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, 02:31 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 01:26 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  No, it's a valid point against the hypocrisy of anyone here claiming that the burden of proof is on the non-believer.

Don't be a fuckwit, Hughsie.

The burden of proof is on the one upsetting literally centuries of rock-solid established knowledge.

And that's without the additional claims. Claiming conspiracy, fraud, collusion, or even bias needs to be substantiated.
If I told you, cjlr, that you need to wear a beard because I have generations of proof that they make your schlong longer, doing so will bring you closer to God, and they are necessary for peace in the Middle East (do it for the public good), you would rip me a new one, and justifiably so.

I have read many hundreds of studies commissioned by the CDC, WHO, NIH, NHS (U.K.) and others, all pro-vaccine, beside countless pro-vaccine and public health websites. I understand their position. I agreed with it not long ago.

I also understand that epidemiological evidence is strong that some vaccines are effective at preparing a population to shrug off the wild pathogen. I have no beef with that. My problem is that the "rock-solid established knowledge" is accompanied by serious instances of bad science, collusion between industry and public monitoring/licensing agencies, false pandemic scares, and a large body of peer-reviewed lab studies that document the chemical pathways by which small doses of certain compounds still found in vaccines have negative affects on redox, mitochondrial function, and gene methylation, especially for individuals with certain genetic factors.

I didn't make this stuff up, so why treat me like I did?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  You say that you disagree with me but for the most part this is in support of what I'm saying. That vaccines work is accepted knowledge because people have proved it beyond reasonable doubt. The people who provided the proof accepted that it is on the person asserting something and stepped up. Our role is easy, all we have to do is point to their work, or say that we don't think the debate is even worth having. The only dumb thing to do is enter the debate, but then not even be prepared to back up our claims when doing so is literally as easy as doing very basic googling.

And? I'm unclear on what your point is.

(30-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  To clarify, if someone's view is "this is such accepted knowledge that I shouldn't even have to link to the evidence to back up my views, it's pointless" then I don't even have any issue with that. But if they are that apathetic what the fuck are they doing involving themselves in the debate. People should either state their personal views but refrain from properly debating the merits of them, enter debating the validity of their views but be prepared to back them up, or stay out altogether. If you watch a real debate people turn up prepared with the evidence to back up their points, however well accepted their views are. You don't see many debates won by people going "well I can't back up my points but that's only because I haven't bothered finding the evidence as they are well accepted in society, therefore I win".

Oh, so it's "don't do something which nobody has been doing."

Okay, I guess.

(30-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 02:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Aaaaand there you go being disingenuous again. Well; that's not fair. But you're being very fuzzy.

Conflating "the accepted views on the forum" with "the accepted consensus view of the scientific community" is some grade-A equivocation. They are not the same thing, and I hope you see the difference.

There is (obviously!) no absolute hard and fast rule. The more fundamental the theory questioned, the greater onus on the one doing the questioning.

"VACCINES R CONSPIRCY LOL" needn't be taken seriously.

Is the burden of proof on you, the "believer", when faced with someone who questions a heliocentric solar system?

Really? Accepted consensus view of the scientific community should not be questioned?

Since I did not say that and in fact affirmed the opposite, I am very unclear as to why you have come up with such a blatant straw man.

It needs to be questioned with actual science. Not allegations of fraud and conspiracy. And certainly not misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of actual science.

(30-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  So if enough prominent scientists come out and say the Earth is actually pyramid shaped (but offer zero evidence) then the burden of proof should fall to the people who still think it's round?

Since I did not say that and in fact affirmed the opposite, I am very unclear as to why you have come up with such a blatant straw man.

My appeal was to the authority of a procedure, not individuals. I hope you can see the difference.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
30-04-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
Really not gonna keep arguing this because we clearly aren't gonna agree. Tbh, I can't decide whether you're being hugely hypocritical, or whether you're completely misunderstanding me, I suspect the latter though.

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
30-04-2014, 03:04 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Really? Accepted consensus view of the scientific community should not be questioned? So if enough prominent scientists come out and say the Earth is actually pyramid shaped (but offer zero evidence) then the burden of proof should fall to the people who still think it's round?

Accepted concensus has to be questioned in the light of new data. Scientific rigour requires that it be.

If there are impediments to open inquiry into new avenues of research that bring established theory and the dominant paradigm into question, or hinder public examination of the results of that "fringe" research, that should be a prominent red flag (for anyone who is intellectually honest) indicating that the scientific method is under attack, regardless of whatever ridiculous conspiracy theories become popular to explain such impediments.

Does the CDC endeavour to impede dissemination of views that do not support their position? I think it's a relevant question. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...11381.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 02:31 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  If I told you, cjlr, that you need to wear a beard because I have generations of proof that they make your schlong longer, doing so will bring you closer to God, and they are necessary for peace in the Middle East (do it for the public good), you would rip me a new one, and justifiably so.

Interesting. How's that compare to the likes of:
(27-04-2014 07:48 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  So when I say that vaccines are far more dangerous than we are being told, please understand that I very much wish it was otherwise. It was only after doing many months of research and reading hundreds of PubMed and PLoS studies that I had to admit that something is up with vaccines. Those who develop them know all too well that they cause autism, SIDS, diabetes, MS, arthritis, asthma, and any number of other syndromes and diseases, but there is no chance in hell of them ever admitting it or letting on that more people now die or suffer morbidity from vaccine-induced health problems than would die if we stopped vaccinating and encouraged better diet and exercise (which would not keep the medical industry massively profitable).

?

(30-04-2014 02:31 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  I have read many hundreds of studies commissioned by the CDC, WHO, NIH, NHS (U.K.) and others, all pro-vaccine, beside countless pro-vaccine and public health websites. I understand their position. I agreed with it not long ago.

So what?

What changed your mind?

(30-04-2014 02:31 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  I also understand that epidemiological evidence is strong that some vaccines are effective at preparing a population to shrug off the wild pathogen. I have no beef with that.

That, at least, reduces your claim to some distinguishable specifics.

(30-04-2014 02:31 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  My problem is that the "rock-solid established knowledge" is accompanied by serious instances of bad science, collusion between industry and public monitoring/licensing agencies, false pandemic scares, and a large body of peer-reviewed lab studies that document the chemical pathways by which small doses of certain compounds still found in vaccines have negative affects on redox, mitochondrial function, and gene methylation, especially for individuals with certain genetic factors.

I didn't make this stuff up, so why treat me like I did?

Those are bad sources. So there's that.

The first actually gives some sources, which is nice. Some are irrelevant, some are dubious, and some are reasonable, but nowhere is it mentioned that thiomersal has not been present in any significant amount in fifteen years.

The second is a press release from a seriously biased scaremonger. Its "source" is the same guy as the first, this time without any real citations.

To be staggeringly generous to the third, it is inventing motive from whole cloth on the basis of exaggerated and poorly substantiated data.

Not to mention that five minutes is more than enough to find things like this and this by way of contrasting views.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 03:08 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 02:56 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Really not gonna keep arguing this because we clearly aren't gonna agree. Tbh, I can't decide whether you're being hugely hypocritical, or whether you're completely misunderstanding me, I suspect the latter though.

If you'd just started out by saying "consensus is not inviolate" I would have absolutely agreed.

The straw men and dishonest questions weren't exactly a better approach.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
30-04-2014, 03:10 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 03:08 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The straw men and dishonest questions weren't exactly a better approach.

Straw-men and dishonest questions?

Damn man, I have a lot of respect for you but I'm gonna take your criticisms of others with a pinch of salt from now on as you clearly throw them around pretty liberally (and that's putting it mildly).

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
30-04-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 03:04 PM)Magellan35 Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Really? Accepted consensus view of the scientific community should not be questioned? So if enough prominent scientists come out and say the Earth is actually pyramid shaped (but offer zero evidence) then the burden of proof should fall to the people who still think it's round?

Accepted concensus has to be questioned in the light of new data. Scientific rigour requires that it be.

If there are impediments to open inquiry into new avenues of research that bring established theory and the dominant paradigm into question, or hinder public examination of the results of that "fringe" research, that should be a prominent red flag (for anyone who is intellectually honest) indicating that the scientific method is under attack, regardless of whatever ridiculous conspiracy theories become popular to explain such impediments.

Does the CDC endeavour to impede dissemination of views that do not support their position? I think it's a relevant question. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...11381.html

You keep bringing up " Thiomersal " when it has not been proven to cause any issues, it has been taken out of vaccines in most countries years ago on fears it may possibly be harmfull.

http://www.ncirs.edu.au/immunisation/fac...-sheet.pdf
http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/intern...mersal.pdf
http://www.nps.org.au/old/medicines/vacc...r_children

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776762 CLICK THIS, WATCH THE VIDEO !!!!!!

FDA has been actively addressing the issue of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines. Under the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA) of 1997, the FDA conducted a comprehensive review of the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines. Conducted in 1999, this review found no evidence of harm from the use of thimerosal as a vaccine preservative, other than local hypersensitivity reactions (Ball et al. 2001).

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
30-04-2014, 04:08 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 12:51 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  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

Wrong.

He is making claims about conspiracies, infection, resistance, etc. that differ from the mainstream. Burden is on him.

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, 04:09 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:44 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Don't be a fuckwit, Hughsie.

The burden of proof is on the one upsetting literally centuries of rock-solid established knowledge.

So when people first started openly questioning Christianity that had been for "literally centuries" the established knowledge of pretty much the entirety of Europe the burden of proof was on them? What about now, there are more theists than atheists in the world so does that mean the burden of proof remains on us?

(30-04-2014 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And that's without the additional claims. Claiming conspiracy, fraud, collusion, or even bias needs to be substantiated.

Now here I agree. On the fraud, and conspiracy stuff he is asserting something and the burden of proof is on him. As far as simply whether or not vaccines work I still see it as on us.

What are we saying (let's be consistent)? Is the burden of proof on the believer? Is the burden of proof on the person who questions established views? Is the burden of proof on the person who questions popular views. If we are drawing a line where are we drawing it? I don't think "the burden of proof is on those who question the accepted views on TTA forums" is really a fair answer.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: