I might have more trust in vaccination if the vaccine companies themselves stood behind their "product", instead of acquiring legal immunity from the courts in case something goes wrong.
Vaccine companies don't have legal immunity; it's just that claims for "vaccine injury" are dealt with using a different process. If the companies had to defend themselves in court not only against every legitimate effect but every parent of an autistic child that decides vaccines must be to blame, no one would be able to afford to manufacture vaccines.
With the science supporting vaccination so strong, and the importance of herd immunity meaning that those who don't vaccinate are not only endangering their own kids, but to a lesser extent other people's kids, I have no problem with anti-vaccine people being insulted.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by robocop
and you don't see the hypocrisy in insulting someone for no other reason to make yourself feel better? If you want someone to see your viewpoint do you really think ridicule is an effective way of portraying a message or maybe presenting a coherent argument with objective information is best. If someone refuses to listen just leave it alone, otherwise you just end up looking like a hypocrite to everyone else who isn't quite so polarized. If your purpose isn't to help convey a coherent argument or viewpoint the only other thing I can think of is some anonymous sense of masochism and superiority.
People have presented prety cogent arguments to disprove pretty much all of the anti-vacination arguments. So yeah, once those people have been given information that comes from sources more reliable than one disproved study, and Jenny McCarthy, and they refuse to accept that they may be wrong, they move pretty quickly form "Skeptic" to "Willfully Ignorant".
Is it really any wonder people get frustrated and start making fun of people who claim to be skpetics but ignore an overwhelming body of evidence that disproves their position?
If someone refuses to be reasoned out of a position, they are not a skeptic, they are an ideologist, and thus shouldn't really be involved in debates that require scientific support.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
People have presented prety cogent arguments to disprove pretty much all of the anti-vacination arguments. So yeah, once those people have been given information that comes from sources more reliable than one disproved study, and Jenny McCarthy, and they refuse to accept that they may be wrong, they move pretty quickly form "Skeptic" to "Willfully Ignorant".
Is it really any wonder people get frustrated and start making fun of people who claim to be skpetics but ignore an overwhelming body of evidence that disproves their position?
If someone refuses to be reasoned out of a position, they are not a skeptic, they are an ideologist, and thus shouldn't really be involved in debates that require scientific support.
And myself(and probably many others), being less polarized than the more vocal people in this thread came into this topic curious about what people have to say. Unsurprisingly I see mostly bickering and insults, when I see that I can't take anything you say seriously because you look equally childish as the willfully ignorant. That's why it's counterproductive, you aren't going to convert the ignorant with insults and the objective and curious have trouble giving credence to the opinions of the arrogant and condescending.
the research yes, but the regulatory body, Health Canada, is government run. The idea of the government regulating the vaccination of our population while 100% of the people accept it willingly is not a good thing. Skepticism helps enforce proper protocol, ignorance and apathy does not.
Health Canada still employs scientists and medical professionals. You make it sound like a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around making uneducated decisions.
__________________
Quote:
During filming at a residence of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, rowdy residents disturbed filming by hanging USSR flags in the residence windows, reporting the shoot to the fire marshal, yelling distracting taunts at the actors, and even stealing Kurt Russell's chair.
And myself(and probably many others), being less polarized than the more vocal people in this thread came into this topic curious about what people have to say. Unsurprisingly I see mostly bickering and insults, when I see that I can't take anything you say seriously because you look equally childish as the willfully ignorant. That's why it's counterproductive, you aren't going to convert the ignorant with insults and the objective and curious have trouble giving credence to the opinions of the arrogant and condescending.
Yeah but apparently overwhelming evidence doesn't sway them either.
Health Canada still employs scientists and medical professionals. You make it sound like a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around making uneducated decisions.
No I don't at all, I stated the truth plain and simple. That's the conclusion you choose to draw from what I said.
And myself(and probably many others), being less polarized than the more vocal people in this thread came into this topic curious about what people have to say. Unsurprisingly I see mostly bickering and insults, when I see that I can't take anything you say seriously because you look equally childish as the willfully ignorant. That's why it's counterproductive, you aren't going to convert the ignorant with insults and the objective and curious have trouble giving credence to the opinions of the arrogant and condescending.
It's not about converting the ignorant. They are unconvertible. It's about convincing the undecided, the fence-sitters, the otherwise-uninterested, and those who haven't thought enough about the subject to form an opinion. The truly objective will side with the most and best evidence, regardless of arrogance or condescension from either side.
No wonder it's so hard to get the maroons to accept that humans are changing the climate if so many people still can't wrap their simple minds around this issue.
We just aren't wired to be foremost logical it seems.
It's not about converting the ignorant. They are unconvertible.
People have to be protected against themselves, that's what it boils down to.
Ideally (idealistically? ) people would make informed decisions based on good information about things in their lives.
Pragmatically, this is impossible, because there is not enough time, resources, or brain space for a single person to be able to know all the information in order to make an informed decision for every decision they make. So many decisions must be delegated.
Not only that, it's been demonstrated that making a good decision even with correct information is very hard, because our brains are not evolved for making good decisions, are brains are evolved to make decisions that don't result in us getting eaten by a tiger in the next 15 seconds.
