Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Do you have anything besides rhetoric to offer?

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Not everything has two equally valid sides. This is one of those things that doesn't.

I'd like to see some examples that address his question as well. Do you have the names of these immunologists you speak of.

 

[Sapiens]

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.

You are human I respect you for that, however your opinions have been routinely shown to be without foundation and there is no reason to respect them, especially when the are dangerous to both the individual and the whole, we are not "reasoning together," that implies an even field with similar clinical support for claims ... but that is not the case.

 

[Lighthouse]

You are human I respect you for that, however your opinions have been routinely shown to be without foundation and there is no reason to respect them, especially when the are dangerous to both the individual and the whole, we are not "reasoning together," that implies an even field with similar clinical support for claims ... but that is not the case.

I also respect that of you, however your opinion is also shown without foundation. You can make the opinion that people are dangerous to the individual and the whole with no clinical support as well. An even field doesn't see one extreme side only.... so you are correct that it isn't reasoning. One sees both sides with evidence for both while one is an extremist that sees only their side and the evidence they want to see. Nothing "even" about that. There is clinical support for both sides, so do enlighten me on how you can preach an even field yet see one side with quick judgement on human's as being a dangerous threat? Routinely shown? Where at?

 

[Lighthouse]

Do you have anything besides rhetoric to offer?

I asked you earlier why you use your niece with poor immunity as an example as being unable to receive vaccinations yet are preaching to mass vaccinate those in poor sanitary countries that also have poor immunity. This is common sense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I asked you earlier why you use your niece with poor immunity as an example as being unable to receive vaccinations yet are preaching to mass vaccinate those in poor sanitary countries that also have poor immunity. This is common sense.

Because vaccinating in places with poor unsanitary conditions helps the people living there to stave off diseases, as I explained.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I also respect that of you, however your opinion is also shown without foundation. You can make the opinion that people are dangerous to the individual and the whole with no clinical support as well. An even field doesn't see one extreme side only.... so you are correct that it isn't reasoning. One sees both sides with evidence for both while one is an extremist that sees only their side and the evidence they want to see. Nothing "even" about that. There is clinical support for both sides, so do enlighten me on how you can preach an even field yet see one side with quick judgement on human's as being a dangerous threat? Routinely shown? Where at?

Ah, but there is scientific evidence demonstrating the efficacy of herd immunity and vaccinations.
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/5/643.full
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/191/Supplement_1/S97.long
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7385/365.1?variant=full
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)66550-6/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11001769


You have yet to answer my questions.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because vaccinating in places with poor unsanitary conditions helps the people living there to stave off diseases, as I explained.

Why is her immune deficiency exemption superior to others children's immune deficiency non-exemption? I am skeptical for your lack of concern for others immune deficiency.

 

[Sapiens]

I also respect that of you, however your opinion is also shown without foundation. You can make the opinion that people are dangerous to the individual and the whole with no clinical support as well. An even field doesn't see one extreme side only.... so you are correct that it isn't reasoning. One sees both sides with evidence for both while one is an extremist that sees only their side and the evidence they want to see. Nothing "even" about that.

I challenge you to present such clinical data, I will be happy to point you to the debunkings.

There is clinical support for both sides, so do enlighten me on how you can preach an even field yet see one side with quick judgement on human's as being a dangerous threat? Routinely shown? Where at?

You're foolishly requesting negative evidence, science does not work that way. Make your claims, cite your evidence, I'll be happy to take care of the rest.

 

[psychoslice]

I have only had one vaccine in my whole life, and that one vaccine caused me to have fits for a number of years, and today I have schizophrenia.

 

[Lighthouse]

Ah, but there is scientific evidence demonstrating the efficacy of herd immunity and vaccinations.
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/5/643.full
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/191/Supplement_1/S97.long
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7385/365.1?variant=full
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)66550-6/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X11001769


You have yet to answer my questions.

Herd immunity is a myth. The percentage of its ineffectiveness and length of effectiveness is evidence itself. Grab a booster and "maybe" be immune for another year or 2 as an adult.

In other words, you are not part of the herd likely after your young youth. Placebo does work though.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have only had one vaccine in my whole life, and that one vaccine caused me to have fits for a number of years, and today I have schizophrenia.

My condolences my friend. The governments across roughly 20 countries have developed laws and compensated billions of dollars to the death, neurological issues, and effects vaccinations have had on many.

 

[psychoslice]

My condolences my friend. The governments across roughly 20 countries have developed laws and compensated billions of dollars to the death, neurological issues, and effects vaccinations have had on many.

Thanks, it was the polio vac. that I had, I had it when I was about 10 years old, its been far too long for me to get any compensation though.

 

[Lighthouse]

I challenge you to present such clinical data, I will be happy to point you to the debunkings.
You're foolishly requesting negative evidence, science does not work that way. Make your claims, cite your evidence, I'll be happy to take care of the rest.

Over the years, how many vaccinations have been modified/recalled when once where clinically tested and deemed to be safe and effective? Common sense, Sapiens. You may choose to analytically override common sense perhaps, being human. These vaccinations are constantly being clinically tested. You are a primate, perhaps you would be willing to submit yourself to the early scientific testing with the other millions of animals, if you consider yourself on equal terms with them.
Science also doesn't work the way you believe it to. That this case is closed, the full immunology of the body is known, the full effects/true effectiveness of vaccinations are known, etc. You cannot debunk anything, if you were honest with yourself.
I suggest you are foolishly hinting that this case is closed, the immunology of the human body is all known, vaccination safety, their near/mid/long term effects are all known, the rate in decline is due to vaccinations, that the non-vaccinated are dangerous and irresponsible.
The most intelligent words a human being can use sometimes are: "I don't know." Not, "I know and I'm fully and fundamentally biased."

 

[Lighthouse]

Thanks, it was the polio vac. that I had, I had it when I was about 10 years old, its been far too long for me to get any compensation though.

From what I gather, all of the different polio vacs over the years have caused the most deaths, diseases, neurological issues, paralysis, and still scientifically unknown mid-long term effects amongst human beings worldwide. "Perhaps" sids, depression, asthma, allergies, cancers, learning disabilities, etc. . . the unknown that many claim on this forum alone that they know and that the clinical science has been set in stone. Evidence in itself the removal and modifications constantly being done to them, while each one has always been labeled "safe and effective"...... until..... and polio isn't even a disease that is even relevant anymore.

That is why it's important for parents, adults to do their own due diligence and not be coerced by fear of fundamentalists. These fundamentalists do not know. If they choose to vaccinate, great. If they don't, great. If they choose only certain vacs while not others, great. If they choose to span them out more rather than the 2month overload, great.

My heart does go out to you and the many who have been affected by vaccinations, and have experienced it firsthand.

 

[Lighthouse]

There is a risk of fatal allergic reactions in many medications. From what I have gathered, the risk is .0000001%, meaning you're putting someone at far greater risk just by taking them via automobile transport to the doctor than you are with getting them vaccinated.

There is no such link, and we have reached a point where we can diagnose autism before a child is even old enough to be vaccinated, and there is also the issue that the guy who established this "link" did not carry out a study before making his claim and he lost his license to practice due to the negligence of his statement and lack of research.

Sincerely, "the voices of the thousands of children crying in the wilderness who have developed autism after vaccinations." Just a common sense link. As for scientific evidence, just because there are no current links does not make it true or false. We don't know at this time.
I think the correct answer would be: at this current time there is no evidence or there is evidence that has been destroyed or hidden or not released.
Also, many/most pregnant women receive vaccinations.
Can you imagine the public uproar, lawsuits, reputations done, money lost if the government and pharmaceutical industries allowed any evidence and research to get out? What a national catastrophe that would be.
One brave man who has made the claim that Merck Vaccines has had solid evidence for links of autism for 10 years and fabricated the studies in which he assisted in the fabrication while employed there. We'll have to see if this sheds any light as its still pending before congress. Just an allegation for now in which documents have handed over to congress by his attorneys.
One verifiable fact is that autism is more prevalent than all of the diseases being vaccinated combined in many countries and that autism has substantially increased at rapid rates following trend with the progress of mass vaccinations. May or may not contribute.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sincerely, "the voices of the thousands of children crying in the wilderness who have developed autism after vaccinations."

There are no "thousands of children" who developed autism after being vaccinated. Anymore, autism can be diagnosed before a child is even old enough for the vaccinations.

Just a common sense link.

"Common sense" establishes nothing and refers to nothing objective.

As for scientific evidence, just because there are no current links does not make it true or false. We don't know at this time.

We do know because it has been very thoroughly studied, and no links have been found.

I think the correct answer would be: at this current time there is no evidence or there is evidence that has been destroyed or hidden or not released.

The correct answer is that vaccines do not cause autism, and most certainly not appeals to the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence or paranoid conspiracy theories.

Can you imagine the public uproar, lawsuits, reputations done, money lost if the government and pharmaceutical industries allowed any evidence and research to get out?

Except there are mountains of studies readily available to anyone that establish there is no link. The first person who even suggested this link didn't even do a proper study and he lost his license to practice because of his terrible carelessness that even undergrads should know to avoid.

One verifiable fact is that autism is more prevalent than all of the diseases being vaccinated

That's because we very rarely have those diseases that are being vaccinated for. ALS by now just may be more common than polio.

One verifiable fact is that autism is more prevalent than all of the diseases being vaccinated combined in many countries and that autism has substantially increased at rapid rates following trend with the progress of mass vaccinations. May or may not contribute.

Or, we've gotten better at realizing that many people are just different, but not better at dismissing those who are different as somehow being "wrong" or "sick." And the rate of many disorders seem to be increasing over recent times, and the answer as to why with many of them remains unknown, but the link between vaccines and autism have been so thoroughly studied that it's safe to say vaccines do not cause autism.

 

[Sapiens]

Over the years, how many vaccinations have been modified/recalled when once where clinically tested and deemed to be safe and effective? Common sense, Sapiens. You may choose to analytically override common sense perhaps, being human. These vaccinations are constantly being clinically tested. You are a primate, perhaps you would be willing to submit yourself to the early scientific testing with the other millions of animals, if you consider yourself on equal terms with them.
Science also doesn't work the way you believe it to. That this case is closed, the full immunology of the body is known, the full effects/true effectiveness of vaccinations are known, etc. You cannot debunk anything, if you were honest with yourself.
I suggest you are foolishly hinting that this case is closed, the immunology of the human body is all known, vaccination safety, their near/mid/long term effects are all known, the rate in decline is due to vaccinations, that the non-vaccinated are dangerous and irresponsible.
The most intelligent words a human being can use sometimes are: "I don't know." Not, "I know and I'm fully and fundamentally biased."

Blah, blah. blah ... no clear evidence, no studies, no risk assessments, no cost/benefit analysis. Make your case ... or don't, but stop pretending and stop using vague allusions to what would only be anecdotal data anyway.

 

[Lighthouse]

There are no "thousands of children" who developed autism after being vaccinated. Anymore, autism can be diagnosed before a child is even old enough for the vaccinations.

"Common sense" establishes nothing and refers to nothing objective.

We do know because it has been very thoroughly studied, and no links have been found.

The correct answer is that vaccines do not cause autism, and most certainly not appeals to the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence or paranoid conspiracy theories.

Except there are mountains of studies readily available to anyone that establish there is no link. The first person who even suggested this link didn't even do a proper study and he lost his license to practice because of his terrible carelessness that even undergrads should know to avoid.

That's because we very rarely have those diseases that are being vaccinated for. ALS by now just may be more common than polio.

Or, we've gotten better at realizing that many people are just different, but not better at dismissing those who are different as somehow being "wrong" or "sick." And the rate of many disorders seem to be increasing over recent times, and the answer as to why with many of them remains unknown, but the link between vaccines and autism have been so thoroughly studied that it's safe to say vaccines do not cause autism.

In the US, more than 200,000 cases of autism per year. Polio: zero. "Just may be now?"
Again, can you imagine for a moment what would happen if evidence were there and shown to the public? It is never safe to assume anything. Once again, you do not know.
"Paranoid conspiracy theorist" are fancy hyped buzzwords in my opinion used to exploit the blind/naive general herd.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the US, more than 200,000 cases of autism per year. Polio: zero. "Just may be now?"

Making your point moot since just about everything is more common than the diseases being vaccinated for.

Again, can you imagine for a moment what would happen if evidence were there and shown to the public?

There is no such evidence, so I don't have to imagine anything.

Once again, you do not know.

I do know because I have read the research.

"Paranoid conspiracy theorist" are fancy hyped buzzwords in my opinion used to exploit the blind/naive general herd.

When you say the only possibilities are that there is no evidence yet to support you position or the evidence is being suppressed, it is paranoid, especially when jump to the suppressed part. There is nothing being suppressed, and plenty of loonies out there going on about the "dangers of vaccines" when their beliefs are not based in reality.