntmanDC wrote:and on another note using 'post hoc fallacy' is really annoying seeing as you are only using it to look superior
Seriously? I mean really, seriously? I, or anyone else, should act like we don't know things so you won't feel belittled or talked down to? I use the term because that is what it is you silly boy. It seems like that I have less of a problem here than you. You might want to do a bit of self evaluation and figure out why if someone uses the proper terms for things that it makes you uncomfortable enough to say something. If someone is talking about pneumonia and using the term pneumonia do you also feel that are trying to act superior because they don't say "really bad cold virus" instead?
I would like to point out that I have a reasonable understanding of rhetoric, and can speak latin, and the term "post hoc fallacy" means "after this fallacy", which doesn't particularly indicate that it is the fallacy of correlation=cause, and so people who do not have a knowledge of rhetoric are unlikely to understand what you meant.
You may have a good knowledge of this, but do not assume that everyone else on this forum has the same level of understanding as you, as it does make it seem like you are attempting to use your vocabulary to belittle your opponent.
loki old fart wrote:
They use synthetic mercury now. The last swine flu vaccine had it in. Doctors and nurses were refusing to take it. But as you guys say they were idiots over reacting.
Of course, that could only be evidence indicating that the vaccine is unsafe.
It could never indicate that vaccines often induce a limited form of the illness they are designed to counter, and that such a risk was not especially worthwhile given that swine flu was neither very widespread, nor particularly virulent. Nor could it possibly be related to the limited supply of the vaccine, and the resultant drive to give it to those at risk; the very young and the elderly.
You'll note that young, healthy people rarely get vaccinated against the flu. Clearly if only the elderly refused to be vaccinated they would grow both younger and healthier.
Perhaps you should be more careful when considering causality, or at the very least note that not doing something can be just as foolish as doing something. You are always at risk, the question regards only how best to mitigate that risk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote:
I would like to point out that I have a reasonable understanding of rhetoric, and can speak latin, and the term "post hoc fallacy" means "after this fallacy", which doesn't particularly indicate that it is the fallacy of correlation=cause, and so people who do not have a knowledge of rhetoric are unlikely to understand what you meant.
Actually, "post hoc" is the short form of "post hoc ergo proper hoc" or "after this, therefore because of this", and it is the fallacy of equating correlation with causation.
Frazzled wrote:Gak Sebster you just don't get it do you? The evidence is staring you in the face. Its the short sleeved dress shirt !(we used to call those engineer shirts) Do you not see the conspiracy!
Ah, true. I didn't notice the shirt. I won't be getting my kids immunised now.
loki old fart wrote:Nope he's just the one I chose to link
yes and he is one of many, who either misuse scientific data, make up data, are paid off by benefiting parties or are all round idiot fear mongers.
don't show me a youtube clip, show me a peer reviewed scientific/medical paper (sorry you only have discredited, removed articles from doctors who have been struck off the medical record, not only was his dataset inaccurate his collection method was wholey unethical).
dogma wrote:A peer reviewed scientific paper that argues what?
which argues loki's point, seeing as you don't understand the pattern of point and response (i was responding to his point, so the point he was argueing was already stated so i did not need to explicitly write it) i don't think you can comment on my perseved intelligence (i was not saying it was 'too high fallutn'' i was commenting on how he was using it, to belittle someone).
Sorry, the lack of punctuation, capitalization, and the egregious use of parentheses made your post difficult to follow.
Loki didn't make a point, he posted youtube videos that made a point. We have no idea what Loki's position is, he may agree with those videos in total, or he may not. Since he hasn't spoken to the matter we cannot assume anything.
Additionally, Ahtman didn't use it to belittle you. He used it to illustrate that you were making a fallacious argument. If you consider pointing out the flaws in other people's reasoning 'belittling', then that's fine, but you also have to understand that nearly all constructive discourse is therefore belittling.
BluntmanDC wrote:He was pointing out someone else was making a fallicious argument, and was not belittling me, read the tread, before you comment.
It can also be concluded that these are loki's views due to how he presented it, so i took it as his views
Yeah dogma. Read the damn tread. I'm sick and tired of you bringing in your liberal extremist views into every tread you enter without even going so far as to read the tread first to see that no one cares about whatever it is you were going to troll the tread with. Ever since you came along treads in dakka have just gone downhill, every tread in every topic has lost it's point as you pull the tread down into ad hominim and belittlement. The treads don't deserve it.
Being a MPV does this to someone but my point will be simple.
scaremongering really pisses me off with vaccines and tablets. It kills people, without real facts these people should be shut up.
sebster wrote:First up, in a comparison between peer reviewed CDC reports and youtube clips, which one should be given more credibility? Second up, would your concern be the mercury they stopped putting in vaccines about a decade ago?
Is this a joke? Obviously some guy with a video camera and youtube account is far more credible than some silly government agency. Sheesh, what's next, you telling me I shouldn't ask that guy in the tin foil hat about government mind control rays?
BearersOfSalvation wrote:Is this a joke? Obviously some guy with a video camera and youtube account is far more credible than some silly government agency. Sheesh, what's next, you telling me I shouldn't ask that guy in the tin foil hat about government mind control rays?
Of course it isn't a joke. He's on the internet and he's saying vaccines are dangerous, and no-one on the internet is ever wrong And yet there's this immense wealth of peer reviewed research demonstrating no link between vaccines and autism... so what do we do?
Obviously we have to conclude we need more research (or more people to make videos on youtube).
dogma wrote:Academic liberals and their peer review, scientific method, and empirical data are not to be trusted!
Youtube videos get comments, that counts as peer review. I'm not sure what the scientific method is, but I guess it's like the rythym method and this thread isn't about birth control. I don't support emperialism, I think holding colonies is evil, so I wouldn't trust empirical data anyway.
dogma wrote:Academic liberals and their peer review, scientific method, and empirical data are not to be trusted!
Youtube videos get comments, that counts as peer review. I'm not sure what the scientific method is, but I guess it's like the rythym method and this thread isn't about birth control. I don't support emperialism, I think holding colonies is evil, so I wouldn't trust empirical data anyway.
Really Frazzled, Really! I don't see how anyone could question the wisdom of choosing to believe 'some guy with a youtube video' over 'a large organization with many scientists publishing peer reviewed papers based on hard evidence', it's obvious which one is more reliable. The guy who can operate a webcam and handle filling in a registration form clearly didn't have his mind poisoned by years studying in a University and being indoctrinated into that 'science' and 'critical thinking'!
Uhh how come mattyrm hasn't apologized to all the religious people he accused of scaremongering when it has been shown that it isn't necessarily religious people doing the scaremongering.
Also please don't come to Kentucky, you won't like it and it puts you a few hours from me.
GG
p.s. Kent Hovind who is in jail for tax evasion is hardly a credible "religious" person.
dogma wrote:Academic liberals and their peer review, scientific method, and empirical data are not to be trusted!
Youtube videos get comments, that counts as peer review. I'm not sure what the scientific method is, but I guess it's like the rythym method and this thread isn't about birth control. I don't support emperialism, I think holding colonies is evil, so I wouldn't trust empirical data anyway.
Imperials don't have colonies, they have clones. Duh.
Imperials may not always hit their target, but they do have vaccines.
It became mandatory after Vader caught space polio and was confined to an iron lung.
For any of you against vaccines let me propose a hypothetical situation. There are two boxes before you. You must choose one. The first has a tiny chance to give your child autism. The other has a tiny chance to give him a deadly disease. Which would you choose?
Personally, I'd take autistic and live over dead and normal any day of the week. So even if there was a relation between vaccination and autism I'd risk it.
generalgrog wrote:Uhh how come mattyrm hasn't apologized to all the religious people he accused of scaremongering when it has been shown that it isn't necessarily religious people doing the scaremongering.
Also please don't come to Kentucky, you won't like it and it puts you a few hours from me.
GG
p.s. Kent Hovind who is in jail for tax evasion is hardly a credible "religious" person.
Where to begin?
First of all the whole thread was a question, ie i watched a talk at TED, and then asked why some Religious people would be opposed to vaccines, and what (if any) scriptural reasons existed that could put them at odds with what almost all medical professionals with regards to vaccines.
How is that in anyway at all worthy of me apologising to anyone?
