Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[SomeRandom]

Been pondering this.. I don't think there's anyone "in science" or not who thinks vaccines should be unscrutinized. Vaccines *are* being "looked at", by huge numbers of people, every day.

This whole "no research/released untested" assertion is utter twaddle - a few months ago, any pharma company could have made billions with a working ebola vaccine.. though none came on the market at the point where they were most needed because they were being tested. I know they were being tested, because I know two people who were part of the phase 1 trials - the guinea pigs who volunteered to show that the vaccine doesn't cause harm. Even for a disease as nasty as ebola, where it could even be argued from an ethical perspective that even if the vaccine did cause harm, the possibility of protection might make a vaccination programme in the areas at risk a good idea. But even so, the proper testing channels were followed, nothing was rushed to the market and the outbreak died down without a vaccine being available. There's still a lot of money to be made from an ebola vaccine, so you can guarantee one will come to the market, but it will have gone through exactly the sort of rigorous test that some people are saying doesn't happen.

Hell, if they'd had a vaccine on the market, I bet they'd've sold millions in the US alone, given the reaction of some sections of the population

If there's a criticism to be levelled at the pharma companies, it's that they knew ebola was out there, but didn't even start trying to develop a vaccine until it looked like it might threaten the Western world.

Well I was talking about alternative medicine trying to debunk vaccines, which is the context I took the quote I replied to in. But yeah, vaccines are scrutinized consistently and continuously. I didn't mean to imply they weren't being put under the microscope, as it were.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well of course it doesn't apply to every situation, but in this situation I believe it does, but time will tell, and all we can do is do what we need to do, not forcing anything onto others.

And the person who debated the existence of the FEMA death camps was just as certain of their existence. Many people are very certain the government has concrete proof of extraterrestrial life, but their evidence has many of the same problems yours does.
Things like telekenesis have been taken more seriously by the government and academics than the alleged risks and dangers of vaccines. Extraterrestrials are even taken more seriously by governments and academics.
And why would we not mandate the vaccines when clearly they have greatly reduced the threat of so many horrible diseases?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I was talking about alternative medicine trying to debunk vaccines, which is the context I took the quote I replied to in. But yeah, vaccines are scrutinized consistently and continuously. I didn't mean to imply they weren't being put under the microscope, as it were.

Me, personally, I'm more open to the idea of alternative medicines because we have been using roots, herbs, and other natural ingredients, with success for many various things, long before the days of modern medicine. While modern medicine has achieved mile stones that traditional and alternative medicines have not, I don't entirely discredit the other. And I'm more in favor of giving the natural source of a medicine when it is an option than the synthetic stuff made in a lab. And using things like marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms to treat anxiety and depression.
But the idea that vaccines come with more than just the most minimal of risks, and that we need to stop mandating them, even though they have significantly reduced the threat of terrible diseases - such things just do not have any logical behind them.

 

[SomeRandom]

Me, personally, I'm more open to the idea of alternative medicines because we have been using roots, herbs, and other natural ingredients, with success for many various things, long before the days of modern medicine. While modern medicine has achieved mile stones that traditional and alternative medicines have not, I don't entirely discredit the other. And I'm more in favor of giving the natural source of a medicine when it is an option than the synthetic stuff made in a lab. And using things like marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms to treat anxiety and depression.
But the idea that vaccines come with more than just the most minimal of risks, and that we need to stop mandating them, even though they have significantly reduced the threat of terrible diseases - such things just do not have any logical behind them.

Alt Medicine isn't completely devoid of reasoning. The alt med anti vaxxers seem to be phenomenally slimy (from what I've seen) and also seem grossly misinformed (again, from what I've seen.)

I ain't saying that I personally reject herbs and all that jazz. But I ain't exactly going to go running to the Alternative Medical crowd involved in the vaccine debate for correct information regarding vaccinations specifically.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Alt Medicine isn't completely devoid of reasoning. The alt med anti vaxxers seem to be phenomenally slimy (from what I've seen) and also seem grossly misinformed (again, from what I've seen.)

I ain't saying that I personally reject herbs and all that jazz. But I ain't exactly going to go running to the Alternative Medical crowd involved in the vaccine debate for correct information regarding vaccinations specifically.

Me neither. But in a society that tends to believe medicine must come in pill form, even alternative medicine has far more credibility that the anti-vaxers.

 

[SomeRandom]

Me neither. But in a society that tends to believe medicine must come in pill form, even alternative medicine has far more credibility that the anti-vaxers.

Yeah, that is true.

