CNN: Children should get vaccinated. Period.

[BugI02]

I'd also like to know why I can't have a flying car. In both cases, the answer isn't easily explainable. And just because it takes a whole lot of study to understand it, or someone profits from selling, don't make it nefarious.

OK, but can we look at this using science rather than FUDD?

Anti-Vax is rooted in a distrust of authority rather than any scientific evidence or fact. That's my biggest problem with it (well, that, and that's with down right dangerous to all).

If there's a reason to distrust authority, then fine, let's figure out if that distrust is warranted. When you continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence, then your distrust becomes more of a pathological religion, that as we've seen, creeps into all facets of life. (e.g. jet fuel and steel beams)

I've had a variation of this discussion with my doctors on occasion, when discussing potential side effects whether of medication or surgery. Some of them opine that all drugs have side effects but those inherent in their recommendations are minimal

In cases where I consider what they recommend optional, I am likely to tell them that 1 in 1 million is too high a percentage if that 1 turns out to be me. I can lower my odds to zero simply by declining

 

[Route 45]

People who advocate that such things be mandatory should be put in prison under a big rock and endure crusty Rosie O'Donnell siting on his face.

Amendment VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[ghuns]

All I know is that I'm glad the anti-vax crowd wasn't large enough to stop smallpox from being eradicated.

 

[steveh_131]

Anti-Vax is rooted in a distrust of authority rather than any scientific evidence or fact. That's my biggest problem with it (well, that, and that's with down right dangerous to all).

If there's a reason to distrust authority, then fine, let's figure out if that distrust is warranted. When you continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence, then your distrust becomes more of a pathological religion, that as we've seen, creeps into all facets of life. (e.g. jet fuel and steel beams)

I've shared quite a few reasons not to trust the CDC or vaccine industry over the years.

I shared congressional testimony about top CDC researchers literally destroying any evidence that even vaguely points to the possibility of adverse reactions.

I've shared the fact that vaccine manufacturers have zero accountability regarding the safety or efficacy of their products. Yes, vaccines are sound in theory. Absolutely. But they need quality control like any other product. They need civil liability to keep them honest. Instead, they are shielded from liability and your tax dollars are used to pay off the lawsuits of the many people injured by them.

I don't know how you look at this and then say that there is no reason to distrust these 'authorities'. You could look at it and say that you think the evidence for their safety outweighs that to the contrary, and that's fine. But characterizing it as completely unfounded just seems dishonest.

 

[jamil]

Assuming that the measles outbreak in the Pacific NW is the most relevant to the current discussion, I'm seeing that on average the incubation period from exposure is 10 to 14 days with a 2 to 4 day period when, while not asymptomatic infected people have broadly generic symptoms but are quite infectious to others; then the rash develops at 12 to 14 days. So there exists a window for inadvertent transmission no matter how good a citizen the parents desire to be

The only way I can see that a person who chooses not to vaccinate could 'act responsibly' during an outbreak would be to isolate their unvaccinated family members from all public contact until any outbreak burns itself out. You realize that could be quite a long time, correct? The outbreak in Washington state has been going on for weeks, is still active, and is linked to the outbreak in Oregon

That would be the choice. Yes. Or, if the consequences aren't worth it, get the vaccine. Either way.

 

[jamil]

I've had a variation of this discussion with my doctors on occasion, when discussing potential side effects whether of medication or surgery. Some of them opine that all drugs have side effects but those inherent in their recommendations are minimal

In cases where I consider what they recommend optional, I am likely to tell them that 1 in 1 million is too high a percentage if that 1 turns out to be me. I can lower my odds to zero simply by declining

It's still a trade-off. Do the thing and risk the side effects, or don't do the thing and miss the potential benefits. Weigh which risks you're willing to take.

 

[BugI02]

That would be the choice. Yes. Or, if the consequences aren't worth it, get the vaccine. Either way.

It's still a trade-off. Do the thing and risk the side effects, or don't do the thing and miss the potential benefits. Weigh which risks you're willing to take.

You remind me of a friends GSD, you won't take 'yes' for an answer

 

[JettaKnight]

I've had a variation of this discussion with my doctors on occasion, when discussing potential side effects whether of medication or surgery. Some of them opine that all drugs have side effects but those inherent in their recommendations are minimal

In cases where I consider what they recommend optional, I am likely to tell them that 1 in 1 million is too high a percentage if that 1 turns out to be me. I can lower my odds to zero simply by declining

Sure, but at what cost to you?

Being concerned over consequences is good, but being overly concerned is probably worse. Humans often fail at risk assessment. That's obvious when someone has a fear of flying and chooses to drive cross country because it's "safer".


Example:
There's a chance I could get e. coli from vegetables and contaminated water. Therefore, I will eschew all fruits and vegetables and only drink Mt. Dew.

Well, you reduced your risk of e. coli...

 

[BugI02]

Sure, but at what cost to you?

