Forced Vaccination is Wrong

[Tyrathca]

Is it really? Proof? I'm inclined to disagree, considering what shoddy birth/death data was used to smear homebirth. Fact is, in most, if not all homebirth data sets it's impossible to tease apart the different kinds of homebirth, some due to lawlessness, some due to drug use and hiding pregnancy, etc. So saying homebirth is dangerous is really difficult to prove. (just an example)

1PM you are letting your blind hated of the medical profession cloud your thinking again. Car on point you've tried to drag your other pet topic of home births in.

Anyway your point is moot, your complaining about an area where the data for a subset analysis isn't collected (for whatever reason). This is irrelevant to vaccines given that data is regularly collected and used. As for "proof" of how scientists collect and analyze disease complication rates - if the methodologies of the innumerable studies freely available on the internet isn't sufficient what would be for you?

That definitely complicates things, especially when doctors are so proficient at misdiagnosis

Please don't turn this info another thread of everything 1PM hates about doctors.

Personally, I've not only gotten a high school diploma and all, I took all the health and medicine courses they offered as electives.

I study health and science every year I get pregnant. And every time I or a loved one gets sick and needs answers. My husband has medical training and two degrees. He's treated wounded civilians on the battlefield.

Do you really want to start comparing our relevant educations in health sciences? We can if you want....

But a high school diploma and some health related electives isn't all that impressive. Simply put I doubt they taught this particular in much depth or quality (if at all) and rather focused on lots of basic physiology. That certainly seems the thrust of most classes I've heard of. Even if they did teach it and we'll you clearly don't know it now, hardly surprising given it can be so dry and boring to learn and so hard to retain if you don't apply it either in research or reading and reviewing journal articles yourself.

And as for your husband I hardly think they'd have taught him health statistics for (?advanced/basic?) first aid training (I'm assuming those degrees aren't medical given the way you said it - correct me if I'm wrong)

Kudos on the education and I'm sure it can come in handy, particularly your husband's. But if you're going to pull an argument from authority you need to make it either more impressive or more specific. Regardless of your authority on the matter (or lack there of) my previous comments on your understanding still stand.

Those methods are subject to the flaws in human thinking normally present. I seriously doubt that you will find the data infallible.

True that's why peer review processes are in place to help us all catch those failures. Unless your going to try and treat down the merits of the scientific method I'm not sure where your going with this....

If you ARE trying to treat down the scientific method then that is hilarious, given the circumstances.

 

[Rusha]

And if you continue vaccinating, you will continue adding more and more vaccinations to your schedules.

There are millions of contagious, potentially lethal viral strains out there. More new ones appear all the time.

Since Tyrathca' last reply pretty well nailed it (in regards to your lack of understanding about vaccines and hatred of the medical profession), I will leave it at that.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

1PM you are letting your blind hated of the medical profession cloud your thinking again.

Now Ty, you don't want to seem like you are just throwing out a logical fallacy.

Why would you assume my thinking is clouded just because I'm skeptical? It is okay to be hesitant and have questions.

Are you trying to say I have a habit of illegitimate concerns?

How does this post you made relate to the thread topic?

Car on point you've tried to drag your other pet topic of home births in.

Case on point... that's exactly what I tried to give you. Have a problem with my example? Need a different one?

You want lay people to accept that vaccines are safe? (wrong thread, man) Speak to them in terms that are sensible and useful.

Anyway your point is moot, your complaining about an area where the data for a subset analysis isn't collected (for whatever reason).

Actually that is very average for death data. How do you propose that they would tease out "pure measles deaths" from associated deaths, such as for post vaccination events?

This is irrelevant to vaccines given that data is regularly collected and used. As for "proof" of how scientists collect and analyze disease complication rates - if the methodologies of the innumerable studies freely available on the internet isn't sufficient what would be for you?

Do the studies account for the rate of misdiagnosis and deaths during a measles episode that is not measles induced by detailed forensic analysis? Is such a thing even possible?

There's a reason it's taking so long to nail down what causes SIDS, you know, and it isn't a lack of autopsies.

Please don't turn this info another thread of everything 1PM hates about doctors.

This thread is about forced vaccination. If docs do it, then I assert they are wrong. Fzappa's objective is valid. He's explaining, bits at a time, why parents object and thus why forcing is wrong.

Do you really want to start comparing our relevant educations in health sciences? We can if you want....

There are limits in education and understanding to every discipline. Don't dismiss me because my angle of information is different than yours.

But a high school diploma and some health related electives isn't all that impressive.

I didn't state all my qualifications to have this conversation on this thread, but I believe you are underplaying it by overlooking my experience in self education as a mother of 7.

Being an autodidact is a very legitimate form of education. It is also generally done by standing on the shoulders of giants and learning through their words and methodology.

Simply put I doubt they taught this particular in much depth or quality (if at all) and rather focused on lots of basic physiology. That certainly seems the thrust of most classes I've heard of. Even if they did teach it and we'll you clearly don't know it now, hardly surprising given it can be so dry and boring to learn and so hard to retain if you don't apply it either in research or reading and reviewing journal articles yourself.

I'm not going to sit here and brag about myself to make you a believer. I don't want to be unquestioningly followed. Yuck, that would be!

Let's examine the facts at hand, instead.

And as for your husband I hardly think they'd have taught him health statistics for (?advanced/basic?) first aid training (I'm assuming those degrees aren't medical given the way you said it - correct me if I'm wrong)

Now, I'm tempted to brag because you are speaking of my highly intelligent, successful husband who actually has more medical experience than you imply. Much more.

I don't want to make him uncomfortable since he posts here, so I'll just leave it at that.

BUT - do judges need to be epidemiologists or immunologists to rule on cases involving medicine? No. We don't need that either to see why the information on vaccination we have is far from complete.

.. if you're going to pull an argument from authority...

No way, man. I thought you were doing that.

But it would help if you stopped talking to me like I'm a dumb hick.

True that's why peer review processes are in place to help us all catch those failures.

Is peer review a flawless process? What kind of things might influence peer reviews? It's all well and good to see a few smarty-pants declare their peers report sound, but unless they lay their thinking process out for meta-disciplinary review in the public eye, they are nothing more than secretive high priests.

Unless your going to try and treat down the merits of the scientific method I'm not sure where your going with this....

You are looking at this from 5,000 ft and I'm pulled back up to 50,000. I can see more of the overall picture.

If you ARE trying to treat down the scientific method then that is hilarious, given the circumstances.

You mean, since you see me as unlearned and uninformed about science and life? Too hasty, Ty. Just stick to the subject.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Since Tyrathca' last reply pretty well nailed it (in regards to your lack of understanding about vaccines and hatred of the medical profession), I will leave it at that.

You want to brag about your comprehensive knowledge of vaccines and unwavering worship of white coat workers, be my guest.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

So common sense says that this incident may have absolutely nothing to do with vaccine safety. I hope you see that.

This thread is about human rights, not vaccine safety. I hope you see that.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Why weren't the police notified of the attempted *assault*? There is no way parents would not call the police over an attempted assault.



Any reference to a child's temper tantrum and threats of destruction as a *common sense response* is not based on rationality.

Way to mangle what I said.

 

[Tyrathca]

Now Ty, you don't want to seem like you are just throwing out a logical fallacy.

It's only a logical fallacy if I say you are wrong because of it, instead I say it is why you say wrong things.

Why would you assume my thinking is clouded just because I'm skeptical? It is okay to be hesitant and have questions.

It is not that you are skeptical, many people are skeptical of medicine and science but few of them are driven by hate. Instead it is clear in your words themselves, your biases in attention and your recurring tangential thoughts about topics. If your aren't driven by hate of medicine and doctors then you certainly seem to talk like you do, most likely I think you lack insight.

Case on point... that's exactly what I tried to give you. Have a problem with my example? Need a different one?

The example you raised did not reflect the same issue as the one previously being discussed. It is barely relevant at best, yet you try to shoehorn it into this thread.

Actually that is very average for death data. How do you propose that they would tease out "pure measles deaths" from associated deaths, such as for post vaccination events?

The first and most intuitive way would be to have a comparison group. I.e. children of similar age and demographics to the vaccine data however who have not recently (or ever) had a vaccine. Then compare rates of relevant complications and test for statistical significance. Unfortunately given we are talking about such tiny percentage (~100 in many many millions) or comparison group is going to need to be very large too.

Anyway long story short we need a comparison rate of deaths/symptoms within a similar population over a similar time to see if vaccines rates are higher than expected. This would be a potential good start.

There's a reason it's taking so long to nail down what causes SIDS, you know, and it isn't a lack of autopsies.

I await your paper on the issue and the various accolades you'll surely recurve for solving this (irrelevant to the current topic) issue.

This thread is about forced vaccination. If docs do it, then I assert they are wrong. Fzappa's objective is valid. He's explaining, bits at a time, why parents object and thus why forcing is wrong.

And I am explaining why the arguments fzappa is using are wrong.

I didn't state all my qualifications to have this conversation on this thread, but I believe you are underplaying it by overlooking my experience in self education as a mother of 7.

Being an autodidact is a very legitimate form of education. It is also generally done by standing on the shoulders of giants and learning through their words and methodology.

Then I wonder why you bothered presenting your (and your husband's) qualifications at all. I had asked you to show understanding not your degrees and prior education. What you said seemed to be an attempt to sound impressive, as if to say you really do understand the topic rather than just showing you do.

I do not wish to downplay the impressiveness of any self teaching, especially while raising 7 children. However none of what you cited was impressive in a manner relevant to the discussion. None of what you cited as education would give me much confidence about understanding medical research regardless of who said it. So kudos on the education but I'm still left wondering "what's your point?"

Now, I'm tempted to brag because you are speaking of my highly intelligent, successful husband who actually has more medical experience than you imply. Much more.

I don't want to make him uncomfortable since he posts here, so I'll just leave it at that.

I was simply interpreting what you implied. I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong, but you were very vague to start with. But your not going to correct me just imply that whatever he learned was very impressive.... To which I can only shrug and think "why should I care?..." Given you're not, nor ever were, going to say more.

But it would help if you stopped talking to me like I'm a dumb hick.

You're not a dumb hick but you are someone who presumes to know far more than you actually do. To the point of point of calling entire disciplines into question when you clearly know nothing of what they involve or what issues they've already dealt with long ago.

Is peer review a flawless process? What kind of things might influence peer reviews? It's all well and good to see a few smarty-pants declare their peers report sound, but unless they lay their thinking process out for meta-disciplinary review in the public eye, they are nothing more than secretive high priests.

Ummmm.... That's generally covered in their "introduction" and "methods" sections of the paper....

Are you REALLY trying to try and challenge the entire scientific establishment? Sure it is imperfect and could use a few reforms but it's overall outstandingly successful endeavor of which I doubt you'll find much relevant to change with regards to vaccines.

You are looking at this from 5,000 ft and I'm pulled back up to 50,000. I can see more of the overall picture.

Riiiight...... I'm going to chalk this up to the dunning-kruger affect and delusions of grandeur.

 

[Rusha]

You want to brag about your comprehensive knowledge of vaccines and unwavering worship of white coat workers, be my guest.

:chuckle: You won't find me trying to convince anyone that I know WAAAYYY more than those in the medical community with their worthless degrees.

Pointing out that they deal with facts rather than emotions isn't worship.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

It's only a logical fallacy if I say you are wrong because of it, instead I say it is why you say wrong things.

How logical is it to claim blind hatred of the medical profession on my part? How would you even draw a logical conclusion like that based on my own words?

It is not that you are skeptical, many people are skeptical of medicine and science but few of them are driven by hate.

I'm not and am chagrined you think I am. It's not hate that drives me, it's human rights! :doh: I'm always trying to use TOL to help humanity. Talking about Bayer is not hate. Talking about intentional and accidental misdiagnosis is not hate.

It's done to remind people why individualism is critical to a prosperous and free people.

Instead it is clear in your words themselves, your biases in attention and your recurring tangential thoughts about topics.

You are not a mind reader. I appreciate a lot of things about science and medicine. But both have limits. Some of those limits are commercial. Some are simply limits based on our lack of experience. We seem to be constantly learning and revising our understanding of the world.

Long term studies don't yet exist on these matters. Period.

If your aren't driven by hate of medicine and doctors then you certainly seem to talk like you do, most likely I think you lack insight.

What insight do you think I lack, specifically?

The example you raised did not reflect the same issue as the one previously being discussed. It is barely relevant at best, yet you try to shoehorn it into this thread.

Don't get flaky. If it's not relevant, at least take a passing stab at describing why. I would find another example of bad epidemiology if you like.

The point is, we all know that there is still much to learn and the human body is so complex that when you try to figure out what really is causing the associated <0.03% chance of dying during a measles episode, you might find the vaccine is an overreaction. So were measles parties.

I can't blame doctors for wanting to sell a party in a needle to those parents who purposefully expose their children to prevent later diseases, considering it's probably a lot safer than a measles party itself - and a lot more profitable for pediatricians.

But that doesn't make it right to forcibly vaccinate all children suddenly.

The first and most intuitive way would be to have a comparison group. I.e. children of similar age and demographics to the vaccine data however who have not recently (or ever) had a vaccine. Then compare rates of relevant complications and test for statistical significance. Unfortunately given we are talking about such tiny percentage (~100 in many many millions) or comparison group is going to need to be very large too.

Anyway long story short we need a comparison rate of deaths/symptoms within a similar population over a similar time to see if vaccines rates are higher than expected. This would be a potential good start.

And who's gonna fund that study? They seem to need to get around to lots of studies on vaccines and start documenting the long term effects yet to be observed.

It will be hard work; vaccine resisters may have a lot of confounding variables in their population to account for. And since nothing specific will be patented over the research, we probably won't see a commission for a study like that.

I await your paper on the issue and the various accolades you'll surely recurve for solving this (irrelevant to the current topic) issue.

Don't you know why I said that? Nevermind, I can only assume this is a dodge. If you dared to answer that comment with any speculation where would it lead you?

It's one thing to have a cold body and a limited medical history, and it's another to know what to look for. Not only that, death certificates, at least in the US, are not exactly precise instruments. How good they are depends on who is filling them out.

It's a headache for epidemiologists, to say the least.

And I am explaining why the arguments fzappa is using are wrong.

Let me see if I can rephrase your point, then you clarify. His reasons for resisting vaccines (or some vaccines) is wrong because people like you find fault with his information.

But you are not seeing the bigger picture. You seem to think he's just throwing tiny pieces of the puzzle out there, but actually he's also supplying the bigger picture from the parent's point of view. He's showing why parents object, which is not something that can be rushed through or glossed over.

Until you get our consent and cooperation jamming needles into us will not solve anything at all. In fact, there may be far worse problems awaiting us as a society for recklessly ignoring the objections of the few.

Are you a Utilitarian, Tyrathca?

Then I wonder why you bothered presenting your (and your husband's) qualifications at all. I had asked you to show understanding not your degrees and prior education. What you said seemed to be an attempt to sound impressive, as if to say you really do understand the topic rather than just showing you do.

Do you think we are incapable of determining our family's health care choices? Because if there is any appeal to authority, it's that we have the authority to think this through and discuss the particulars as they relate to our social freedoms.

