Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[SkepticThinker]

Those who put their trust and faith in vaccines, so be it. Those who don't want vaccinations, so be it. There would be nothing to worry about or fear if one is vaccinated, with one who isn't vaccinated. If there is trust and faith in vaccinations. If one is vaccinated and still worries about those not vaccinated, why the doubt in them? Why get them if there is doubt they work?

Look up herd immunity. The more people that get vaccinated, the better it is for everyone.

Or consider the fact that there are people in the world with illnesses that preclude them from being vaccinated. Healthy people who don't get vaccinated are putting such people at risk of becoming even more ill. My 4 year old niece is one of those people. Contracting a simple cold could kill her, never mind measles or small pox.

 

[SkepticThinker]

To each their own, as there are also many links and scientists who say communities have been infected due to vaccinated children.

Do you have any of these available to share? It doesn't sound quite right.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because that's not how vaccinations work.
Vaccines are not like some magical force field protecting you from danger. They work on the whole not individually.
The more percentage of the population is vaccinated, the better they work. Think of it like a bubble around the populous. The less holes you have in said bubble the better it works. People who do not vaccinate are those holes in the bubble.
A vaccine is sort of like giving information to your immune system about various diseases. But there's only so many strains it can account for realistically. If someone catches some variation of say the mumps and they are unvaccinated, they will get the full force. Because their immune system literally has to learn then and there what to do about it. A vaccinated person can still catch it, but the vaccine has already allowed the immune system a chance to figure out what to do about it. Thus they will either not contract it or only get mild symptoms.Many diseases that are vaccinated against will kill you the first time round, so to not vaccinate is essentially like signing your own death warrant.
If you have very large swathes of people not vaccinating, then the chance of diseases latching onto them as hosts and mutating are very very high. The more a disease has a chance to mutate (travelling host to host) the less effective the original vaccine is against it.
Because if it mutates a lot by the time it reaches a vaccinated person the strain might not be recognizable to the immune system anymore and the vaccinated person cops the full strength. So yeah, unvaccinated people can actually undo the huge strides made in medicine and even the mortality rate all because they have enough hubris to think they know better than the people who study this in depth for a living over decades. Pride. Talk about a deadly sin, sheesh.

Now there are certain reasonable allowances made in this bubble for holes. Like people who legitimately can't vaccinate like cancer patients or those born with immune disorders etc. These people quite literally rely on the protection given to them by the vaccinated public. Cause you know they can die from measles or chickenpox or what have you. So yeah, there is absolutely harm when people choose to not vaccinate. They can literally kill people. Or allow mutations to occur in diseases that render the original vaccination useless against it.

And the kicker? These people literally putting the greater public at risk also benefit from the protection given to them by the vaccinated public. So I'l be as upset as I flipping well please at these freeloading intellectually lazy ******** thank you very much. If they value the immune system so highly let them put their money where their mouth is and travel to locations where dying people are trying desperately to get their hands on a vaccine. Let's see how well they do without lazily relying on responsible people protecting them like a bunch of first word ungrateful spoilt brats.

This^^^^^ Exactly.

 

[Lighthouse]

Look up herd immunity. The more people that get vaccinated, the better it is for everyone.

Or consider the fact that there are people in the world with illnesses that preclude them from being vaccinated. Healthy people who don't get vaccinated are putting such people at risk of becoming even more ill. My 4 year old niece is one of those people. Contracting a simple cold could kill her, never mind measles or small pox.

Your niece, it would be in her best interest to stay away from anyone that has been recently vaccinated with live virus's. Somerandom did explain well what hosts can do with even small amounts of live virus's.
The infamous induce fear and emotion into others to spread imaginary herd immunity doctrine doesn't work on one who can discern... may work on the blinded herd. If the herd believes they are immune, placebo does work if no fear is involved.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your niece, it would be in her best interest to stay away from anyone that has been recently vaccinated with live virus's. Somerandom did explain well what hosts can do with even small amounts of live virus's.

You're thinking about the old polio vaccine that contained the live virus which hasn't been used since 2000. It no longer contains live virus.

The infamous induce fear and emotion into others to spread imaginary herd immunity doctrine doesn't work on one who can discern... may work on the blinded herd. If the herd believes they are immune, placebo does work if no fear is involved.

Herd immunity helps everyone, including my niece. It's real and it works. There's no fear, just reality. Do you ever take a look around and wonder why measles, mumps, rubella, polio, etc. have been all but eliminated in the industrialized world since vaccines began to be used on mass scale and compare that to the Third World where such diseases are commonplace and vaccines can be scarce?

Instead you'd rather follow misinformation and in so doing, put people like my niece at risk. I find that incredibly irresponsible.

 

[Lighthouse]

You're thinking about the old polio vaccine that contained the live virus which hasn't been used since 2000. It no longer contains live virus.


Herd immunity helps everyone, including my niece. It's real and it works. There's no fear, just reality. Do you ever take a look around and wonder why measles, mumps, rubella, polio, etc. have been all but eliminated in the industrialized world since vaccines began to be used on mass scale and compare that to the Third World where such diseases are commonplace and vaccines can be scarce?

Instead you'd rather follow misinformation and in so doing, put people like my niece at risk. I find that incredibly irresponsible.

You act as if live virus's aren't used in some while hiding behind the polio one in which someone has a better chance of being struck by lightning than catching polio.

Once again, the healthy are dangerous and irresponsible while the ones carrying live virus's are not dangerous or irresponsible in your opinion.

Do you ever look around you and become aware that sanitary conditions have changed greatly whereas they have not in certain countries? Sanitary conditions are scarce. If you want to contribute the savior as vaccinations, you are free to do so.

You bring up weak immunity and folks unable to have vaccinations while bringing up malnutrioned folks in other countries in which also have weak immune systems yet suggest to blindly vaccinate them let alone with live virus's.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You act as if live virus's aren't used in some while hiding behind the polio one in which someone has a better chance of being struck by lightning than catching polio.

That particular polio vaccine was the only one that has been shown to shed in that way.

Once again, the healthy are dangerous and irresponsible while the ones carrying live virus's are not dangerous or irresponsible in your opinion.

You act like it's a bad thing to protect those who are the weakest among us (mainly children and the elderly).

Never mind that healthy people can contract the diseases we vaccinate for.

It's not my opinion that the vaccines currently in use are those that do not shed.

Do you ever look around you and become aware that sanitary conditions have changed greatly whereas they have not in certain countries? Sanitary conditions are scarce. If you want to contribute the savior as vaccinations, you are free to do so.

Scientific evidence indicates that vaccinations have been effective in reducing the diseases we vaccine for. Again, not my opinion.

You bring up weak immunity and folks unable to have vaccinations while bringing up malnutrioned folks in other countries in which also have weak immune systems yet suggest to blindly vaccinate them let alone with live virus's.

Malnutrition doesn't cause viruses.

But to this point and the one above about sanitation, yes, diseases like polio spread more easily in unsanitary conditions, because it's contracted via fecal matter which is part of the reason it's so prevalent in undeveloped countries. So wouldn't the moral and ethical thing to do in such a case be to advocate for the use of vaccines to curb the spread of such diseases and/or save millions of lives?

I don't see how you can boil down the near eradication of all the diseases we vaccinate against to simple sanitation. It doesn't work. People in developed countries didn't live in filth when the polio vaccine was invented, for example. Global polio cases have been massively and drastically reduced since vaccines have become available. And the recent resurgence of measles, mumps and whooping cough are occurring now as less people are vaccinating their children due to various misinformation campaigns. Your opinion doesn't correlate with the available facts.

 

[Lighthouse]

That particular polio vaccine was the only one that has been shown to shed in that way.


You act like it's a bad thing to protect those who are the weakest among us (mainly children and the elderly).

Never mind that healthy people can contract the diseases we vaccinate for.

It's not my opinion that the vaccines currently in use are those that do not shed.


Scientific evidence indicates that vaccinations have been effective in reducing the diseases we vaccine for. Again, not my opinion.


Malnutrition doesn't cause viruses.

But to this point and the one above about sanitation, yes, diseases like polio spread more easily in unsanitary conditions, because it's contracted via fecal matter which is part of the reason it's so prevalent in undeveloped countries. So wouldn't the moral and ethical thing to do in such a case be to advocate for the use of vaccines to curb the spread of such diseases and/or save millions of lives?

I don't see how you can boil down the near eradication of all the diseases we vaccinate against to simple sanitation. It doesn't work. People in developed countries didn't live in filth when the polio vaccine was invented, for example. Global polio cases have been massively and drastically reduced since vaccines have become available. And the recent resurgence of measles, mumps and whooping cough are occurring now as less people are vaccinating their children due to various misinformation campaigns. Your opinion doesn't correlate with the available facts.

Do you trust your niece who has immunity issues to be around those whom just have received live virus's?
Scientific evidence has indicated all sorts of contrary things from both sides.
The moral and ethical thing to do would be to use your niece as an example of weak immunity for the inability to receive vaccinations but give vaccinations to the weak immunity of other children? This is already noted and known as a primary reason they are only given in developed sanitary countries.
As stated in an earlier post, the vaccinated and non-vaccinated are both susceptible to the diseases.
Global reduction started before vaccines were introduced just as less people are developing diseases due to a more sanitary environment. Just as easily believed, through scientific evidence that they are reoccurring due to live virus vaccinations and the human body not fully killing those live virus's in which can hide in many places internally. Measles and mumps are ironically live vaccine virus's whereas there is also scientific research into the whooping cough vaccine the main cause of spread of whooping cough.

 

[Lighthouse]

You act as if live virus's aren't used in some while hiding behind the polio one in which someone has a better chance of being struck by lightning than catching polio.

Once again, the healthy are dangerous and irresponsible while the ones carrying live virus's are not dangerous or irresponsible in your opinion.

Do you ever look around you and become aware that sanitary conditions have changed greatly whereas they have not in certain countries? Sanitary conditions are scarce. If you want to contribute the savior as vaccinations, you are free to do so.

You bring up weak immunity and folks unable to have vaccinations while bringing up malnutrioned folks in other countries in which also have weak immune systems yet suggest to blindly vaccinate them let alone with live virus's.

I also don't have to look very far to see all sorts of human beings with all sorts of new health issues, allergies, deficiencies, new neurological diseases since the era of vaccinations and be a skeptical thinker of where they may be coming and developing from.

 

[SomeRandom]

Tons of negative emotion there, can't take you very rational with the rants.

I would think its the intellectual lazy who go with the herd blindly without doing their own due diligence with an open, non-biased, non-extremist attitude.

Look I'm just calling it like I see it. Anyone can make arguments to the laity that sounds good for either side. Especially when dealing with chemistry. In fact Scientists proved just how woefully scientifically illiterate people actually are with the Dihydrogen Monoxide prank.

No human knows everything. That's why we break up jobs into specific categories and skills. We all rely on the expertise of someone else in our day to day lives. We go to the dentist to fix our teeth, not the local yahoo. We go to a qualified mechanic (preferably one we know personally) instead of listening to every bloke with an opinion. We call in IT professionals when we don't know how to get our computers running properly.

So I'm going to listen to an immunologist, you know the actually qualified trained professional in the field? Instead of other laymen without any training, without any real qualifications in the relevant field who gets their information off the web of all places. Doing your own due diligence? Yeah because the people who self diagnose themselves using web MD are so going to get accurate health treatment. Like yeah right.
Skepticism is healthy, hubris can kill.

For a little added humor this is what y'all sound like.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you trust your niece who has immunity issues to be around those whom just have received live virus's?
Scientific evidence has indicated all sorts of contrary things from both sides.

She is around kids who have been vaccinated quite frequently, I imagine.

Please tell me which vaccine you are talking about. And what scientific evidence you are talking about.

The moral and ethical thing to do would be to use your niece as an example of weak immunity for the inability to receive vaccinations but give vaccinations to the weak immunity of other children? This is already noted and known as a primary reason they are only given in developed sanitary countries.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're talking about or why you think that would be an ethical or moral thing to do. Can you clarify what it is that has "already noted?"

As stated in an earlier post, the vaccinated and non-vaccinated are both susceptible to the diseases.

And?

Global reduction started before vaccines were introduced just as less people are developing diseases due to a more sanitary environment.

This is false and is not what the evidence indicates. As discussed in my previous post. You have made no argument, but simply restated what you said before.

Just as easily believed, through scientific evidence that they are reoccurring due to live virus vaccinations and the human body not fully killing those live virus's in which can hide in many places internally. Measles and mumps are ironically live vaccine virus's whereas there is also scientific research into the whooping cough vaccine the main cause of spread of whooping cough.

Again, you've ignored what I said and simply re-stated the same thing.

What research? Can you explain why polio cases have decreased by 99% worldwide since 1988? What scientific evidence is there that indicates this is due only to improvements in sanitation?

Can you explain why incidences of diseases didn't massively increase as a result of mass vaccinations (rather than being all but eradicated)? Because if your theory is correct, that is what should have happened.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I also don't have to look very far to see all sorts of human beings with all sorts of new health issues, allergies, deficiencies, new neurological diseases since the era of vaccinations and be a skeptical thinker of where they may be coming and developing from.

What is the 'era of vaccinations?"

Maybe you should think about how we know so much more about medicine and the human condition than we used to and perhaps that is why we see all these new diseases being named.

 

[Sapiens]

Facts: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...oscience-and-religion-to-demonize-vaccines-2/

 

[Lighthouse]

Look I'm just calling it like I see it. Anyone can make arguments to the laity that sounds good for either side. Especially when dealing with chemistry. In fact Scientists proved just how woefully scientifically illiterate people actually are with the Dihydrogen Monoxide prank.

No human knows everything. That's why we break up jobs into specific categories and skills. We all rely on the expertise of someone else in our day to day lives. We go to the dentist to fix our teeth, not the local yahoo. We go to a qualified mechanic (preferably one we know personally) instead of listening to every bloke with an opinion. We call in IT professionals when we don't know how to get our computers running properly.

So I'm going to listen to an immunologist, you know the actually qualified trained professional in the field? Instead of other laymen without any training, without any real qualifications in the relevant field who gets their information off the web of all places. Doing your own due diligence? Yeah because the people who self diagnose themselves using web MD are so going to get accurate health treatment. Like yeah right.
Skepticism is healthy, hubris can kill.

For a little added humor this is what y'all sound like.

There are many immunologists who oppose vaccines and are well aware of the harm they cause/can potentially cause, to the immune system.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Lighthouse]

Facts: https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...oscience-and-religion-to-demonize-vaccines-2/

Facts: a condescending human with a large ego and agenda will adhere to other condescending human's with supersized ego syndrome and agenda. One day, I'm hoping there will be a vaccination for that disease. I'm not anti-vaccine.

Most that are aware of Mr. Gorski know he's a pharmaceutical extremist with an agenda that does not fit a rational and sound mindset as his own best interest glaringly blazes with his aura of persona.

One thing I will give Mr. Gorski credit for is that he is genius at hiding his word salads of trying to sound intelligent by easily preying on things a 10 year old can recognize as pseudoscience. If it came to a sound scientist in his opposition, you won't see him anywhere around on his blog regarding them.

 

[SomeRandom]

There are many immunologists who oppose vaccines and are well aware of the harm they cause/can potentially cause, to the immune system.

Thank you for your time.

Oh really? Name them please. I'm curious as to what they say.
Also, there are Physicists who argue against gravity. Look here's one n the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/science/13gravity.html?_r=0
What's your point?

 

[Lighthouse]

Oh really? Name them please. I'm curious as to what they say.
Also, there are many Physicists who argue against gravity. What's your point?

What is an immunologist to you? Do you automatically assume the science and study of the immune system is all about vaccinations?

You already made the point and the point I've made all along.... there are 2 sides equally as valid to every story, each their own to discern for themselves.

The moment negative emotion, judgements, extremism, name calling come into play.... the less likely I'm inclined to believe one can make sound rational judgement.

 

[SomeRandom]

What is an immunologist to you? Do you automatically assume the science and study of the immune system is all about vaccinations?

A person who studies/specializes in immunology, allergies, immune disorders and infectious diseases. What did you think I meant? A GP?

You already made the point and the point I've made all along.... there are 2 sides equally as valid to every story, each their own to discern for themselves.

Yeah, one has the backing of Scientific evidence the other has some pseudoscience. Or are you seriously suggesting that I should listen to the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" argument?
The argument that the Earth is Flat?
These are all still argued in Science, it's just that their hypotheses (hypothesi? hypothesies?) don't stand up to peer review.

The moment negative emotion, judgements, extremism, name calling come into play.... the less likely I'm inclined to believe one can make sound rational judgement.

I'm all for ignoring emotion in debates like this. But it is rather frustratingly annoying to have scientific illiterate laymen constantly telling me to listen to their hypothesis over the actual professionals. It's like instead of going to a doctor to get say stitches, I allow my next door neighbor, a plumber, fix me up with some glue instead. Yeah, that'll work I'm sure.
(Like I know America's emergency wards are apparently very expensive, but ours just goes onto the Medicare system.)

I have limits to my patience as well. And after page after page, post after post, of explaining exactly why the queries aren't sound, it just keeps going ad nauseum. Like excuse me for being human a little bit.
I assume this is what it's like for them fancy big wig biologists constantly getting the "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" comments. No wonder Dawkins is such an angry *******.

 

[Lighthouse]

A person who studies/specializes in immunology and infectious diseases. What did you think I meant? A GP?



Yeah, one has the backing of Scientific evidence the other has some pseudoscience. Or are you seriously suggesting that I should listen to the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" argument.
The argument that the Earth is Flat?
These are all still argued in Science, it's just that their hypotheses (hypothesi? hypothesies?) don't stand up to peer review.


I'm all for ignoring emotion in debates like this. But it is rather frustratingly annoying to have scientific illiterate laymen constantly telling me to listen to their hypothesis over the actual professionals. It's like instead of going to a doctor to get say stitches, I allow my next door neighbor, a plumber, fix me up with some glue instead. Yeah, that'll work I'm sure.
(Like I know America's emergency wards are apparently very expensive, but ours just goes onto the Medicare system.)

You truly believe that all the sound science goes to one side and none to the others?
The point is there are unbiased professionals neither being pro or anti doing sound science
for the good that are humble to admit they know little as of yet. The loud, haughty, agenda-driven, extremism to one side, condescending driven mouths are the pseudo-practioners who know little. . this goes for both sides.
Poor analogy. Your doctor can be opposed to vaccines or neutral yet still administer them "because it's their career" if patient consents. Or your doctor can be opposed to vaccines or neutral and still apply stitches "because it is their career."

 

[Lighthouse]

A person who studies/specializes in immunology, allergies, immune disorders and infectious diseases. What did you think I meant? A GP?



Yeah, one has the backing of Scientific evidence the other has some pseudoscience. Or are you seriously suggesting that I should listen to the "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" argument?
The argument that the Earth is Flat?
These are all still argued in Science, it's just that their hypotheses (hypothesi? hypothesies?) don't stand up to peer review.


I'm all for ignoring emotion in debates like this. But it is rather frustratingly annoying to have scientific illiterate laymen constantly telling me to listen to their hypothesis over the actual professionals. It's like instead of going to a doctor to get say stitches, I allow my next door neighbor, a plumber, fix me up with some glue instead. Yeah, that'll work I'm sure.
(Like I know America's emergency wards are apparently very expensive, but ours just goes onto the Medicare system.)

I have limits to my patience as well. And after page after page, post after post, of explaining exactly why the queries aren't sound, it just keeps going ad nauseum. Like excuse me for being human a little bit.
I assume this is what it's like for them fancy big wig biologists constantly getting the "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" comments. No wonder Dawkins is such an angry *******.

You are human, and I respect your opinions, a few solid explanations, and your time for the responses. I am neutral and can argue the good in vaccinations as well. Some of which you have said.

Thank you for the reasoning together my friend.