Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[SkepticThinker]

We are talking about one branch of science here, not all science.

And ... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well what more can I say, you know it all already.

He is apparently quite knowledgeable on the subject. What he said is indeed accurate. I suggest maybe taking some notes.

 

[psychoslice]

Is there something you don't trust about the scientific method?

Yes I don't trust medical science that is dealing with vaccines, this isn't total science, its just one branch.

 

[psychoslice]

I'm asking YOU. You're the one making all kinds of claims like this.

Well don't reply to me if you don't want to look it up.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well don't reply to me if you don't want to look it up.

I'll reply to what I like, thanks.

How about backing up even just one of your many claims you've made on the thread? It's irresponsible to just throw out false claims as you do and call them facts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes I don't trust medical science that is dealing with vaccines, this isn't total science, its just one branch.

Why just that?

 

[psychoslice]

I'll reply to what I like, thanks.

How about backing up even just one of your many claims you've made on the thread? It's irresponsible to just throw out false claims as you do and call them facts.

I have already shown claims, but its never up to your or others here expectations, so look it up your self.

 

[psychoslice]

Why just that?

Why not ?.

 

[philbo]

I have already shown claims, but its never up to your or others here expectations, so look it up your self.

Well, exactly: you've shown claims. That isn't evidence of anything.

Compare this to a study of nearly a hundred thousand children, which showed no statistical difference in autism rates between those vaccinated and those not. Sorry if it sounds like I'm a broken record, but all you've done about that is make vague assertions that the people doing the study are somehow part of the group making money from vaccines, which is a complete fabrication in the hope that you can maintain your frankly ridiculous position.

 

[psychoslice]

Well, exactly: you've shown claims. That isn't evidence of anything.

Compare this to a study of nearly a hundred thousand children, which showed no statistical difference in autism rates between those vaccinated and those not. Sorry if it sounds like I'm a broken record, but all you've done about that is make vague assertions that the people doing the study are somehow part of the group making money from vaccines, which is a complete fabrication in the hope that you can maintain your frankly ridiculous position.

There is big money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry, if you believe it or not.

 

[McBell]

There is big money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry, if you believe it or not.

Interesting that you run tail tucked from the points in the posts you quote.

 

[psychoslice]

Interesting that you run tail tucked from the points in the posts you quote.

I don't run from anything, I am here to share and discuss, I don't have to debate it, I really don't think anyone could win a debate on this stuff right now, there is so many lies.... its not much different than the bible, everything has been tappet with to look good, and that is what I believe you are reading.

 

[McBell]

I don't run from anything, I am here to share and discuss, I don't have to debate it, I really don't think anyone could win a debate on this stuff right now, there is so many lies.... its not much different than the bible, everything has been tappet with to look good, and that is what I believe you are reading.

rotflmao

nice try.

 

[psychoslice]

rotflmao

nice try.

Well I think it was.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes I don't trust medical science that is dealing with vaccines, this isn't total science, its just one branch.

But the things you are believing are not true. The autism thing, for example, has been rigorously studied and there has never been a strong enough correlation established to suggest vaccines cause autism. The guy who started that did not do a study, he did not do an experiment, he did not gather data, and he lost his license to practice because of what he done.

There is big money to be made in the pharmaceutical industry, if you believe it or not.

Not in autism. Some things like anti-depressants may be prescribed, but there is no autism pill. There is also a lot more money to be made in working with insurance companies to get talk therapy covered less and less while only covering drug therapy.

 

[psychoslice]

But the things you are believing are not true. The autism thing, for example, has been rigorously studied and there has never been a strong enough correlation established to suggest vaccines cause autism. The guy who started that did not do a study, he did not do an experiment, he did not gather data, and he lost his license to practice because of what he done.

Not in autism. Some things like anti-depressants may be prescribed, but there is no autism pill. There is also a lot more money to be made in working with insurance companies to get talk therapy covered less and less while only covering drug therapy.

Yes so you have read and believed, but I have read and believed also, just take your pick, that's all it is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes so you have read and believed, but I have read and believed also, just take your pick, that's all it is.

It's not just take your pick. It comes down to something that was started on total bullocks compared to something that has been rigorously and thoroughly experimented with numerous times and is open to peer review.

 

[psychoslice]

It's not just take your pick. It comes down to something that was started on total bullocks compared to something that has been rigorously and thoroughly experimented with numerous times and is open to peer review.

Yes and so you say, big deal, it means nothing to me, you can keep people dying because of your opinion.

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes and so you say, big deal, it means nothing to me, you can keep people dying because of your opinion.

So you openly reject experiments, the scientific method (which is used in EVERY discipline just FYI) peer reviewed studies, scientific evidence and then get mad when people ask you to back up unverified, untested, shoddy claims made from people who clearly have no clue what they are talking about? Then you turn around and claim it's people's opinions?

Let's break this down with a comparison. A high number of Physicists claim that the law Gravity is what keeps us on the ground. They go out and test this and find that it conforms with their expectations and predictions. Thus according to their informed conclusions based on scientific testing and the scientific method, they publish out in the open that Gravity is real.

A number of people not in the field of Physics claim that Gravity is not real. They cherry pick results, use manipulative language in order to confuse the uninformed and even resort to lying in order to convince people that Gravity is not real. They then publish this information on the internet and convince people not in Physics that the Law of Gravity is not real.
These deniers then go onto forums, throw out unverified opinions about Gravity and then claim they're being attacked when people far more learned in Physics retaliate by not only calling out faulty evidence, but by throwing back evidence that passes Scientific scrutiny. The denier then claims it's just opinion based and lies some more.
In this scenario you are the Gravity denier. Does this sound like a reasonable debate or discussion to you?

In a discussion and debate when someone claims something, they must not only back it up, they must use sources that pass muster. If a person does not do this, their evidence will be ignored or taken to task. That's just how it goes.

 

[psychoslice]

So you openly reject experiments, the scientific method (which is used in EVERY discipline just FYI) peer reviewed studies, scientific evidence and then get mad when people ask you to back up unverified, untested, shoddy claims made from people who clearly have no clue what they are talking about? Then you turn around and claim it's people's opinions?

Let's break this down with a comparison. A high number of Physicists claim that the law Gravity is what keeps us on the ground. They go out and test this and find that it conforms with their expectations and predictions. Thus according to their informed conclusions based on scientific testing and the scientific method, they publish out in the open that Gravity is real.

A number of people not in the field of Physics claim that Gravity is not real. They cherry pick results, use manipulative language in order to confuse the uninformed and even resort to lying in order to convince people that Gravity is not real. They then publish this information on the internet and convince people not in Physics that the Law of Gravity is not real.
These deniers then go onto forums, throw out unverified opinions about Gravity and then claim they're being attacked when people far more learned in Physics retaliate by not only calling out faulty evidence, but by throwing back evidence that passes Scientific scrutiny. The denier then claims it's just opinion based and lies some more.
In this scenario you are the Gravity denier. Does this sound like a reasonable discussion to you?

Yes so they claim, and you believe that claim, but I don't, can you handle that ??.