Being concerned over consequences is good, but being overly concerned is probably worse. Humans often fail at risk assessment. That's obvious when someone has a fear of flying and chooses to drive cross country because it's "safer".


Example:
There's a chance I could get e. coli from vegetables and contaminated water. Therefore, I will eschew all fruits and vegetables and only drink Mt. Dew.

Well, you reduced your risk of e. coli...

If you keep stretching and reaching like that, you might pull a muscle

 

[JettaKnight]

I've shared quite a few reasons not to trust the CDC or vaccine industry over the years.

I shared congressional testimony about top CDC researchers literally destroying any evidence that even vaguely points to the possibility of adverse reactions.

I've shared the fact that vaccine manufacturers have zero accountability regarding the safety or efficacy of their products. Yes, vaccines are sound in theory. Absolutely. But they need quality control like any other product. They need civil liability to keep them honest. Instead, they are shielded from liability and your tax dollars are used to pay off the lawsuits of the many people injured by them.

I don't know how you look at this and then say that there is no reason to distrust these 'authorities'. You could look at it and say that you think the evidence for their safety outweighs that to the contrary, and that's fine. But characterizing it as completely unfounded just seems dishonest.

I recall your evidence as... um... less than convincing and highly questionable.

I believe Mr. Freeman addressed it all in years past.


And to bring in INGO's Law, is it good that gun manufactures are immune from lawsuits about their products, but bad that vaccine manufacturers are?

 

[JettaKnight]

If you keep stretching and reaching like that, you might pull a muscle

Don't worry, Bug - I'm veeery limber.


So, the veggies, was hyperbolic, but the point still stands - Humans often suck at risk assessment.

 

[Morgan88]

Vaccines are a bunch of crap. They actually suppress your immune system from functioning as it should. The reason certain diseases have been eradicated is do to the fact that running water in homes along with better sanitation. Not to mention the vaccines they push and in some instances force upon you are loaded with mercury. This has been directly related to autism and a lot of other condititons. Take them at your own risk! I will not

On a segment on the radio they talked that also the timing of vaccinations is key. Instead of at 18 months waiting until after 36 months.

 

[steveh_131]

I recall your evidence as... um... less than convincing and highly questionable.

I believe Mr. Freeman addressed it all in years past.

Even Kirk's idiocy can't over-ride congressional testimony. This is a matter of history now, not theory or conjecture. One of them admitted to doing it. It's all on record:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546421/rep-bill-posey-calling-investigation-cdcs-mmr-reasearch-fraud

And the government absorbing all civil liability for vaccine injuries is also legislated and available for your viewing:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546

And to bring in INGO's Law, is it good that gun manufactures are immune from lawsuits about their products, but bad that vaccine manufacturers are?

If a gun fails to operate as intended and causes injury, of course the manufacturers should be held accountable.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

 

[JettaKnight]

Even Kirk's idiocy can't over-ride congressional testimony. This is a matter of history now, not theory or conjecture. One of them admitted to doing it. It's all on record:

Just because you speak before Congress doesn't make you right.

EDIT: And congress-critters are notorious for taking things out of context and twisting facts.
And a quick look finds some info about the finding of Dr. Thompson, CDC whistleblower: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2...tleblower-story-and-how-vaxxed-is-misleading/


PS: Now who's making the ad hominem attack?

 

[JettaKnight]

And the government absorbing all civil liability for vaccine injuries is also legislated and available for your viewing:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546

Did that bill go into law?

 

[steveh_131]

Just because you speak before Congress doesn't make you right.

William Thompson, a senior scientist and researcher at the CDC, admitted on tape that he and other researchers attempted to cover up data that only barely called the safety of vaccines into question. A congressman testified about it in front of congress

Now, we can debate whether or not he's lying. Maybe it was all a grand conspiracy, although I've never known you to be much of a conspiracy theorist.

But it is evidence enough to at least legitimize the discussion, between two reasonable individuals, about whether or not we can trust the CDC to be forthcoming about vaccine safety issues if they did ever arise.

Surely we can find common ground in that statement, can't we?

PS: Now who's making the ad hominem attack?

Hey now, that was an ad-hominem in ADDITION to an argument Big difference!

Did that bill go into law?

Definitely. Here is a list of the documented (by this agency) adverse reactions: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/vaccine-compensation/vaccine-injury-table.pdf

So far they have paid out $4 Billion of your tax dollars.

 

[jamil]

You remind me of a friends GSD, you won't take 'yes' for an answer

No I don't.





















Department of argumentation.

 

[HoughMade]

There are vaccine injuries and a federal statute that makes federal vaccine claims the sole remedy for them.

....so?

 

[Mark 1911]

If CNN says something, I generally tend to believe the opposite must be true.

When it comes to vaccinations these days, I think the industry has opened itself up to many questions that deserve to be answered. Although vaccines have contributed a great deal to our nation, people do deserve to know what they are putting into their bodies, and how these vaccines were developed, from what ingredients, etc...