 

[psychoslice]

All I can say is that you're as wrong about me as you appear to be about everything else in this thread: and you do realize that sentence is self-contradictory?
If I have made up my mind and nothing would change it, then that pretty much means I am satisfied.

I will change my mind if there's suitable evidence to make me do so: I have on several things in the past. But it takes evidence, not somebody spouting conspiracy theories without the flimsiest vestige of anything to back it up: in this case, it will take better evidence than million-strong population studies which show no harm, or something concrete to prove that everyone involved in these studies have committed fraud. Saying "money" and pointing does not count as evidence of fraud - if you think money has caused a cover-up show me the bank balances with a few hundred thousand mysteriously appearing from Mr B Pharma to all those researchers. Besides, if Mr-not-a-Dr-any-more Fraudypants is anything to go by, there is a lot more money to be made asserting that vaccines cause autism than there is in doing the research properly.

As long as your happy believing that.

 

[psychoslice]

Which ones specifically? There are branches of "Science" which do not pass scrutiny just FYI. What are their qualifications? Are they Immunologists specifically (which would carry more weight than even doctors.) What are their studies saying? Are their studies peer reviewed?

You see, there's a certain level of scrutiny that applies to ALL SCIENCE. Don't matter the field, don't matter the scientist.

So just saying that there are "science that do agree that vaccines need to be looked at" doesn't really say anything other than people may oppose vaccines. Pfft so? There are "science" that agree that Gravity needs to be looked at. Doesn't mean I have to care about them before they pass muster in the field of Science like everyone else has to.

That's it, they oppose certain vaccines, and their probably right.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's it, they oppose certain vaccines, and their probably right.

Why are they probably right? Who are they? What qualifications do they possess? What studies have they conducted that would lead them to such a conclusion? Do they pass scrutiny? What is their expertise?

Because right now all you're doing is being deliberately obtuse and expect me to just accept that. No, I will not! There are certain standards to uphold here, you know?

I ain't saying that vaccines shouldn't be studied. But I am saying that when they are, I'm not just going to go with whatever some random Tom Dick or Harry said about them. I'm going to go to people who have experience and expertise in the field of Immunology or in the study of Infectious Diseases. Because that is the most logical place to start from.

I mean, for example, "Dr" (pfft I use the term lightly in this case) Judith Riesman says all sorts of things about Sexology, Dr Kinsey and porn relating to it's effects on the brain. She might be correct, I hear her supporters say. Yeah........no. Her "research" doesn't hold any weight for me to take seriously. Because she has no real expertise in Sexology or Neurology or even Biology. And her blatant bias against Kinsey is quite evident in her rhetoric.

If, say, a respected and fully qualified brain surgeon were to study these things, I'd probably be more willing to listen to them on those matters. Because they have been trained to ignore bias (as much as they can) and they would know a hell of a lot more about the fields of Medical Science and Biology by default than some lady who did a doctorate in Media Communications and Law. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

What I'm essentially saying here is there are certain standards one must appease. You go to a Doctor to ask about the health of one's body, not to a bloody Architect.

So again I ask, who are these people? What qualifications do they have? What studies have they conducted? Are those studies peer reviewed yet?
I'm merely asking for the same level of scrutiny (or at least some of that scrutiny) that Science applies to everyone in every Scientific Discipline. So don't think I'm being deliberately unfair.

 

[psychoslice]

Why are they probably right? Who are they? What qualifications do they possess? What studies have they conducted that would lead them to such a conclusion? Do they pass scrutiny? What is their expertise?

Because right now all you're doing is being deliberately obtuse and expect me to just accept that. No, I will not! There are certain standards to uphold here, you know?

I ain't saying that vaccines shouldn't be studied. But I am saying that when they are, I'm not just going to go with whatever some random Tom Dick or Harry said about them. I'm going to go to people who have experience and expertise in the field of Immunology specifically. Because that is the most logical place to start from.

I mean, for example, "Dr" (pfft I use the term lightly in this case) Judith Riesman says all sorts of things about Sexology, Dr Kinsey and porn relating to it's effects on the brain. She might be correct, I hear her supporters say. Yeah........no. Her "research" doesn't hold any weight for me to take seriously. Because she has no real expertise in Sexology or the Neurology or even Biology. And her blatant bias against Kinsey is evident in her rhetoric.
If a person fully qualified in the study of brain matter were to study these things, I'd probably be more willing to listen to them. Because they have been trained to ignore bias (as much as they can) and they would know a hell of a lot more about the fields of Medical Science and Biology by default than some lady who did a doctorate in Media Communications and Law. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.

All what you said can be true, but sadly its not all true, like do you believe everything you read, no matter where it comes from, you sound like a religious person trying to protect your beliefs. ?.

 

[SomeRandom]

All what you said can be true, but sadly its not all true, like do you believe everything you read, no matter where it comes from, you sound like a religious person trying to protect your beliefs. ?.

Just blindly saying it's not true doesn't make it not true. And I specifically said I very much care about the source of my information. How the **** did you miss that in my previous posts? Are you dense, good sir? Are you a Poe? Like come on, mate.
I don't believe everything I read, that would be stupid. I am saying that I am far more likely to listen to a Biologist on matters relating to Biological Mechanics than some yahoo with no real experience in Biology. How the **** does that relate to religion? Because I ask that when someone pontificates about a certain intellectual/scientific Discipline and they want me to take them seriously that they should first reach some amount of respectability, credibility and expertise in that field? Oh how unfair of me. It's almost like I have some sort of standards or something.

 

[psychoslice]

Just blindly saying it's not true doesn't make it not true. And I specifically said I very much care about the source of my information. How the **** did you miss that in my previous posts? Are you dense, good sir? Like come on, mate.
I don't believe everything I read, that would be stupid. I am saying that I am far more likely to listen to a Biologist on matters relating to Biological Mechanics than some yahoo with no real experience in Biology. How the **** does that relate to religion? Because I ask that when someone pontificates about a certain intellectual/scientific Discipline and they want me to take them seriously that they should first reach some amount of respectability, credibility and expertise in that field? Oh how unfair of me. It's almost like I have some sort of standards or something.

I know what you are saying, but the thing is you cannot totally rely on what you call credibility and expertise, I know we should, but sadly we cannot, they cover up every mistake they make, go and investigate how many mistakes the CDC has made, they are nowhere perfect, never have been and never will be.

 

[SomeRandom]

I know what you are saying, but the thing is you cannot totally rely on what you call credibility and expertise, I know we should, but sadly we cannot, they cover up every mistake they make, go and investigate how many mistakes the CDC has made, they are nowhere perfect, never have been and never will be.

Wow, an organization run by imperfect humans are not completely infallible. Color me shocked lol.
Perhaps I need to be more specific? I am not saying that credibility or expertise is the be all and end all of anything. I mean hell look at Dr Paul Cameron and his spectacular (or sad) fall from grace after his early research. Smart people can **** up and sometimes even disgrace themselves.
Now if someone who has years of experience in say Architecture, then the weight their words carry in the field of Architecture is far more than a layman who Googles how to build a bridge. You get me? Does this make the Architecture expert infallible? No. But they are held to a higher standard of scrutiny, which means when they do say something stupid and inaccurate about their field, they're probably going to be smashed by their colleges for it.

How about being more specific about your allegations of corruption? How about bringing up sources for people to comb through and pass muster? You know? Actually do something more than try to weasel your way around basic etiquette of discussion. Come on, it should take you less than 30 seconds the way you talk about such information.

 

[psychoslice]

Wow, an organization run by imperfect humans are not completely infallible. Color me shocked lol.
So? I never said that credibility or expertise was the be all and end all of anything. I mean hell look at Dr Paul Cameron and his spectacular (or sad) fall from grace after his early research.
I said it was and always is a step up from some random laymen who claims to do a lot of Googling. That's kind of a given, at least I thought.

Just bring up instances of mistakes, actually you didn't even do that, doesn't do anything other than say oh look humans are capable of making mistakes. So?
How about being more specific about your allegations of corruption? How about bringing up sources for people to comb through and pass muster? You know? Actually do something more than try to weasel your way around basic etiquette of discussion. Come on, it should take you less than 30 seconds the way you talk about such information.

Just type, has the CDC ever made a mistake, and go from there, obviously they have made many.

 

[SomeRandom]

Just type, has the CDC ever made a mistake, and go from there, obviously they have made many.

You're asking me to do your research for you? Geez if you don't have any credible sources just say so. I'd respect your honesty a lot more than your laziness.

Oh and I modified my previous post. I realized it was done in anger rather than in the spirit of debate.

 

[psychoslice]

You're asking me to do your research for you? Geez if you don't have any credible sources just say so. I'd respect your honesty a lot more than your laziness.

Oh and I modified my previous post. I realized it was done in anger rather than in the spirit of debate.

I haven't really shown a lot but what I have already shown is always criticised, so no I wont show any more, I have no problem believing what I do and I feel that I don't need to prove to anyone, I have always been here just for a discussion, not a debate, lets face it, there is so many lies for both parties, and we as an individual need to make up our own minds.

 

[SomeRandom]

I haven't really shown a lot but what I have already shown is always criticised, so no I wont show any more, I have no problem believing what I do and I feel that I don't need to prove to anyone, I have always been here just for a discussion, not a debate, lets face it, there is so many lies for both parties, and we as an individual need to make up our own minds.

Yes, criticism is a part of life and discussion. If you want to claim something in a discussion setting on the internet, YOU have to back it up. Not only with sources but with legitimately credible sources. This is to ensure people aren't claiming random inaccurate information and passing them off as fact. It's to ensure intellectual honesty and to out people who can't follow basic rules and etiquette related to a discussion.
Criticisms of one's sources or one's information is a given in such an environment. This is because people tend to have rather high standards of what exactly constitutes fact, those standards tend be especially high in intellectual subjects relating to any Scientific Discipline. So if you don't want your sources or information criticized then I strongly suggest finding legitimately credible evidence. Or failing that, just not claim anything.
But right now, you're complaining that people are holding you to standards one expects to have to uphold in a discussion situation. So you won't find any sympathy from me, either man up and uphold the standards. Or stop whining about how people have the audacity to apply basic logical criticism to your sources.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, criticism is a part of life and discussion. If you want to claim something in a discussion setting on the internet, YOU have to back it up. Not only with sources but with legitimately credible sources. This is to ensure people aren't claiming random inaccurate information and passing them off as fact. It's to ensure intellectual honesty and to out people who can't follow basic rules and etiquette related to a discussion.
Criticisms of one's sources or one's information is a given in such an environment. This is because people tend to have rather high standards of what exactly constitutes fact, those standards tend be especially high in intellectual subjects relating to any Scientific Discipline. So if you don't want your sources or information criticized then I strongly suggest finding legitimately credible evidence. Or failing that, just not claim anything.
But right now, you're complaining that people are holding you to standards one expects to have to uphold in a discussion situation. So you won't find any sympathy from me, either man up and uphold the standards. Or stop whining about how people have the audacity to apply basic logical criticism to your sources.

No, you or anyone can criticized me as long as you like, it really doesn't both me the least, as you know there is a lot out there that is against vaccines, and I know you don't believe in any of it, as I don't believe in what you show me, you like me really know nothing about the situation, but still I have my freedom to believe what I want, and I will continue sharing what I believe as you will with your beliefs, see, I am impossible to argue with lol.

 

[SomeRandom]

No, you or anyone can criticized me as long as you like, it really doesn't both me the least, as you know there is a lot out there that is against vaccines, and I know you don't believe in any of it, as I don't believe in what you show me, you like me really know nothing about the situation, but still I have my freedom to believe what I want, and I will continue sharing what I believe as you will with your beliefs, see, I am impossible to argue with lol.

Well I never said anything about freedom or lackthereof to your beliefs. Didn't realize I said anything to imply otherwise. I said in a debate or discussion setting, ANYONE who claims something has an obligation to back it up or be criticized. Them are the rules, mate.

You almost boast that you are impossible to argue with. This is not something to be proud over, as many would consider such an arrogant attitude towards discussion abhorrent and disrespectful and not worth even bothering with in a discussion because it is stupid and fruitless. Not that you are stupid, but the attitude is not becoming on a person nor does it lend credence to a claims that said person is willing to have an honest discussion or merely discussing something. You sound like you don't want to discuss anything. So why would I want to bother discussing anything with you, at all? Come on, mate. Tell me, please.

 

[psychoslice]

Well I never said anything about freedom or lackthereof to your beliefs. Didn't realize I said anything to imply otherwise. I said in a debate or discussion setting, ANYONE who claims something has an obligation to back it up or be criticized. Them are the rules, mate.

You almost boast that you are impossible to argue with. This is not something to be proud over, as many would consider such an arrogant attitude towards discussion abhorrent and disrespectful and not worth even bothering with in a discussion because it is stupid and fruitless. Not that you are stupid, but the attitude is not becoming on a person nor does it lend credence to a claims that said person is willing to have an honest discussion or merely discussing something. You sound like you don't want to discuss anything. So why would I want to bother discussing anything with you, at all? Come on, mate. Tell me, please.

Yea I do come over like that, and I really don't have a belief in anything, everything is changing every day, what I believe today may change tomorrow, and who knows I might change my mind about vaccines one day, I am not arrogant, but if you see that then that's for you to believe, again it doesn't bother me..........now tell me the truth, don't you just want to shake the crap out of me ? lol.