Is it maybe because some Religious people get offended super easily and demand apologies for absolutely everything because they dislike the fact that their beliefs dont stand up to any scrutiny so they get offended easily to try and stop us from talking about it?
I can fully understand you demanding an apology at the drop of a hat, you guys do it so often it may have become routine, but just read my question again and be honest and you will see i dont actually owe you any apology. Im a nice guy, i'd happily apologise if i spilt your pint or accidently knocked into you on the sidewalk or something, so please dont think im just being cantakerous.
Oh and Kent Hovind made MILLIONS of dollars and spoke in places packed absolutely packed to the rafters with believers, so you cant argue that he had no credibilty.
Or what about Ted Haggard? Does he not have any either? He used to speak to The President on a weekly basis apparently.. well.. until he got caught sniffing cocaine off a rent boy.
As i said, i wasnt having a go, i was asking for ideas because a quick google search didnt come up with very much, and i was curious if there was a biblical explanation, i certainly wasnt having a bash at anyone, as im well aware 99% of people happily use vaccines.
Oh and when i visit Boro Kentucky ill be frequenting the places i find fun (pubs), and not going into the places i dont find fun (church) so its unlikely we would run into each other.
matty you didn't say "some" religious people. In your OP you made a claim about scaremongering and then gave an example of a religious person than asked this question.
"So my question is, why do Religious people not wish to take vaccines, and what scriptural reasons would there be for not using them? "
So you were obviously trying to tie religious people to scaremongering about vaccines and autism, as exampled by GWAR! who took your bait and ran with it.
It was then shown to you that while their are some cultic groups that do not allow people to practice medicine such as Jehovahs Witnesses and Christian Scientists.
So you owe an apology to all the religious people you lumped in with the cultic/erroroneous ones.
Also my Kentucky comment was a joke, I hope you took it that way. I would love to have a sit down with you in person and maybe roll some dice as my orks throttle you.
Just to prepare you...
GG
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
dogma wrote:Tax evasion makes someone less religious?
My point was that he was using Kent Hovind, the criminal, as his "pillar of religion".
GG
Jesus was a criminal. Just saying.
Is an innocent man still considered a criminal where you come form?
generalgrog wrote:
Is an innocent man still considered a criminal where you come form?
GG
It is unclear whether or not Jesus was guilty or innocent, as Matthew and Mark contradict one another as regards his admission to the Sanhedrin. Though, if he did claim divinity, then it is hard to argue that he did not speak blasphemy according to the religious institutions that held power at the time.
And, before anyone accuses me of hating on Christians, it is fully possible to violate a law without being morally reprehensible and I am making no judgment as to the moral worth of Jesus' supposed actions.
Well, yeah. That is basically what I was driving at. Being a criminal doesn't disqualify someone from being religious.
@GG - I was under the impression that blasphemy was a capital crime at that time. He committed that crime (and was executed for it), hence he was criminal. Not saying that I think that it was right or wrong, or that I even particularly care.
Albatross wrote:@GG - I was under the impression that blasphemy was a capital crime at that time. He committed that crime (and was executed for it), hence he was criminal. Not saying that I think that it was right or wrong, or that I even particularly care.
It was blasphemy according to "certain" religious leaders. Even Pontus Pilate the Roman Governor said "I can find no fault in this man".
Martin Luther King and Ghandi were also criminals according to you.
The man known as יֵשׁוּעַ was, in a word, a Scapegoat. He was falsely accused and was, essentially, a "political" criminal. Those in charge "de jure" (aka T3h Romanz!), as already pointed out, had no quarrel with him and pretty much had nothing to convict him with, but the local religious leaders used their political influence to force their hand.
-shrug-
That is, of course, taking the Biblical tale of his "crimes" and trial as fact, for which there is little (but some) independent historical evidence.
Or, in the words of Douglas Adams, some bloke nailed to a tree for saying "Lets be nice to each other for a change."
generalgrog wrote:It was blasphemy according to "certain" religious leaders. Even Pontus Pilate the Roman Governor said "I can find no fault in this man".
Martin Luther King and Ghandi were also criminals according to you.
GG
I'm about 99% certain they both actually were criminals at some points. You can be right, justified, and wholly blameless and still be on the wrong side of the law.
<--- Read this
