• Thoughts on mandatory vaccination?
  • Thoughts on mandatory vaccination?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    ProfileAchievementsGamer StatsInventoryLikes List
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Seen
    14th October 2019 12:22 PM
    Location
    France
    Age
    21
    Posts
    291
    Personality
    harrymacdougall
    Wong
    1,435
    So for the links :
    -You've seen my though on pro-con
    -For the fact-check measles link : i didn't think so much misshaps happened, i understand it raises concerns. However i find this study unfair on a point.
    It is presenting measles vaccine as Killing more than measles (which it apparently does), but it is put in such way that it makes it look like the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease, when like they themselves say these are but few hundred if thousands of death in a year in the word when average was 2.6 millions for the disease. But i think it's because it's journalist work, they like to put things too simply.
    Both these links are havily sourced and it's pleasing.
    -National Vaccine Information Center - Julian Whitaker, MD. That one is not a good source i think because on the contrary of the previous two links this one is not sourced. Also the one speaking is a nutritionist neck deep in alt medicine militancy, so neither the best informed, nor the most objective (by far).
    -Vaccine Side Effects and Adverse Events | History of Vaccines link : i like the fact that it both explains possible side effects and remind that babies can get simply close by time to the vaccine. Correlation is not causality, a oh-so-needed reminder.
    -The Proof that vaccinations can spread disease link : Politcal agenda in the very title of the foundation; twisting facts for their agenda (like the no measles death between 2005 and 2014 against 108 MMR death, no death doesn't mean no infection: 108 death is soooo low compared to the tenth if not hundres thousand babies born each year in the US that it's wildly dangerous to call it a threat, which they do); auto-referencing; Weston Price, the foundator, not even working in the vaccination or epidemiology sector as he was dentist and nutritionist etc...
    -Cdc vaccination planning : impressing, but when you look at it, even the first years where they get the most shots, it's all spread by a minimum of two months per dose of the same vaccine (time needed to eliminate potentially dangerous chemicals, to properly eliminate pathogens etc... + safety break). Also vaccines which need several injections work like this either because the appropriate dose is too dangerous for one or two shots, or because the immune system need several encounter to properly register it, like reviewing lessons several times before an exam)
    -Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine récipients link : this is waaaaaay to short of a review to specify anything, and also the traces were found less than two week after injection, which means the vaccine can very well still be processing at this time (even if it's taking too long after ten days, i think).
    -The last link : wtf ? I think you gave the wrong link. Even when going into their short revews linked, they don't say anything about vaccines, they even give you reasons such as health behavior, environmental parameters, and "the cost of inaction". It's out of subject.

    Well thank for the links and now a final word :
    I still learned a lot from those. Like vaccines fuck-ups being more frequent than i thought, or more specific intel on what side-effects.
    In the end i'm grateful for the "second chance", i learned about the topic and why people can be scared.
    In the end i didn't change my mind one bit, but i understand the opposite opinion better.

    Also if you want to know, i arleady myself had vaccine-related issue. I had a pretty scary back-out after my last flu injection (my sight blurred, i lost balance and even conciousness at some point), but it had no lasting concequences and i think it's more because i got an intra-muscular shot when i'm used to intraveinous ones, must have been shock. Next week i'm gonna this year's flu injection, if it happens again, i have to admit i'll be very worried, but i don't know yet.
    And even if, worst-case scenario, i can't get vaccined anymore, i'll still be able to live normally thanks to my compatriots' high vaccination rate.
    Not necessarily because they directly protect me, but just for the respect towards others that vaccination imply.

    Thank you for this discussion.
    Never overestimate mankind.

  2. #22
    ProfileAchievementsGamer StatsInventoryLikes List
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Seen
    14th October 2019 12:22 PM
    Location
    France
    Age
    21
    Posts
    291
    Personality
    harrymacdougall
    Wong
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by StarDood64 View Post
    I don't know what study you're referring to, but there have been many, and no, they have not all been thoroughly debunked. Many doctors still believe in a high correlation between exposure to Thimerosal/Aluminum and autism; google "aluminum adjuvant toxicity". Moreover, although I trust the CDC to an extent (I used them as a source of my own, after all), let's not forget the CDC said only a few years ago that Glyphosate was not a probable human carcinogen...

