Vaccines don't cause autism (duh)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Croatia upholds compulsory vaccinations and receives a round of applause from everyone who isn't a complete moron.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...accine-mandate

I think for a lot of people there, they know first hand accounts of the epidemics that occurred there after WW2. There was actually a fairly serious TB epidemic during the 1950s (made widows of my great aunts, and my father became a carrier but never had the disease). Everyone knew people would contracted it. After that, they were one of the leading countries trying to eradicate TB. I think that mindset just worked its way into other diseases as well.

Unfortunately, a lot of young people are so far removed from that reality that they don't understand how serious things can get.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by AcGold

being self-righteous and indignant about anything regardless of how correct you are is shameful imo and obviously you don't know anything about processing or migration, good luck finding that hydrocarbon trap when it looks like a syncline.

Do you even know why people claim vaccinations can be harmful? If you're so absolutely certain then you must understand the claims against it very well.

Well it doesn't matter because they are wrong. Very wrong. Stupidly wrong

In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, described a new autism phenotype called the regressive autism-enterocolitis syndrome triggered by environmental factors such as measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination. The speculative vaccination-autism connection decreased parental confidence in public health vaccination programs and created a public health crisis in England and questions about vaccine safety in North America. After 10 years of controversy and investigation, Dr. Wakefield was found guilty of ethical, medical, and scientific misconduct in the publication of the autism paper. Additional studies showed that the data presented were fraudulent. The alleged autism-vaccine connection is, perhaps, the most damaging medical hoax of the last 100 years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21917556

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

The attitudes in this thread border on fascist, just saying. It's as if questioning what we are injecting into people makes someone a moron, just to question makes you bereft of any intellectual capacities which is quite disheartening.

Self-evidently untrue, since pretty much anyone who supports vaccines supports scientific inquiry, where the whole point of the endeavour is to question. Also self-evidently untrue since no one is forcibly restricting anyone. Disagreeing with someone or showing them that their position is wrong or invalid is not fascism by any stretch of the imagination.

There's good ways to question things, and bad ways. There's meaningful questions, there's meaningless questions. There's reasonable inquiries, there's unreasonable ones.

Just because I think that vaccines should be checked for microscopic demons or fantastic shrunken submarines doesn't mean they actually should be. Or just because I draw conclusions my being unaware of answers to my questions doesn't mean my conclusions are reasonable.

I don't see any fascism in this tread, I see negative attitudes towards foolishness though.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by AcGold

The attitudes in this thread border on fascist, just saying. It's as if questioning what we are injecting into people makes someone a moron, just to question makes you bereft of any intellectual capacities which is quite disheartening.

Questioning things is good. It is an important part of the scientific process. Nobody here has a problem with that.

The problem is that there is a portion of the population that outright rejects the scientific answers to those questions, and bolsters their position through pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and (sometimes) religion.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by AcGold

The attitudes in this thread border on fascist, just saying. It's as if questioning what we are injecting into people makes someone a moron, just to question makes you bereft of any intellectual capacities which is quite disheartening.

There's a difference between asking how vaccines work, and claiming vaccines don't work.

If you want to question if vaccines work, then you simply only need to ask for the stats.

If you want to ask how they work, ask and someone will link you to peer reviewed research.

If you want to claim that they don't work and cause autism then yes you will be treated like a moron as you made a completely moronic uneducated statement.


Don't mix up questioning to learn, and questioning to prove wrong.

Everyone is encouraged to question to learn. If you want to question what is essentially proven fact to prove it wrong with no hard evidence, then you will have a problem.


Thinking vaccines don't work and cause autism is akin to stating gravity doesn't exist. You don't need to be a scientist to know that's crazy.

[AcGold]

I've never once questioned whether they work, tying the potential for harm with their efficacy is a mistake though. I've read a reasonable amount on the subject and don't see much if at all any addressing the scientific and logical basis for how they can be harmful. Not sure why the need to tie their efficacy and autism though, not that I think it even causes it, just have a reasonable doubt that they are harmless.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I've never once questioned whether they work, tying the potential for harm with their efficacy is a mistake though. I've read a reasonable amount on the subject and don't see much if at all any addressing the scientific and logical basis for how they can be harmful. Not sure why the need to tie their efficacy and autism though, not that I think it even causes it, just have a reasonable doubt that they are harmless.

The second part of the bolded sentence pretty much contradicts the first part. If you've actually done the serious reading you say you have, you would have come across countless studies that have failed to prove any long term harmful effects. Are there short-term side effects? Yes, but only in very rare cases.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I've never once questioned whether they work, tying the potential for harm with their efficacy is a mistake though. I've read a reasonable amount on the subject and don't see much if at all any addressing the scientific and logical basis for how they can be harmful. Not sure why the need to tie their efficacy and autism though, not that I think it even causes it, just have a reasonable doubt that they are harmless.

Great… so what is it?

[Azure]

I think very little of people that don't vaccinate their children. That is about the nicest way I could say it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

tying the potential for harm with their efficacy is a mistake though.

What? What else would you use to evaluate if something should be used or not? If a drug saves 1 million lives and one out of every 1 million that receive the drug is harmed by it, that's the only way to evaluate such things.

All people do this every day all day long, evaluating potential for harm vs the effectiveness of what they want to do. One is vastly more likely to be harmed in a car accident vs. taking a vaccine yet cars are effective at getting one to work on time.

What is your alternative way to evaluate?

Originally Posted by AcGold

I've read a reasonable amount on the subject and don't see much if at all any addressing the scientific and logical basis for how they can be harmful.

Interesting, because in the actual science the harm portion is recorded and tracked and studied and laid out in detail.

Originally Posted by AcGold

Not sure why the need to tie their efficacy and autism though, not that I think it even causes it, just have a reasonable doubt that they are harmless.

Nothing is harmless, just breathing carries risks. When evaluating risks of harm, that evaluation has to be made against something else, not against a ideal harmless situation (otherwise it's the nirvana fallacy).

[AcGold]

I would post my thoughts and sources but this is a kangaroo court. What is the point discussing something where the verdict has been decided already? Vaccines are good to all of you and if I don't want kids vaccinated I'm a heretic, I get it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I would post my thoughts and sources but this is a kangaroo court.

Hey that's a lot better than fascist!

Originally Posted by AcGold

What is the point discussing something where the verdict has been decided already? Vaccines are good to all of you and if I don't want kids vaccinated I'm a heretic, I get it.

If you want to disagree with people but aren't willing to discuss it, then I suggest getting a blog rather than doing it on a discussion forum.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by AcGold

I would post my thoughts and sources but this is a kangaroo court. What is the point discussing something where the verdict has been decided already? Vaccines are good to all of you and if I don't want kids vaccinated I'm a heretic, I get it.

Because most posters here are reasonable people who are willing to listen.

Regardless, just because the person you're arguing against in a public forum might not be changing their mind, if you actually have a valid argument those reading will listen.

I'm legitimately curious on the research.

By saying "I've researched that vaccines are harmful, and you shouldn't take them. But I'm not going to tell you why" just makes you seem like a kook. Heck, it's pure evil if you know that a vaccine will harm us and not inform of us it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

By saying "I've researched that vaccines are harmful, and you shouldn't take them. But I'm not going to tell you why" just makes you seem like a kook.

And the amount of asshattery in this area is incredible. My sister's ex boyfriend always tried to tell me how Bill Gates let it slip that vaccines are part of a plan of human depopulation so they must be harmful!

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Because most posters here are reasonable people who are willing to listen.

Regardless, just because the person you're arguing against in a public forum might not be changing their mind, if you actually have a valid argument those reading will listen.

I'm legitimately curious on the research.

By saying "I've researched that vaccines are harmful, and you shouldn't take them. But I'm not going to tell you why" just makes you seem like a kook. Heck, it's pure evil if you know that a vaccine will harm us and not inform of us it.

I don't claim to "know" the answer. One concern I have is based off the cumulative effects of the often mercury based preservatives. I remember reading a few studies about testing on animals and how it accumulates in their brains back when I was studying psych. On the contrary you could probably find medical authorities saying the exact opposite.

Again, I don't claim to know the answer any more than you. However, it's not completely illogical to think a trace amount of something may be harmless in one dose but has the effects of an overdose due to its cumulative effects after repeated treatments. I do believe the vaccines work in the sense they stop what they claim. Just not nearly as certain it is harmless.

[DownInFlames]

No one here is claiming vaccines are completely harmless, but their benefits greatly outweigh any potential risk they might pose. That's why we think it's silly to refuse to give them to your children.

[dino7c]

just out of curiosity who here got the flu shot? media (social and otherwise) were hounding us to do so a few months back...similar kinda talk like "you are a danger if you don't get it ect."

Turns out the thing was 9% effective against the worst strain yet next year I'm sure the usual "experts" will be out in full force telling everyone they must get it.

Just saying the government/medical community isn't always 100% honest with us...look at the money big pharma makes and consider the source next time you post a graph on facebook

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Most of the effects of mercury that have been studied deal with the link (or lack thereof) to autism.

What are the harms that you are worried about? (I could theorize what they may be but I want to avoid any straw man arguments even if unintentional).

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by dino7c

just out of curiosity who here got the flu shot? media (social and otherwise) were hounding us to do so a few months back...similar kinda talk like "you are a danger if you don't get it ect."

Turns out the thing was 9% effective against the worst strain yet next year I'm sure the usual "experts" will be out in full force telling everyone they must get it.

Just saying the government/medical community isn't always 100% honest with us...look at the money big pharma makes and consider the source next time you post a graph on facebook

Flu shots are a different animal.

The medical community doesn't claim that the flush or will prevent any and all flu strains.

The flu shot is the medical community's best long term guess (they need time to prepare so they don't have all variables) at what strain of the flu will be rampant in a given year.

I'd be curious to see their effectiveness over a larger sample size than one year.

Also by giving the 9% effective rate (I would like to see a source on that) they are being transparent. Just like the effective rate of the vaccines being discussed in this thread (TB, whooping cough, etc).

[DownInFlames]

I don't know what the "worst strain" is that he's referring to, but the CDC claims the most recent vaccine was 61% effective overall.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6307a1.htm