Do you think the State should take that choice away? Do you think your job is determining if we are too wrong to get to have medical freedom and the ability to withhold consent?

I do not wish to downplay the impressiveness of any self teaching, especially while raising 7 children. However none of what you cited was impressive in a manner relevant to the discussion.

Did you notice the title of the thread? This discussion is being had by the people who want a choice what needles go into their children and want their adolescents to also be able to refuse prophylaxis if they are able to consent.

None of what you cited as education would give me much confidence about understanding medical research regardless of who said it. So kudos on the education but I'm still left wondering "what's your point?"

So imagine for a minute that I didn't understand a thing about medical research. Do you think I have the capacity to educate myself? Do you believe I could go to kahnacademy.com and study statistics, etc, and then on my own time research the issues?

Should the state rush me in the process and deny me and my family the ability to choose a vaccine-free or vaccine-selective lifestyle because I have not yet gotten around to assuring myself all vaccines are safe?

How much thinking did it require of you to trust and get your shots?? Do you feel you had informed consent? Do you think others should only take a certain proscribed amount of approved information in while determining the choice they will make?

I was simply interpreting what you implied. I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong, but you were very vague to start with. But your not going to correct me just imply that whatever he learned was very impressive.... To which I can only shrug and think "why should I care?..." Given you're not, nor ever were, going to say more.

What would it accomplish? I'm sitting here thinking, do I have to be special to argue for the rights of "ordinary" people?

You're not a dumb hick but you are someone who presumes to know far more than you actually do.

I know there is enough of a controversy and enough religious and philosophical reason to enact a moratorium on forced vaccination programs. It's also evident that a 0.03% overall risk of death from measles is a tiny risk to healthy children in this day and age. (overall as in including very ill sufferers from other serious conditions)

To the point of point of calling entire disciplines into question when you clearly know nothing of what they involve or what issues they've already dealt with long ago.

I have the right to question entire disciplines when they call for forced vaccinations. I have vaccine damaged family on both sides. My sister is vaccine damaged. She was born healthy enough, but since her shots as a child she's manifested a broken memory, a short attention span and dyslexia; so bad it's like mild-moderate Alzheimer's. She's got autoimmune disorders, just like our mother, too. It's now coming out that this is a risk factor for complications from the vaccines. Thankfully I didn't get the vaccine schedule she did, so despite showing predisposing risk factors, I was able to keep my intellect. She spent her adolescence watching me excel in school while not trying, while she lost her childhood to long evenings of homework..

Ummmm.... That's generally covered in their "introduction" and "methods" sections of the paper....

Yeah, it is, and it's limitations are on display, too. But if I can't evaluate their evaluations as a LAY person, it's just a secretive priesthood, that's my point. I'm speaking of the forceful attitude of the "all vaccines are safe" crowd.

Are you REALLY trying to try and challenge the entire scientific establishment?

No, but I can see what studies are funded, and what are not. I know they are corrupted by monetary influences at times, if not frequently.

Do you deny this?

Sure it is imperfect and could use a few reforms ...

I want a reform that strips them of demi-god status when it comes to forcing the little people to agree.

but it's overall outstandingly successful endeavor of which I doubt you'll find much relevant to change with regards to vaccines.

Why are immunologists fighting over the efficacy of vaccines? Why do you think that is?

Riiiight...... I'm going to chalk this up to the dunning-kruger affect and delusions of grandeur.

Sorry for annoying you, but the fact is, you want to talk numbers on a detailed scale; more appropriate for another thread. This thread is about the big picture.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

:chuckle: You won't find me trying to convince anyone that I know WAAAYYY more than those in the medical community with their worthless degrees.

Pointing out that they deal with facts rather than emotions isn't worship.

The facts speak for themselves and you can see I'm not doing that at all. I'm only arguing for the right to think for myself when it comes to informed consent.

I don't need a State or the media to tell me what to believe.

 

[fzappa13]

Since Tyrathca' last reply pretty well nailed it (in regards to your lack of understanding about vaccines and hatred of the medical profession), I will leave it at that.

But you didn't, did you? ... and why did you and Try completely dodge my last two posts?

 

[fzappa13]

And I am explaining why the arguments fzappa is using are wrong.

Really? Well, man up. I'm over here ... #532 #533

 

[Tyrathca]

Really? Well, man up. I'm over here ... #532 #533

Yes I see that instead of defend what you've already said you've moved on to pertussis vaccines. Not only that you're just going to throw up various articles that I presume you think show vaccines are bad, without any commentary of your own.

While I'd love to play whack-a-mole with you, you'll have to wait a while as I'm a bit busy for the next day or two to waste my time on such farcical "debate"...

 

[1PeaceMaker]

But you didn't, did you? ... and why did you and Try completely dodge my last two posts?

She's hiding behind him, and he's let her down. Poor thing.

Sorry for distracting Ty though. He wants to play statistics games rather than facing the fact that some children get hurt by vaccines for understandable reasons.

 

[Rusha]

The facts speak for themselves and you can see I'm not doing that at all. I'm only arguing for the right to think for myself when it comes to informed consent.

The fact is that that the informed consent you speak so highly of is one you would readily rob other parents of who do not wish to have have the threat of non vaccinated children around their kids.

 

[Rusha]

But you didn't, did you? ... and why did you and Try completely dodge my last two posts?

No. Substance.

 

[fzappa13]

Yes I see that instead of defend what you've already said you've moved on to pertussis vaccines. Not only that you're just going to throw up various articles that I presume you think show vaccines are bad, without any commentary of your own.

While I'd love to play whack-a-mole with you, you'll have to wait a while as I'm a bit busy for the next day or two to waste my time on such farcical "debate"...

That's what I thought.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

The fact is that that the informed consent you speak so highly of is one you would readily rob other parents of who do not wish to have have the threat of non vaccinated children around their kids.

You rob my children of informed consent, then, when you let your children take ANY communicable bug to school, whether there is a vaccine for it or not. Whether you vaccinated for that bug, or not! Same for you when you go to work with a contagious disease.

But informed consent only applies to procedures which include the possibility of consent.

By contrast, unvaccinated children do not pose a threat when the parents don't willfully expose their children to other infectious children and keep exposed or infected children home temporarily.

Meanwhile, your child may be shedding viruses from vaccines in school and making other children sick, but you wouldn't know, would you?

Hmmm?

Yes I see that instead of defend what you've already said you've moved on to pertussis vaccines. Not only that you're just going to throw up various articles that I presume you think show vaccines are bad, without any commentary of your own.

While I'd love to play whack-a-mole with you, you'll have to wait a while as I'm a bit busy for the next day or two to waste my time on such farcical "debate"...

I really have to thank you, Tyrathca, for spending the time to try and debate the thread topic.

But the title of the thread is not "vaccines are bad" nor is the title "forcing vaccines is safe."

Are you arguing it's good to force-vaccinate people?

I'm sure you would agree, some people are at risk for vaccine complications of a serious nature. Certainly many experts (on both sides of the vaccine debate) agree on this point. Some people have mitochondrial defects which do not cause health complications without vaccines, but which may succumb to health complications, otherwise.

For that very reason alone the population deserves a chance to decide for themselves, especially considering most adverse events are not reported and that's widely known and accepted as a fact. On this thread alone we have such cases, reportedly not sent to VAERS.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

That's what I thought.

You being concerned about a serious controversy and unwilling to subject your children ahead of alleviating or confirming your concerns is a "farce" - I guess.

Or maybe he's arguing that forced vaccination is good and right? :idunno:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

No. Substance.

Yes, your posts have no substance, I agree. But the real question is, do you side with vaccine forcers, and are you willing to argue that jailing parents or taking even temporary custody of their children to force your way is right?

Are you prepared to stand before humanity and God and declare yourself justified?