That's not the "availability" at the doctor's office you claimed. He was simply pointing out your factual incorrectness. It's an example of mistakes you make. Do you need a better example? I can think of a few pretty easily.
It wasn't a mistake, it was a reply to a vaguely worded statement that is now being used to say I made a mistake. Maybe you should both attempt to be much more precise in postings.
Instead of getting your facts wrong, why didn't you first ask for clarification before making an assertion? It wasn't exactly the most logical move on your part.
My response was based on what I read. There wasn't anything in his post that I felt needed clarification. Until he started claiming that is not what he had originally said. It is important to be able to make your points clearly on these threads.
People don't ask, they assume. Example, perhaps someone isn't getting the vaccine because they are Orthodox Jews or another religion that has a basis for considering it spiritually defiling behavior.
Usually people who have a religious reason for not getting a vaccine simply say, "My faith prevents us from using vaccinations." I have never heard of anybody with a religious objection saying they can't get the vaccine because it causes autism.
All over the world people are personally witnessing the consequences of vaccination, with 1/5 of our precious children now learning disabled. I think people have a right to be afraid.
How come you provided no cite with this claim. How were they disabled? Were other factors accounted for in the reporting? You say things like this and they are complete drivel to anybody with a background in science because they lack any supporting evidence at all.
I post portions of your post because the whole thing is already sitting there above my post and I want to speak to you on a single assertion I pick at a time, rather than try to make a single comment on a soup of ideas.
You could always do like I do and break the post up like this and respond to each point. You felt it was important enough to say, I respect you enough to take the time to reply to what you say. I may not agree with you, but I do try respect you enough to respond to your enter post.
Not to mention, some of the things you say are so obviously superfluous or weak that I don't feel a need to say anything to those points.
To others, what I say is accurate and on-point.
One person is trying to enforce assault while the other is objecting. It's not extreme to object to forced medical procedures.
Forced as in strapped down is one thing. Required for school attendance is another. I would never forcefully make anybody get a shot. Given the potential of serious harm to all attendees of a public school, I have no problem with a school requiring vaccinations as a condition of attendance. With allowances made for reasonable exclusions based on a set of narrow exceptions.
In your haste, you got a Gardasil shot that has not been studied or improved on over the course of time. Now there's another one out and you have to take the same vaccination risk all over again when it hits the market. And then there will be another improvement. Will you have to retake it all again when Gardasil 20 or 50 comes out?
What a waste.
No, we will not be re-vaccinating. There is no need. The injections were completed so we are done.
Ok. Seemed like you were biased for a minute.
Just remember that ALL news sources are biased.
Especially if they are trying to shame people out of critical thinking by getting stuck on scapegoats like Wakefield.
There are plenty of blogs on the net that will try to scare people out of critical thinking using whatever measures work.
It's a red herring. Everything about that story is messed up, especially the attitude that if Wakefield had somehow been "valid" it would have been proof of the autism/vaccine connection. Hello? Can't anyone see the hole in that logic?
The single largest hole in the study is that we have no idea what causes autism. There is no blood test for it, no CT scan or other diagnostic test, it is diagnosed strictly based on behavior. How can one possible conclude the relationship between autism and anything given that we don't what causes autism in the first place?
But it wasn't controlled by muzzling and assaulting the unwilling with vaccines.
There was a vaccine available as early as 1770. Given what small pox did to populations, to families, I am sure that people would have lined up to get the vaccine if they knew it would prevent small pox. There is a reason our forefathers spent so much time, money and effort developing a way to combat disease. It was not to control people or make them sick, it was to save them from death and blindness and parallelization and deafness and all the other things they witnessed in the world around them.
lain:
