Poll: What is your opinion of Vaccines/Vaccine Policy?
Vaccines saved the world. Bring them on.
I don't entirely trust big pharma, but vaccines have done more good than harm.
Some vaccines are effective and useful. Some are not.
Vaccines are of questionable value, like many pharmaceuticals, but I might want one if an epidemic hits.
Vaccines cause more health problems than they prevent. Parents and individuals should have the right to refuse any/all of them.
Vaccines are part of a population-reduction conspiracy on the part of the global elite and are intended to sterilize/kill as many as possible.
[Show Results]
 
Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2014, 07:18 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 12:11 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  I am disgusted by the pansy-ass ad hominem attacks, hypocrisy, deflection, projection, and religious fervor evident in the majority of knee-jerk responses on this forum. If you aren't an imbecilic parrot, make a claim and back it with evidence of your own instead of offering fourth-grade retorts.

Pssssssst--Hey. Fucking Moron.

YOU are the one making the claim here. YOU need to back up YOUR claim with REAL evidence. We are under no obligation whatsoever to make any sort of counter-claim. The world doesn't work that way.

hth fucking idiot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
30-04-2014, 08:33 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 12:11 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  
(29-04-2014 10:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  And you seem to underestimate, by a large factor, the rate of infection vs. exposure. I see this consistently in the anti-vax community.

Sorry, but you are not to be taken seriously.

I've given the studies upon which my opinion was formed. You, and virtually every one here, have given insults and opinions without citing anything credible (lab studies would be a good start) as the basis for your opinions.

Show me infection versus exposure rates, then we'll take a hard look at your evidence. You're one of the ones who is terrified of getting sick. Terrify me.

The problem with virtually everyone commenting here is that you appeal to authority as the basis for "winning" your argument, with virtually no critical thought about the motives your gods might have to lie to you.

I am disgusted by the pansy-ass ad hominem attacks, hypocrisy, deflection, projection, and religious fervor evident in the majority of knee-jerk responses on this forum. If you aren't an imbecilic parrot, make a claim and back it with evidence of your own instead of offering fourth-grade retorts.

You have made claims and provided no convincing evidence. Much of what you have provided is flawed, from questionable sources, or completely misinterpreted by you.

Until you make a coherent case, you won't be taken seriously.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
30-04-2014, 09:54 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2014 10:00 AM by Magellan35.)
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 12:19 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 12:11 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  The problem with virtually everyone commenting here is that you appeal to authority as the basis for "winning" your argument, with virtually no critical thought about the motives your gods might have to lie to you.

I am disgusted by the pansy-ass ad hominem attacks, hypocrisy, deflection, projection, and religious fervor evident in the majority of knee-jerk responses on this forum. If you aren't an imbecilic parrot, make a claim and back it with evidence of your own instead of offering fourth-grade retorts.


*Holds up appendage*

I haven't. Smile

Um...still looking forwards to a reply/comment. Smile

Peebothuhul Wrote:Might I ask your opinion on which medicines are bad and which are bane?

Might I also ask politely perhaps for you to expand on your 'Toxicity' statement a few posts back?

Much cheers to all (except the anti-vaccer complete screw-balls)
Fair enough, and I did intend to reply to you.

When it comes to medicine, I don't think the labs that develop them have anything but good intentions or at least pure science as a motive. But things don't always work out as intended within a system that has been geared for 150 years primarily to address symptoms instead of seeking ways to improve underlying health so that symptoms go away on their own.

At the start of the industrial revolution, before anyone had a real clue about cellular biology, absolutely everyone was a "quack" by today's standards (have a headache? Here, drink some mercury). But finding compounds that addressed symptoms effectively became the basis for good sales of certain remedies and brought the attention of wealthy industrialists to the practice of medicine. There were competing ideologies, such as Chinese and herbalist practitioners, but they have never been able to compete, so we ended up with the compromises that characterize western medicine today. Great article here about how that battle was won: http://mises.org/daily/4276/100-years-of...al-fascism

Even with the advent of microbiology, western medicine has been nearly frozen in a symptom-based approach to healthcare. This suits the mindset of many scientists, who often specialize at the cost of 'missing the forest for the tree'. It's an oversimplification, but too often in medicine the approach works something like this:

Symptom: persistent headache> treat with NSAID analgesics> limited effectiveness; pain is chronic> treat with opioids> patient becomes reliant, pain is managed but still present, underlying cause of pain
is undiagnosed poor posture at place of employment> new symptoms develop for which further meds are prescribed> liver function becomes impaired> health spirals downward

It's worse when the drugs used to treat something like inflammation or morning sickness are Vioxx or Thalidomide (respectively). In the lab, the compounds were seen to be effective, trials were performed, the drugs were licensed, and only with widespread use was it found that there were life-threatening side-effects or severe birth defects.

Again, the problem isn't with the use of drugs as one tool in the treatment of sick/suffering people; the problem lies within a paradigm that often fails to see people and health holistically. Far too many doctors grab the prescription pad first and ask questions later, and the roots of that bad practice lie in bias ingrained in the instruction they receive in medical school, most of which are financed by large drugs companies, the families that own them, or institutions established by them. It's not a conspiracy; it's just the way things developed, most of it in broad daylight, in the U.S. over many decades. The problem is that profit has become the driving motive behind healthcare, and not health.

If you wanted me to make two lists of "good drugs" and "bad drugs", I can't. A drug is as good or as bad as the doctor who prescribes it. If recommending exercise or better attention to posture or diet should be the first "prescriptions" for the patient with chronic headaches but the doctor prescribes oxycodone, in that case it's a "bad" drug.

Sorry for the long answer.

Regarding toxins and toxicity: Toxicokinetics is founded upon the belief that dose determines toxicity, and that anything in high enough doses is toxic while almost anything can be dealt with or safely eliminated from the body in low enough doses.

I conditionally agree.

There are difficulties applying the theory in modern life. When a lab determines that introduction of a substance to a group of cells/tissues/lab animals at a certain concentration has a deleterious effect, it would stand to reason that cutting that dose in half or to 1/10 gives a reasonable margin of safety (lots of good papers on the subject; here's one: http://susantaney.net/sup.WhatIsToxicity...ned.html), but it isn't that simple. One cell culture may demonstrate damage or altered metabolism at one dose while a second shows damage at a different dose. One microbiologist might look only for cell death or diminished rates of mitosis, while another may delve deeper and look at altered gene expression, protein synthesis, or mitochondrial function. A primate might display symptoms of distress at a proportional dose that causes no distress to mice or guinea pigs. The animals in one lab might receive better care and feeding than at another, further skewing results.

Additionally, the pace of industry and technological advancement in the past 2 centuries has introduced each of us to such a variety of new elements and compounds that it is utterly impossible for any authority - such as the EPA - to offer a one-size-fits-all definition of how exposures in combination or multiplied (by use of more than one product for which the additive was approved in isolation) might become toxic.

Add to that the fact that most people operate at high levels of stress, very few of us get enough sleep or exercise, or fresh food grown in rich, heavy metal- and pesticide-free soil, and the result is that one person's ability to eliminate a "toxin" can be very different from his neighbour's.

One last thought regarding how our collective view of "toxicity" is likely to change: The rapidly developing science of epigenetics will change our lives more in the next few decades (I hope) than the discovery of uses for petroleum, because it promises to show how genetic expression of generations of people are affected by foods they eat, famine and deprivation, vitamins and minerals they take, and substances to which they are exposed in innumerable combinations and doses, among many other things. Already, altered genetic expression (primarily in the form of hypomethylation and oxidative stress) in the brains of autistic children is seen as a major factor in development of the condition -- See the U.C. Davis Mind Institute research here: https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstit...eo_es.html

Do you disagree with anything I've said here? If so, please explain. Do I seem to be trolling with these responses?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 10:20 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 09:54 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  blah, blah , blah

The above has fuck all to do with vaccines.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-04-2014, 10:31 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
not sure is this is posted yet:


Church preaches anti-vax, gets an outbreak, church preaches for vaccinations:
Gods hast shown them the error of their ways, hallelujah :




Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
30-04-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 07:18 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Pssssssst--Hey. Fucking Moron.

YOU are the one making the claim here. YOU need to back up YOUR claim with REAL evidence. We are under no obligation whatsoever to make any sort of counter-claim. The world doesn't work that way.

hth fucking idiot.

If you don't like my evidence (it has been provided) or my interpretation of it, feel free to be a petulant child. I am under no obligation to find whatever pinnacle of "evidence" is required to meet your particular standards.

As for my "misinterpretation" of the studies I have cited, no single study can be taken in isolation. If an individual study seems to contradict my position but I cited it anyway, I did so because it offered something to the bigger picture.

As an example, it has been pointed out that inflammation due to elevated cytokine counts is desirable after vaccination because it is evidence of efficacy. It has also been pointed out that getting the actual disease results in even greater inflammation that can last much longer. That is true. My point was that vaccines cause inflammation, and inflammation can be undesirable at certain times, in certain organs, for certain people, especially fetuses. It stands to reason that pregnant women should take very, very good care of themselves.

I don't want people to get diseases. I want them to take better care of baseline health and avoid sources of chronic inflammation and epigenetic dysfunction so they live better lives with fewer disabilities and a reduced burden on society.

I do have a basic disagreement with most people here about my odds of contracting an infection that leads to chronic inflammation or death IF my diet is high in systemic enzymes and amino acids along with sufficient vitamin A, C, and D (among others), all of which have been noted as beneficial for recovery (without lingering morbidity) from innumerable infectious diseases and inflammation-induced/complicated disease states.

So you disagree with my assumptions about how many people who are exposed to a specific pathogen manifest disease symptoms? Fine. Instead of claiming that I can't do math (I used to teach it), politely ask me to show you numbers or show me some yourself.

Then we can discuss variables that influence outcomes. Was the outbreak confined to a geographical area? How clean are the homes and community among that population? What do they eat? What drugs, vitamins, compounds, herbs, poultices, nursing care, etc. were used or available? How old, young, or infirm were those who suffered most? Why did some without high serological antibody titers survive? Why did some with high antibody titers die? Why did some never develop disease symptoms? Genes? Diet? Exercise? Lack of exposure to byproducts of the local coal mine? Praying to Vishnu?

That is how a rational scientific discussion works. You can handle it or you can't. So far, you suck.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 10:47 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 10:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 09:54 AM)Magellan35 Wrote:  blah, blah , blah

The above has fuck all to do with vaccines.
I was answering a specific person who is not you. Put the keyboard down and breathe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 10:49 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQVFhYPdJfIvtSTFxRJil_...SxsaPuA1v6]

[Image: v0jpzpT.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Alex_Leonardo's post
30-04-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(29-04-2014 09:17 PM)sporehux Wrote:  What you have show is is zero consideration for expert and authoritative conclusions, simply dismissing them as collusions with big Pharma, self interest or some secret global conspiracy.

Science works because the scientific method abhors confirmation bias and anecdotal evidence, in your case "self anecdotal".
I'm sure you know what occams razor is, apply it too your assumption we are all disagreeing with.
what have you got invested in this position to be sticking with it so irrationally ?
I enjoy talking to you. Thank you for being polite, and I apologize for getting riled up toward the mouthier children on this forum.

My opinion of the scientific community at large is that while confirmation bias may be deplorable to individual scientists, it is essentially demanded by the industries that fund their research. Many corporations are profit mills without any consideration for ethics or long-term consequences. I didn't make things that way; it just is.

It is important to note that there ARE respected scientists who disagree with the consensus of their peers regarding vaccines. In the current political climate, if you happened to be one of them, would you tread carefully?

Regarding anecdotal evidence: I disregard it as effectively as I can. I shared anecdotal information to explain to one person here how I could come to have the views I have and not be a raving conspiracy theorist, but I do not argue my viewpoint on the basis of those anecdotes.

I love Occam's Razor. It needs to be applied to trust of institutions that are mired in outdated modalities as much as it does to those who dissent from the 99th percentile. Please consider that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 12:51 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
Seriously, can anyone who's tried to tell this guy that the burden of proof on vaccines working is on him please go away and shoot themselves. Yes

This is an atheist forum, we spend our lives saying "the burden of proof is on the believer". It's practically our catchphrase. We are the ones asserting it works, we have to provide the proof for, in this instance, the "skeptic".

If someone came here and said "homeopathy works and the burden of proof is on you to prove it doesn't" we'd tear them to shreds (and quite rightly), yet here we are doing exactly the same ourselves.

Frusty

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hughsie's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: