Woo is woo, religious or not.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2012, 03:45 PM
Woo is woo, religious or not.
OK, this is only the last third of the discussion.
Her last statement just floored me, so I went nuclear.Drinking Beverage


AntiVaxer: When we were kids, herd immunity for chicken pox, rubella, measles, etc. was created by us actually getting the illness. I completely disagree that it shouldn't be an individual's decision. Every should be able to be in charge of their own health decisions, in consultation with health professionals, if they wish. The CDC may say that the vaccinations are effective to some degree, but do they actually have studies that compare vaccinated to unvaccinated or we just to assume that they do? If the studies exist, my next question would be who did them? I don't expect perfection in anything, but I'd like to know how vaccinations compare to mother nature. Then the risk factors can be considered and a better decision made for each individual.

ME: Again, you are confusing preventing the disease by immunization with getting the disease with all of its risks. We didn't have herd immunity as children, we contracted the diseases.

AntiVaxer: Our immune system is stronger by actually having some of these diseases than by being vaccinated against them. Another attempt to fool mother nature that I don't believe is necessarily the best way to go. If vaccinations are an effective prevention against these diseases and a child has been vaccinated, than they ought to have a better chance of not getting the disease than those not vaccinated. As you point out, nothing is 100%. Everyone should be able to pick their own odds.

ME: Children who are immunized are less likely to get the disease; this is the point. The only way to have immunity (other than genetically-endowed) is by exposure. Vaccination is by exposure to an attenuated form of the microbe - a far less risky proposition than exposure to the full-strength pathogen.
The effectiveness of vaccinations is stated in the percentage of people who acquire immunity, not in some "quality of immunity". A vaccine that is 90% effective is effective for 90% of the people who get it, and not effective for 10%. You just don't know beforehand who is who.
Exposing someone to a life- or health-threatening pathogen instead of a vaccination is ignorant at best. I believe it is foolhardy and immoral.AntiVaxer: So where are the controlled studies proving that those who are vaccinated are healthier than those who remain unvaccinated? That's the ultimate goal, not just never getting sick. Should flu viruses also be required for everyone? Even if they were, it would take a police state to accomplish it. No, thanks.

ME: The rate of disease incidence in a population that has been vaccinated is vastly lower than in an un-vaccinated population. This has been clearly proven and not disputable.

AntiVaxer: The immunity from the attenuated form of the microbe is weaker than that received by the full-strength pathogen. That's why boosters are often needed. We don't yet know enough about how the immune system works and develops to be able to say categorically that immunizations are the best way to reduce deaths, complications and boost overall health. I believe it would be immoral and foolhardy to require everyone to be immunized against whatever illnesses the government in cooperation with the pharmaceutical companies deem necessary. A very slippery slope!

ME: Think about what you are saying. Would you prefer to be exposed to the polio virus or to a polio vaccine and boosters? You would risk paralysis and death? Your position makes no logical sense.

AntiVaxer: It makes sense to me that it should be my decision. The polio vaccine started the whole idea of people trying to manipulate the immune system. Not everyone who got polio was paralyzed or died. Like we've said, nothing in life is 100% or eve...See More

ME: No, AV, your 'facts' aren't facts. It was Edward Jenner in 1796 who inoculated an 8 year old boy with pus from a cowpox victim. Vaccination has a long history in medical science and has been repeatedly validated.
Your anit-vax stance appears ideological because it is entirely unscientific, ahistorical, and illogical.

AntiVaxer: OK, then it's ideological and I have the right to that belief.

ME: Others who believe that ideology supersedes science, reason, and evidence include the Westboro Baptists, Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Taliban, ...

--------------------

Surprisingly, she hasn't responded.Consider

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
[+] 15 users Like Chas's post
28-07-2012, 03:53 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
Wow, you got as far as forcing her to admit that it was ideological ?

I love the "and I have a right to that belief"... I think it shows that she knows she's on shaky ground, all she can do is refuse to discuss it now, since she still intends to cling to that belief despite her arguments for its validity being exposed as empty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
28-07-2012, 04:13 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
Yes, I too am amazed you got that far; she admitted her argument to be ideology. I doubt she's considered who might be feeding it to her... she'll never admit someone is doing her thinking.

So, just curious... does she not have a smallpox vaccine mark on her shoulder? You might ask... if you get a chance to. Dodgy

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
28-07-2012, 04:20 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(28-07-2012 04:13 PM)kim Wrote:  Yes, I too am amazed you got that far; she admitted her argument to be ideology. I doubt she's considered who might be feeding it to her... she'll never admit someone is doing her thinking.

So, just curious... does she not have a smallpox vaccine mark on her shoulder? You might ask... if you get a chance to. Dodgy

I'm quite sure she does, she is a childhood friend, so we grew up in the same milieu; everyone had the smallpox vaccination. She also benefited from the first polio vaccines. She has become a lefty, new age, woo believer. It's sad.

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
28-07-2012, 04:22 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
So many false assumptions AV makes.
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content...cination#4
The most egregious fallacy is that the personal decision does NOT effect others directly. A room full of un-immunized kids is very very dangerous, as was proven in many recent Polio outbreaks. I actually think parents who refuse to immunize, should either be required to home-school, or sign an acceptance of liability form, where they agree to share the costs, for the damage they create. Quarantine is an accepted practice.
Varicella, for example, if one actually gets Chicken Pox, can have many consequences, later, including Shingles, many years later, as well as other newly emerging consequences.
Tell AV to point to the studies, they reference, as generalities. The "fooling Mother Nature nature" comment is very odd. So what is "natural" ? Does AV use antibiotics ? That's "fooling" mother nature. It's the typical double decker universe. There is only one deck. AV has a right to stand on their beliefs, but does not have a right to expose others to disease.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
28-07-2012, 04:23 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
this was only the last third??? I wouldn't have lasted that long in a conversation like that. I have a very low tolerance towards ignorance of this level.

[Image: 69p7qx.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Leela's post
28-07-2012, 04:28 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(28-07-2012 04:23 PM)Leela Wrote:  this was only the last third??? I wouldn't have lasted that long in a conversation like that. I have a very low tolerance towards ignorance of this level.

I have known her for many years and she is very intelligent. We have gone back and forth on this a couple of times, but I pushed her harder this time.

I really thought that evidence would be effective with her, but I was wrong. Her anti-vax world view appears to be tightly coupled with her social group, so rational argument is deflected.

It was pretty much like arguing with a theist.

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
28-07-2012, 04:45 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
I will thank the anti vaxers for pointing out some ingredients of some of our vaccines that really shouldn't be there. We've realized this and removed those things. Their work is done now they can go get a safer vaccination for their kids so that they don't lose their legs.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
28-07-2012, 04:51 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
Damn, that is so strange to me. After extensive virus study in biology, I have to say... I'm quite proud of my pox mark. I've had little kids question it and I tell them about the pox and the vaccine; to me it's practically a modern heroic legend!

On a related side note... they have just announced a new outbreak of Ebola in Uganda has killed 14 people so far. Shocking Nothing like some good old fashioned hemorrhagic nastiness to scare the pants off ya!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/world/...ganda.html

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
28-07-2012, 04:58 PM
RE: Woo is woo, religious or not.
(28-07-2012 04:51 PM)kim Wrote:  On a related side note... they have just announced a new outbreak of Ebola in Uganda has killed 14 people so far. Shocking Nothing like some good old fashioned hemorrhagic nastiness to scare the pants off ya!!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/29/world/...ganda.html

More proof. The universe is intelligently designed. Weeping
It's so weird looking. Long and stringy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: