Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[psychoslice]

Lighthouse your a god sent, you know what your talking about and I admire you, thank you.

 

[Sapiens]

Herd immunity is the paranoid conspiracy theory.

Herd imunity is a remakably simple concept. Even the paranoid should be able to understand it:

"It is never safe to assume anything" is not paranoid conspiracy theory. There you go again, making assumptions you do not know and self-proclaiming to be intelligent and to know the unknown.

I am perhaps the least assuming person that your path will ever cross, true skepticism is the stake in the heart of your zealotry. You accuse me of assuming, but fail to grasp that your accusation makes more assumptions than it reveals. Are you sure your last name is not "Trump?"

 

[Lighthouse]

Herd imunity is a remakably simple concept. Even the paranoid should be able to understand it:

I am perhaps the least assuming person that your path will ever cross, true skepticism is the stake in the heart of your zealotry. You accuse me of assuming, but fail to grasp that your accusation makes more assumptions than it reveals. Are you sure your last name is not "Trump?"

Very simple it is, and when the variable of "vaccination" comes in it becomes false and just a common mentality that the herd possesses. Being immunized and being vaccinated are separate.

Perhaps you are. When someone claims to know something that is unknown, it may be pointed out.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse your a god sent, you know what your talking about and I admire you, thank you.

Thank you, friend. Taking that very humbly. Thank you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1) Asymptomatic carriers. Shedding has been evidenced and is easily proven and shown. Once again, vaccines do not STOP the spreading of a disease.
2) Lies. Waning immunity occurs, this lifelong immunity is also a myth and wishful thinking.

As you said, life in general is risky. We know hardly anything about neurology and immunology, for all we know cancers, weak immune systems, and aids was caused by vaccinations and passed down genetically. You and I don't know that. Stop being dishonest in saying that you know this because you have done the research and have complete research and are all knowing. You seem to be opposed to anything natural to help strengthen immunity, which is odd.

You believe you know how science works. Once again, sound science is willingly replicated anywhere else in the community for the love of truth and science. This is not sound science. There is zero replication. The method behind this has an immense conflict of interest. Very little is known about the neurology and immunology, what don't you understand about that? I believe you are mistakenly placing vaccinations in the ranks of every other field of science in which many other fields are easily replicated, sound and known. It's one way they con the naive, vulnerable, and guillable.... masquerading something that is not sound science as if it is.

Before pointing the finger my friend, what are you doing? Taking someone's word for it. I really do not "need" to do anything.

Once again, you have not really addressed anything I said.

I asked you for a source. I didn't ask you to repeat misinformation about shedding. Do you not have a source for your claim?

I know how science works. I've done science. I presented several studies to you demonstrating exactly what you've asked for. If you willingly refuse to look at the science, then you can't say I'm the one "taking someone's word for it" - that would actually be you. You could learn too. But it appears that you are not interested in that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's a high throne there of yours, is there a vaccination for a boastful ego yet?

I've presented scientific information. You have not. Please note the difference.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is not proper scientific methodology. 1. HUGE conflict of interest. 2. Not replicated. 3. There is virtually little known about neurology and the immune system, short/mid/long term effects.

To what are you referring?

Forgive me, "attenuate."

No, have you? Neither has the greater scientific community.

Are you that guillable and unable to see the many garbage that has went through that same process you say and has been recalled, removed, altered due to very harmful effects being found down the road? I honestly don't know how you can say the methodology is scientific and sound. Why wasn't it known in the first place through all of these rigorous trials you claim? Why is it exposed to millions of people first before finding out? Are you aware of what conflict of interest is?

Can you please for once address what I said in the post you are responding to?

Do you know how many studies are done on animals in which they all develop cancers, diseases, die, this and that and are still pushed on humans? And when humans get these diseases it's magical coincidence and can hide behind the virtually limitless unknown of the brain, body, and its immune system?
It's called taking advantage of the unknown and a human system that is highly complex far beyond our understanding.

Do you? Forgive me for saying so, but it appears that you are not well versed in the details of preclinical and clinical testing in the first place.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You have nothing to be sorry for.
Your opinions are fine.

That's apparently all Natural News has to offer. Opinions. And sometimes just outright false information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Herd mentality is demonstrably true. Seeking social acceptance and popularity I believe is the number one cause of herd mentality followed by not yet evolving a mental faculty capable and free of being able to think for oneself. You're trying too hard and missing the truth. All one has to do is listen and think rationally to be aware of how it's just not possible. No research is even required. No he said she said is even required. No doing your homework is even required. It's really that simple.

This is the same old song and dance from conspiracy theorists. "I think for myself because I can Google things and those who accept empirical evidence are stupid sheep." The problem is, that it's just wrong.

I mean, it's great to think about things and use our reasoning skills and all. But when it comes to vaccines and medicines and things of that nature, we need to employ more than just thinking and opining about things - that's if we care about what is actually true. The fact of the matter is, there are people in the world with the knowledge, education and expertise to carry out tests and studies and produce empirical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of a claim (or doesn't). And these people (scientists!) publish their work so that other scientists and laypeople may review it, critique it, try to replicate it, or disprove it. This method is how we've managed to acquire so much knowledge about the world we live in and the things within it.

Simply stating, "well I've thought about it and read some blogs about it and so now my opinion is more accurate and valuable than the available empirical data" isn't going to lead you to the truth. It's going to lead you to the opinion you feel like holding.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Booster shots, lol. Why do you need a booster shot in the first place? How long do boosters last? All you have to do if you wish is clear your mind and say "booster shots" 10 times until you become aware of how silly that sounds.

How many adults get these booster shots? Maybe 15%?

These are things you could easily find out for yourself. In the case of MMR, children receive two doses - the first one at 12-15 months and the second at 4-6 years of age. One dose of MMR is 93% effective, while two doses is 97% effective.Whether a dose is required in adulthood depends on the year one was born.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/mmr-vaccine-when-needed.aspx
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/immune/mmr.aspx

How do we know this stuff? Science!!

 

[SkepticThinker]

As said, living longer while unhealthy and with more and more diseases. Hence, suffering longer.

What's your evidence backing up this claim?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Herd immunity is the paranoid conspiracy theory.

"It is never safe to assume anything" is not paranoid conspiracy theory. There you go again, making assumptions you do not know and self-proclaiming to be intelligent and to know the unknown.

Come on. You're saying much, much more than that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Lighthouse your a god sent, you know what your talking about and I admire you, thank you.

A strange comment considering that opinion flies in the face of the facts.

 

[Sapiens]

Very simple it is, and when the variable of "vaccination" comes in it becomes false and just a common mentality that the herd possesses. Being immunized and being vaccinated are separate.

The relationship is well known and documented: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11468744

Perhaps you are. When someone claims to know something that is unknown, it may be pointed out.

It is not "unknown" to most people, just to you and a few other fringe believers who are ignorant (often willful ignorant) of the science.

 

[Lighthouse]

Once again, you have not really addressed anything I said.

I asked you for a source. I didn't ask you to repeat misinformation about shedding. Do you not have a source for your claim?

I know how science works. I've done science. I presented several studies to you demonstrating exactly what you've asked for. If you willingly refuse to look at the science, then you can't say I'm the one "taking someone's word for it" - that would actually be you. You could learn too. But it appears that you are not interested in that.

Where do I start? A few of the many:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/baboon-study-reveals-new-shortcoming-of-pertussis-vaccine/

http://www.nvic.org/CMSTemplates/NVIC/pdf/Live-Virus-Vaccines-and-Vaccine-Shedding.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24076325/

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00053391.htm where the CDC themselves acknowledge they can shed.

Somehow your mind is able to bypass and ignore any other science it doesn't want to see. Perhaps a self-investigation on to why that is may do you well.

I know, you already know everything.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is the same old song and dance from conspiracy theorists. "I think for myself because I can Google things and those who accept empirical evidence are stupid sheep." The problem is, that it's just wrong.

I mean, it's great to think about things and use our reasoning skills and all. But when it comes to vaccines and medicines and things of that nature, we need to employ more than just thinking and opining about things - that's if we care about what is actually true. The fact of the matter is, there are people in the world with the knowledge, education and expertise to carry out tests and studies and produce empirical evidence that demonstrates the veracity of a claim (or doesn't). And these people (scientists!) publish their work so that other scientists and laypeople may review it, critique it, try to replicate it, or disprove it. This method is how we've managed to acquire so much knowledge about the world we live in and the things within it.

Simply stating, "well I've thought about it and read some blogs about it and so now my opinion is more accurate and valuable than the available empirical data" isn't going to lead you to the truth. It's going to lead you to the opinion you feel like holding.

Once again, where are these vaccines replicated or tried to replicate? Where are the replicated results?
Indeed, that method is done by all of the great amounts of sound science while you are failing to admit that that method does not apply to the common vaccines.
It is deceitful to try and hide vaccines in with actual sound science and methodology.
Again, I believe you are told something is science and automatically assume it is. It is one of the greatest tricks on the herd's mind. "Who doesn't believe in science? People are crazy if they don't believe in science." And you fall for it, not knowing this junk is not credible science and it's methodology is not sound science and is heavily flawed. It is relying ultimately on blind faith and not science. So how do you know that stuff? 1. You do not know. 2. Blind faith.

 

[Lighthouse]

The relationship is well known and documented: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11468744

It is not "unknown" to most people, just to you and a few other fringe believers who are ignorant (often willful ignorant) of the science.

The science just really isn't there. A strong lack of mental faculty lingers in those whom do not see this. Mistaking very flawed, poor methodology, no replicated results or replicated methods for sound science makes science look bad. To many scientists, their reputation is a large matter too.
You have spoken accurately, some are ignorant of the science because the sound science is just not there.
Pretending something is existent where it is non-existent I believe the proper term used in the field is called delusion. And correlation does not imply causation in science.

 

[Lighthouse]

A strange comment considering that opinion flies in the face of the facts.

Again, your mind is somehow able to bypass all of the facts you don't want to see or can't see for that matter. A self-investigation on to why that is may do you very well. Very beneficial to health.

 

[Lighthouse]

Come on. You're saying much, much more than that.

I am saying to not make assumptions rather than the hundreds of bold statements you have already claimed to know in which no one else knows. Have I found evidence of God? Is it you?

 

[Lighthouse]

These are things you could easily find out for yourself. In the case of MMR, children receive two doses - the first one at 12-15 months and the second at 4-6 years of age. One dose of MMR is 93% effective, while two doses is 97% effective.Whether a dose is required in adulthood depends on the year one was born.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/mmr-vaccine-when-needed.aspx
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/public/publications/immune/mmr.aspx

How do we know this stuff? Science!!

That is inaccurate and heavily biased through conflict of interest yet again. Relaying the CDC and governments results that have not been replicated anywhere else is, is not sound science.
I'm not sure how you bypassed all of the science and research that disagrees with those percentages. One again, you failed to address waning, how long they are effective, how virus's mutate and change, how vaccines attenuate.
A fully vaccinated and boostered adult can get their titer test and result in negative. A boostered adult can get their titer test and be positive for 6 months, get another titer test and be negative. An unvaccinated child and adult can get a titer test and be positive for immunity. Being vaccinated and being immune are separate. Being immune by vaccination also is skeptical as to what someone is actually immune to and if they are immune. As positive results of immunity still yield one becoming infected.