There are decisions that simply cannot be trusted to an individual, or rather decision where an individual cannot be trusted to make well.
If they want to make that decision and it doesn't affect anyone else, then fine, but most decisions don't happen in a vacuum and DO impact others.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Vaccine companies don't have legal immunity; it's just that claims for "vaccine injury" are dealt with using a different process. If the companies had to defend themselves in court not only against every legitimate effect but every parent of an autistic child that decides vaccines must be to blame, no one would be able to afford to manufacture vaccines.
With the science supporting vaccination so strong, and the importance of herd immunity meaning that those who don't vaccinate are not only endangering their own kids, but to a lesser extent other people's kids, I have no problem with anti-vaccine people being insulted.
Kathleen Sebelius signed a decree giving vaccine makers total legal immunity from any lawsuits resulting from the swine flu vaccine.
I don't know why people blindly get vaccinated where in the past vaccines have been recalled or suspended due to adverse reactions, not just in America but abroad. Finland and Sweden for example, suspended swine flu shots after noticing a sudden spike in narcolepsy cases just when the shots came out. There was an obvious time correlation there...
Since 1986, the U.S. government vaccine court has paid out $1.9 billion to parents whose kids were damaged by vaccines. What does that tell you?
Season flu shots are pointless and ineffective. I'd rather just eat my multi-vitamins and vegetables instead of getting Guillain-Barre Syndrome thanks.
For kids vaccinations (MMR etc.), I think the shots should atleast be spread out over a longer period of time.
There are some legitimate concerns out there regarding vaccines. Is it overblown? Maybe, ....but time will tell. In the mean time you guys just continue to sling mud at those who are cautious and think for themselves.
No wonder it's so hard to get the maroons to accept that humans are changing the climate if so many people still can't wrap their simple minds around this issue.
We just aren't wired to be foremost logical it seems.
Explain climate change patterns in the thousands of years before the human industrial revolution...
During filming at a residence of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, rowdy residents disturbed filming by hanging USSR flags in the residence windows, reporting the shoot to the fire marshal, yelling distracting taunts at the actors, and even stealing Kurt Russell's chair.
Since 1986, the U.S. government vaccine court has paid out $1.9 billion to parents whose kids were damaged by vaccines. What does that tell you?
Season flu shots are pointless and ineffective. I'd rather just eat my multi-vitamins and vegetables instead of getting Guillain-Barre Syndrome thanks.
Payouts by the vaccine court do not always mean the effect was caused by the vaccine (the standard of evidence is fairly low in the vaccine court). Besides, no one is saying there is no chance of adverse effects from a vaccine; only that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Generally when there are severe adverse effects, they are effects that are much more likely to be caused by the disease.
While the effectiveness of the flu shot is still subject to some debate, most of the recent data suggests that in young, healthy people it is pretty effective so long as it includes the right strains (maybe not so effective for the elderly though). Definitely way more effective than eating multi-vitamins and vegetables. And the link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome from flu shots is dubious at best; there was just the one vaccine in the 1970's where there was some evidence of a link, but that was likely due to bacterial contamination and vaccine production has changed a lot since then. There is no evidence of flu vaccines causing GBS since then. Getting influenza, however, has been associated with getting GBS.
They didn't confirm they were expired, but even still.....what the hell were the health workers thinking?
The exact quote is:
"According to experts, death after vaccination occurs either due to expiry of vaccine or if it is contaminated making it unfit for human use."
Payouts by the vaccine court do not always mean the effect was caused by the vaccine (the standard of evidence is fairly low in the vaccine court). Besides, no one is saying there is no chance of adverse effects from a vaccine; only that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Generally when there are severe adverse effects, they are effects that are much more likely to be caused by the disease.
While the effectiveness of the flu shot is still subject to some debate, most of the recent data suggests that in young, healthy people it is pretty effective so long as it includes the right strains (maybe not so effective for the elderly though). Definitely way more effective than eating multi-vitamins and vegetables. And the link between Guillain-Barre Syndrome from flu shots is dubious at best; there was just the one vaccine in the 1970's where there was some evidence of a link, but that was likely due to bacterial contamination and vaccine production has changed a lot since then. There is no evidence of flu vaccines causing GBS since then. Getting influenza, however, has been associated with getting GBS.
This (bolded) isn't true at all. People have gotten GBS under the last current swine flu scare. Didn't someone post a video of that girl who couldn't walk properly after having a swine flu shot? I don't remember if that was GBS or not, but clearly a neurological problem.
Out of $1.9billion being rewarded, you don't think any of the payouts were from legit vaccine damage?
As for my own personal experience, I would rather risk getting a harmless flu that lasts a few days, than taking even a slight chance at having complications from a vaccine.
The girl who couldn't walk properly and sometimes seemed to have an Australian accent? Oh yeah that girl which Jenny Mccarthy jumped all over to use her as a poster child of the dangers of vaccines, all up until it was found out she was a complete fraud.
The girl who couldn't walk properly and sometimes seemed to have an Australian accent? Oh yeah that girl which Jenny Mccarthy jumped all over to use her as a poster child of the dangers of vaccines, all up until it was found out she was a complete fraud.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
) people would make informed decisions based on good information about things in their lives.
