Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[LuisDantas]

I have the right to say what I want to say, if you are bothered by that, then do your research look at both sides of the argument, I could easily copy and past info, but why should I, I am not here to try and change your mind, you are entitle to believe what you want to believe.

Doesn't it bother you that you might be commiting slander and libel?

 

[psychoslice]

Uhh you do realize that such "fact" is based on twisting correlation to fit a causation. Namely that modern medicine actually made an improvement to survivability of Polio before a vaccination was found. We called it the "Iron Lung." This allowed people who would most almost certainly die of Polio before it's invention to live. Thereby decreasing the death rates before a vaccine came into play. Wow, much Science, right?

I am not saying medical science is wrong, well in most things that is, but they can be wrong, and they have been wrong if you like it or not.

 

[SomeRandom]

I am not saying medical science is wrong, well in most things that is, but they can be wrong, and they have been wrong if you like it or not.

Medical Science is never fool proof, never will be.
However, I gave you a valid reasonable reason why the death rates of Polio slowed down before a vaccination was found. Which is the exact basis for the supposed "fact" you brought up. Which is "the vaccine didn't get rid of polio. It was already on it's way out." And then you claim that Medical Science (the EXACT REASON why mortality rates decreased due to Polio in the first ****ing place!!) can be wrong? I'm sorry I just fail to see the connection.

 

[Deidre]

True. When life begins is contentious and a complicated debate.
But that's not what I commented on.
I think even most religious people can agree that once you die, you don't actually specifically need your mortal body anymore. So why the fuss about a Doctor who goes to an already dead fetus and extracts a tiny bit of blood or takes some skin samples? The poor baby is already in heaven, so why care if it looses a small amount of biological material on the part of it's mortal body? That's not valuing any one's life over another's. That's using materials in a quest to save or alleviate pain of potentially thousands of people.
You made it sound like the Doctors harvest the fetus until there's nothing left. That's simply not the case. A person who donates organs will be far more "chopped up" than any dead fetus that has some cells extracted.
I'll put it another way. A family who has fetus that gives some human cells to research has a far easier time having an open coffin funeral than a person who has a relative who donated organs. If you get what I mean?

When I was a Catholic, I remember reading about this topic, and believe it or not...it's not uncommon for some (many?) religious people to believe that ''using'' dead fetuses for ''objects'' of research and medical pursuits, is immoral. That it somehow ''degrades'' human life. I don't necessarily think that way, but...I still find something about it to be unsettling.

This is interesting, fwiw:

Myths and Misconceptions About Stem Cell Research | California's Stem Cell Agency

 

[psychoslice]

A

Have fun contributing to an online message board. However, if you're not prepared to back up a claim you make, especially one that you assert as "known fact", don't expect yourself to be taken seriously, and don't be surprised if you find yourself ignored by many others.

actually I don't care what others think, I just shared my own belief's, I cannot help it if there are people who are aggressive towards my beliefs, this reminds me of religion, where they believe the one who doesn't believe should go to hell. All I can say is if you don't agree then tell me, but please don't be nasty to me, because I will return that nastiness back.

 

[SomeRandom]

When I was a Catholic, I remember reading about this topic, and believe it or not...it's not uncommon for some (many?) religious people to believe that ''using'' dead fetuses for ''objects'' of research and medical pursuits, is immoral. That is somehow ''degrades'' human life. I don't necessarily think that way, but...I still find something about it to be unsettling.

This is interesting, fwiw:

Myths and Misconceptions About Stem Cell Research | California's Stem Cell Agency

Well then, fair enough. Though I think this line of thoughts is better suited in a different discussion thread.

 

[psychoslice]

Doesn't it bother you that you might be commiting slander and libel?

No not at all, I am just simply being honest to myself, if I am wrong then I am wrong, if you are right you are right.

 

[Deidre]

Well then, fair enough. Though I think this line of thoughts is better suited in a different discussion thread.

lol agree.
Thanks for letting me clarify to you. You seem gracious.

 

[SomeRandom]

A

actually I don't care what others think, I just shared my own belief's, I cannot help it if there are people who are aggressive towards my beliefs, this reminds me of religion, where they believe the one who doesn't believe should go to hell. All I can say is if you don't agree then tell me, but please don't be nasty to me, because I will return that nastiness back.

If you go onto a discussion/debate board and claim something as fact, people will ask you to back up the claim. That's debating 101.

 

[SomeRandom]

lol agree.
Thanks for letting me clarify to you. You seem gracious.

Lol, only sometimes

 

[psychoslice]

Medical Science is never fool proof, never will be.
However, I gave you a valid reasonable reason why the death rates of Polio slowed down before a vaccination was found. Which is the exact basis for the supposed "fact" you brought up. Which is "the vaccine didn't get rid of polio. It was already on it's way out." And then you claim that Medical Science (the EXACT REASON why mortality rates decreased due to Polio in the first ****ing place!!) can be wrong? I'm sorry I just fail to see the connection.

That's OK, you have that right.

 

[SomeRandom]

That's OK, you have that right.

'
Right to what exactly? To post known Scientific facts? Uhh, thank you? I think...........

May I offer some friendly advice? If one posts something on a discussion board they claim as fact and then double back and say it's merely a belief, then one shouldn't claim it as fact in the first place. It's either one or the other, mate.

 

[psychoslice]

Hey

If you go onto a discussion/debate board and claim something as fact, people will ask you to back up the claim. That's debating 101.

Hey,,I was just discussing not debating, who really on this thread is fully qualified to answer theses questions ?.

 

[SomeRandom]

Hey
Hey,,I was just discussing not debating, who really on this thread is fully qualified to answer theses questions ?.

You posted things like "vaccines cause autism" and "the vaccine didn't get rid of Polio" and claimed them as absolute fact. Neither of which has any valid scientific evidence to back it up, negating their status as a "fact." One shouldn't do that, whether in a discussion or debate as it's seen as intellectually dishonest.

There might be some Biologists lurking around the board. I'd argue they are fully qualified to answer these questions. I suspect neither you or I are, though.

 

[Riverwolf]

actually I don't care what others think, I just shared my own belief's, I cannot help it if there are people who are aggressive towards my beliefs, this reminds me of religion, where they believe the one who doesn't believe should go to hell.

Your argumentation here has reminded me of certain religious behaviors far more, actually: making a claim, presenting it as fact without any support, then getting defensive whenever any kind of support for those claims are asked for while refusing to provide any, and then backpedaling by saying it's "just a belief".

And it's no afterlife at stake, here. It's the right-here life.

 

[psychoslice]

 

[Poisonshady313]

Again... I started to watch, and I stop at the 40 second mark to comment (I made it halfway through the other video... maybe I'll go back and finish... but I maintain that the woman is an idiot. A dangerous idiot.) that I can tell it's going to be a burden listening to this guy. He can't string two sentences along coherently. I can only hope he'll get better as I keep listening. But I'm not hopeful.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hm...

Without even watching the video, I looked at the two websites it linked to.

The first one links to what appears to be a family-owned chiropractor business. I can't find any independent sources on Dr. Bergman himself to check his credentials, but the thing is: doctors who are specialists in one field shouldn't really be trusted with information on medical matters outside that field. They may mean well, but they aren't going to necessarily know any more about those fields than anyone else.

The second website linked to, however, is a MAJOR red flag. The tagline "Proven Techniques for Improving Your Health Naturally!" has two obvious red flags: the word "proven", and the exclamation mark at the end. These alone are indicative of scam. The word "naturally" is also a red flag; all medicines are natural, because they all contain ingredients that come from nature. The biggest nail in this website's coffin, however, is the checklist that lists what non-members don't have vs. what members have, akin to companies providing side-by-side comparisons for various products such as computers or anti-virus software. Plus, even being a "non-member" costs 500 USD, with membership costing 10 USD a month, along with a "7 day FREE trial". I understand that medicine is expensive, and some monetary compensation is expected and understandable when consulting any kind of doctor, whether corporate or family-owned. However, these are supposed to be "proven techniques", which implies that they're things that you can do without the need of medication. The first thing that comes to mind immediately at this are penis-enlargement scams, or those "three things to say to make any woman have sex with you!" scams, that appear on porn sites.

For these reasons, it is my judgment that the provided source, in this case a video, is not worth a single second more of my consideration or time, and that any "information" it provides is not trustworthy at best and dangerously inaccurate at worst.

 

[psychoslice]

Again... I started to watch, and I stop at the 40 second mark to comment (I made it halfway through the other video... maybe I'll go back and finish... but I maintain that the woman is an idiot. A dangerous idiot.) that I can tell it's going to be a burden listening to this guy. He can't string two sentences along coherently. I can only hope he'll get better as I keep listening. But I'm not hopeful.

You are a real judgmental person aren't you ?, you have already made up your mind and nothing will ever change that, so watch it, or don't watch it I don't really care.

 

[psychoslice]

Hm...

Without even watching the video, I looked at the two websites it linked to.

The first one links to what appears to be a family-owned chiropractor business. I can't find any independent sources on Dr. Bergman himself to check his credentials, but the thing is: doctors who are specialists in one field shouldn't really be trusted with information on medical matters outside that field. They may mean well, but they aren't going to necessarily know any more about those fields than anyone else.

The second website linked to, however, is a MAJOR red flag. The tagline "Proven Techniques for Improving Your Health Naturally!" has two obvious red flags: the word "proven", and the exclamation mark at the end. These alone are indicative of scam. The word "naturally" is also a red flag; all medicines are natural, because they all contain ingredients that come from nature. The biggest nail in this website's coffin, however, is the checklist that lists what non-members don't have vs. what members have, akin to companies providing side-by-side comparisons for various products such as computers or anti-virus software. Plus, even being a "non-member" costs 500 USD, with membership costing 10 USD a month, along with a "7 day FREE trial". I understand that medicine is expensive, and some monetary compensation is expected and understandable when consulting any kind of doctor, whether corporate or family-owned. However, these are supposed to be "proven techniques", which implies that they're things that you can do without the need of medication. The first thing that comes to mind immediately at this are penis-enlargement scams, or those "three things to say to make any woman have sex with you!" scams, that appear on porn sites.

For these reasons, it is my judgment that the provided source, in this case a video, is not worth a single second more of my consideration or time, and that any "information" it provides is not trustworthy at best and dangerously inaccurate at worst.

Well there you are, I believe what he says, and you don't, who cares. I don't.