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, 04:10 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:45 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 01:39 PM)Vosur Wrote:  No, Hughsie, it really isn't. OP is no different from an ID proponent who attempts to argue against the scientific community's universal consensus concerning the evolution of life on Earth. The "pro-vaccines" side has already made its case long ago; it's up to him to demonstrate that they're wrong.

So, in relation to my previous post, your answer would be that the burden of proof is on the person who questions established knowledge?

Yes - but religion is not knowledge, so don't even go there.

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, 04:12 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
[Image: V0b17zU.gif]

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 04:13 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
Magellan: Please click this link and watch the short video message:

Please comment on what you think of it, has it changed your mind ?
or do you have some issue with it , and what is that issue.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/776762

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, 04:14 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 03:10 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(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).

I have to admit I did not treat your comment entirely fairly. But I do not think you explained yourself very well.

You compared established scientific consensus to prevailing dogma; a comparison I found, if not dishonest, then irrelevant.

And, also this bit:
(30-04-2014 02:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 02:27 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  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.

...

(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.

?

That is not a fair response to my statements; I am more than willing to accept it as a misunderstanding. I think that would suit both of us better.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 04:15 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 04:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes - but religion is not knowledge, so don't even go there.

And how are you gonna define knowledge without being subjective? The prevailing worldview at one point was that God existed and that to even consider that he may not was ludicrous. Now we have further knowledge we can safely say that isn't the case. That is of little use to people 500 years ago though and can't be taken into consideration when considering their actions.

You know me by now Chas. I value objectivity, consistency, and fairness. The assertion that sometimes the burden of proof is on the believer but sometimes it isn't is never gonna hold with me.

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, 04:17 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 04:15 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 04:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Yes - but religion is not knowledge, so don't even go there.

And how are you gonna define knowledge without being subjective? The prevailing worldview at one point was that God existed and that to even consider that he may not was ludicrous. Now we have further knowledge we can safely say that isn't the case. That is of little use to people 500 years ago though and can't be taken into consideration when considering their actions.

I think, Hughsie, that what you are missing, and what I already tried to express, is that there is a huge difference depending on how that knowledge and/or consensus was reached.

(30-04-2014 04:15 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  You know me by now Chas. I value objectivity, consistency, and fairness. The assertion that sometimes the burden of proof is on the believer but sometimes it isn't is never gonna hold with me.

A term such as "burden of proof" implicitly requires the existence of such a thing as proof.

Burden of proof applies to each new claim - but it also necessarily means that claims can be proven - and that means that a claim acquires some degree of credibility and need not be continuously re-proven absent alternatives which are at least as compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(27-04-2014 09:21 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  When was the last time someone you know died of measles, smallpox, polio, rubella, chicken pox, or influenza?



Vaccines are about 80-90% of that.

Guess what happens in wealthy American populations with high numbers of non-vaccinating moms? Kids die of measles! Who'da thunk it?

Thank you. Threads like this are proof being an atheist doesn't make someone rational by default, just in one area.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes rampant.a.i.'s post
30-04-2014, 04:19 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(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).

Fair enough. That was an assertion. I will provide sources forthwith.


"Those are bad sources. So there's that."

So we disagree. Too often, people kill the messenger. You have displayed a consistent tendency to do so. They are sources. Believe the message contained within them or not. Do follow-up research or not; I don't care. But don't dismiss the content out of hand because of an internal, unspoken ad hominem. The positions taken in those articles is that collusion and data manipulation happen when industry protects reputation or promotes product. If you feel that such collusion and data manipulation do not occur, say so plainly and provide backing for your claim.

Your two sources of refutation are bad sources.

One is a history of the thimerosal-autism debate written in 2008 by an author who expresses clear bias and was unaware of the IOM fact sheet on ethylmercury, which clearly concludes: "Ethylmercury should be considered equipotent to methylmercury as a developmental neurotoxin. This conclusion is clearly public health protective.
-Ethylmercury exposure from vaccines (added to dietary exposures to methylmercury) probably caused neurotoxic responses (likely subtle) in
some children." He failed to note any studies predating his article implicating thimerosal in develomental disorders, nor could he have known of later lab studies confirming develomental disabilities in neonatal rats and primates to which thimerosal was administered in comparable doses to the vaccine schedule.

The other is a tired old "lets bash Andrew Wakefield" diatribe that has absolutley nothing to do with whether the CDC had information it withheld regarding vaccines and autism rates.

We could go on like this for days...but let's not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 04:21 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 04:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I have to admit I did not treat your comment entirely fairly. But I do not think you explained yourself very well.

You compared established scientific consensus to prevailing dogma; a comparison I found, if not dishonest, then irrelevant.

My point being that 1000 years ago prevailing scientific consensus and religious dogma were the same thing.

(30-04-2014 04:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And, also this bit:
(30-04-2014 02:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

...


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.
?

That is not a fair response to my statements; I am more than willing to accept it as a misunderstanding. I think that would suit both of us better.

Yeah, I think we've been misunderstanding each other too.

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: