Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[psychoslice]

Still waiting for you to present something in support of your claimed genocide from vaccines.

And I haven't seen anything from you to convince me also, and I don't mean from the FDA.

 

[McBell]

And I haven't seen anything from you to convince me also, and I don't mean from the FDA.

So, no support for your bold empty claim?

Can not say i am the least bit surprised.

 

[psychoslice]

Fraud and Death Administration ... lol.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I'm just saying it's happened and it's more common than people might think. Do all vaccines do it? No, but it also depends on who's doing the data testing...The data may say something is rare, but in reality it's more common. I know it's happened because I personally know those who were vaccinated with certain vaccines and have suffered side effects from it. But I guess some people like to think I imagined that and it's all in my head...

I don't doubt that there are side effects at times from vaccination. IN fact, as vaccination is usually putting a small amount of the disease into the human body to begin with, it wouldn't overly surprise me that from time to time, through dosage errors or unknown factors in the specific subject, one may actually find themselves contracting the very disease the vaccination was supposed to inoculate the subject against to begin with.

Nonetheless, the older and required vaccinations have a long and robust history of being nearly free of risk with an overwhelming rate of success. Thus, the "vaccination" conspiracy theory/scare is not based on reason or logic. It is based on ignorance, fear, and isolated incidents -- and often, these "isolated incidents" are based on unprovable allegations that the "vaccination did it" or are entirely psychosomatic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fraud and Death Administration ... lol.

The "psycho" part of your avatar is showing through with this post. Granted, the FDA is far from perfect, but the "fraud and death administation" is really pushing it. I consider that to be on par with the claims the president [fill in the blank with any post-WWII president] is Hitler.

 

[psychoslice]

The "psycho" part of your avatar is showing through with this post. Granted, the FDA is far from perfect, but the "fraud and death administation" is really pushing it. I consider that to be on par with the claims the president [fill in the blank with any post-WWII president] is Hitler.

He he, I'm glad you liked it lol.

 

[philbo]

Its not feeling, these are parents who had a healthy child one day and after the vaccine, a very unhealthy child, all these people cannot be just a coincidence, no way at all.

Look, if you're vaccinating millions, then yes it can be a coincidence. When the same things happen to the same proportion of children who don't get a vaccine that suggests very strongly indeed that it is a coincidence.

The "feeling" is that one is caused by the other, and it is a natural feeling. Humans do this sort of thing all the time - two things happen in close proximity, they assume one causes the other. And when you have literally hundreds of millions of vaccinations, you are absolutely guaranteed to have other things happening at the same time: there will be hundreds of one-in-a-million events occurring at roughly the same time as vaccination, because that's the way numbers work.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But that is just what you have been doing, your claims come strait from the very ones who manipulate and what you to believe what they tell you, after all if they were found out there would be hell to play.

You're the one making claims all over this thread. Claims that you have absolutely no evidence for whatsoever. And here you are making another one, namely that every scientists is manipulating data for personal gain. All the while completely ignoring the fact that that's exactly what Andrew Wakefield did and the reason why he's no longer allowed to practice medicine!

I challenged those claims and backed up that up with verifiable, empirical scientific studies/research that can be viewed, replicated and/or checked by anyone.

There's a big difference between those two things. So no, that is definitely not exactly what I am doing. Please stop trying to drag me down to your level.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

The "psycho" part of your avatar is showing through with this post. Granted, the FDA is far from perfect, but the "fraud and death administation" is really pushing it. I consider that to be on par with the claims the president [fill in the blank with any post-WWII president] is Hitler.

FDA being "far from perfect" is the understatement of the millennium. More people die from the prescription drugs than they do the illegal drugs. Guess where those drugs come from? But then, most people don't know that much about the FDA to begin with. Do you know how many things they've "approved" and it turned out to be bad and they had to take it off the shelves of drug stores? Not enough testing will do that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

FDA being "far from perfect" is the understatement of the millennium. More people die from the prescription drugs than they do the illegal drugs. Guess where those drugs come from? But then, most people don't know that much about the FDA to begin with. Do you know how many things they've "approved" and it turned out to be bad and they had to take it off the shelves of drug stores? Not enough testing will do that.

Yes because they mix prescription drugs with alcohol, illegal drugs or other prescription drugs. That's the killer.

 

[Revoltingest]

FDA being "far from perfect" is the understatement of the millennium. More people die from the prescription drugs than they do the illegal drugs. Guess where those drugs come from? But then, most people don't know that much about the FDA to begin with. Do you know how many things they've "approved" and it turned out to be bad and they had to take it off the shelves of drug stores? Not enough testing will do that.

I'd likely be dead with out those nasty Big Pharma drugs (antibiotics).
So I'm conveniently in favor of drugs.
Designer drugs based upon DNA are arriving.
This will reduce side effect problems.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

FDA being "far from perfect" is the understatement of the millennium. More people die from the prescription drugs than they do the illegal drugs. Guess where those drugs come from? But then, most people don't know that much about the FDA to begin with. Do you know how many things they've "approved" and it turned out to be bad and they had to take it off the shelves of drug stores? Not enough testing will do that.

You present no numbers; but let's assume the statement is correct; that "more people die from the prescription drugs than they do the illegal drugs".

In 2010, there were 3,339 traffic-related fatalities in Chad. The same year, in the United States, there were over 36,000. Does that mean that the United States roads are more dangerous than the roads in Chad? If we were to look no further, this would be very compelling evidence that the U.S.roads are far more dangerous than the roads on Chad. However, in the United States, there are over 250 million cars on the roads. In Chad, there are about 25,000. Breaking these numbers down a bit more, we find that per 100,000 cars on the road, only 11.6 people die in the United States in traffic; while in Chad, per 100,000 vehicles on the road, 29.7 people die.

Prescription drugs used far more widely than illicit drugs. The laws of average themselves say that with this sizable disparity, more will have complications with prescription meds than illicit drugs; simply because more people are using them.

Figures can lie and liars can figure.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Most people don't even bother to research the FDA and how corrupt it's been. People have been addicted to these drugs and overdose it. Not every drug is bad, but there are some that haven't been tested properly. To assume a drug is safe to take just because it's "approved" would be naïve. I remember one particular drug was used to minimize morning sickness, which it did, but often the babies would come out deformed. I forgot exactly what the name was, but I remember it being on the news and it was taken off the shelves soon after. But it was "approved" Being approved means nothing, other than that it's legal for them to sell it.

Besides there are natural remedies that are cheaper and safer to use.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nearly every drug is dangerous, no matter how much it's tested.
The problem is that people are cavalier about them.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

All have a potential to be dangerous but some are obviously more dangerous than others. Like with other drugs. Alcohol is dangerous to a certain limit, but isn't nearly as dangerous or as addictive as meth.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

FDA being "far from perfect" is the understatement of the millennium. More people die from the prescription drugs than they do the illegal drugs. Guess where those drugs come from? But then, most people don't know that much about the FDA to begin with. Do you know how many things they've "approved" and it turned out to be bad and they had to take it off the shelves of drug stores? Not enough testing will do that.

That's true, but these vaccines have been common place for nearly six decades. Of course their are a lot of new drugs that are pushed through, because being sued is often times cheaper than a recall, but these vaccines are not, by any means, new drugs that haven't been thoroughly tested. Because of the paranoia and fear they have actually been very rigorously tested.
This "not enough testing" does not apply to the childhood vaccines because they have been around for far too long and they have been tested way too frequently.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I can't entirely disagree with the sentiment that the FDA is fallible, has been known to be corrupt and "approves" drugs that later turn out to be bad news.

But the issue, here, is vaccinations; and again (as if repeating myself will do anything to get through thick skulls), the overwhelming success of most vaccinations and the very low reports of adverse effects speaks loud and clear that most vaccinations are safe, effective means of safeguarding the health of both individuals and communities.

And to repeat myself again: the evidence of vaccinations does not support the claim that they are dangerous or harmful.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

I can't entirely disagree with the sentiment that the FDA is fallible, has been known to be corrupt and "approves" drugs that later turn out to be bad news.

But the issue, here, is vaccinations; and again (as if repeating myself will do anything to get through thick skulls), the overwhelming success of most vaccinations and the very low reports of adverse effects speaks loud and clear that most vaccinations are safe, effective means of safeguarding the health of both individuals and communities.

And to repeat myself again: the evidence of vaccinations does not support the claim that they are dangerous or harmful.

Ok, so what DOES prove that some are dangerous and harmful? I already know some don't do what they are supposed to do due to personal experience, but to you, I guess I just made that up or hallucinated that, right?

If some vaccinations were as great as you say they were, than where does the fear come from then? There wouldn't BE fear of it in the first place, unless one witnessed one vaccine too many doing some harm. And some won't just refuse to do it just because of their religious beliefs either. I don't claim every single vaccine is bad, but there are some that aren't tested as much as they should be.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Ok, so what DOES prove that some are dangerous and harmful? I already know some don't do what they are supposed to do due to personal experience, but to you, I guess I just made that up or hallucinated that, right?

If some vaccinations were as great as you say they were, than where does the fear come from then? There wouldn't BE fear of it in the first place, unless one witnessed one vaccine too many doing some harm. And some won't just refuse to do it just because of their religious beliefs either. I don't claim every single vaccine is bad, but there are some that aren't tested as much as they should be.

Okay ... I have admitted the possibility that there can be adverse reactions and unforeseen consequences to vaccinations. But these are very small minority; and those that can be confirmed ... well, honestly, I haven't ran across any. But for sake of argument, I will hypothetically capitulate that sometimes, vaccinations go wrong or have unintended damaging consequences.

The fact that a small percentage of people are allergic to tomatoes does not constitute evidence that tomatoes are poisonous; and the percentage of people with tomato allergies are much higher than adverse reactions to vaccinations.

The CDC monitors adverse reactions to vaccinations: CDC - VAERS - Vaccine Safety - receiving 30,000 reports annually with only 10-15% of those determined as "serious". Yet, there are 10 MILLION vaccinations administered each year and this number only accounts for those who were vaccinated before 1 year old!

So, if we were to assume that all these 30,000 annual reports applied only to children who were vaccinated before 1 year of age (which is totally inaccurate), then we have a risk of adverse reactions of .03% -- and out of that .03%, only 10-15% is serious ....

What do these numbers tell you? They tell you that vaccination is incredibly safe.

What do these 30,000 reports tell you?

That in spite of how safe and effective vaccination is, we have things to learn to make them even safer.

Again, the numbers and the evidence simply does not support the irrational fear ...

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

PS -- someone check my math, please, I am a mathematical retard, LoL