    There are far too many unknowns in this matter for either side to thoroughly debunk the other, and while vaccines may not cause autism, it's a pretty big coincidence that so many people have latched onto the idea -- supported further by the parallel growth of vaccine usage and autism rates.
    If it can help, autism "growing" might not be that alarming. Each year we are more numerous than the last, and with more people come more autisme because of statistics. Also, it can be a numerical increase but not a real one as we progress towards better diagnosis. Better diagnosis mean less and less people slip under the radar. Which means that it may just be that we let less people go with undiagnosed autism. Good point for the Glyphosate and trust of officials.

    However here is my take on unknown : if we don't know, let's not imagine things and wait for more to be discovered. If i don't know a link, i won't imagine one without more evidence. To make it short : let's not rush to conclusions.
    Never overestimate mankind.

  3. #23
    ProfileAchievementsGamer StatsInventoryLikes List
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Today 09:20 AM
    Age
    30
    Posts
    639
    Personality
    jimhawking
    Wong
    11,323
    Quote Originally Posted by StarDood64 View Post
    I don't know what study you're referring to, but there have been many, and no, they have not all been thoroughly debunked. Many doctors still believe in a high correlation between exposure to Thimerosal/Aluminum and autism; google "aluminum adjuvant toxicity". Moreover, although I trust the CDC to an extent (I used them as a source of my own, after all), let's not forget the CDC said only a few years ago that Glyphosate was not a probable human carcinogen...

    There are far too many unknowns in this matter for either side to thoroughly debunk the other, and while vaccines may not cause autism, it's a pretty big coincidence that so many people have latched onto the idea -- supported further by the parallel growth of vaccine usage and autism rates.
    Yes, the CDC has gotten things wrong, but the only mention I can find of Glyphosate is in biased articles on both sides. The CDC doesn't mention it as an ingredient anywhere. That tells me that it's in such a small small amount, that it poses no harm whatsoever.
    A big coincidence? Yes, it is a coincidence. That's all it is. A lot of people who believe vaccines cause autism read a single study that was not blind in any way and extremely biased. A lot of people didn't do further research, and latched on to only that. The amount of people that believe something isn't in any way indicative of how true it is.
    On your last point, correlation= / =causation. These two things do not have any common accelerent, so it has no bearing here.
    Here's an article from the CDC linking to many other articles also by the CDC.
    Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism Concerns | Vaccine Safety | CDC
    It even talks about Thimerosal and it's non link to ASD.
    Heck, according to the CDC almost no vaccines contain Thimeroal. The only ones that do are multivial flu vaccines.
    Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Additives in Vaccines Fact Sheet
    Thimerosal has been reduced to trace amounts since 2001. So there can't be a link. At least not for the past 18 years.
    As for aluminum salt(not the raw metal), that's in drinking water, antacids, and antiperspirants.

    .

  4. #24
    ProfileAchievementsGamer StatsInventoryLikes List
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Last Seen
    Today 12:36 AM
    Posts
    1,452
    Wong
    33,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemekis View Post
    Does everyone feel the same way about animals? Mandatory vaccinations for dogs, for example?
    I think this depends on the level of care you plan on providing to your animal and it should be closely monitored for the health of each individual animal. My first cat was fully vaccinated and died at the age of 12 from flea treatments. My second cat got his first round of vaccination and it nearly killed him. He hasn't gotten any since. The vet agreed that it is best not to do this.

    I view it the same way I view vaccinating people. It should remain a choice and people need to factor in the individual health of their pet with their vet, the same way you should do this with a doctor and your child. All pets are not the same and not all people are the same.

    I think there needs to be more transparency in general when it comes to health care, as I mentioned before. This goes the same for pets too. Prescription pill sideffects are not often discussed by vets or doctors and they should be looked at prior to giving the person or pet the pills. This hardly happens anymore and it should be a law practiced by all doctors. Vaccination should be no different. There are labels on vaccination boxes for a reason. We have the right to know everything going into our bodies and the choice in the matter. Just like nutrition labels and ingredient lists on food. Sure, a lot of people don't care to read them but it is our right to have the option to know. Does that make sense?

  5. Like StarDood64 liked this post
  6. #25
    ProfileAchievementsGamer StatsInventoryLikes List
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Last Seen
    Today 02:48 PM
    Posts
    74
    Wong
    3,585
    Yes, the CDC has gotten things wrong, but the only mention I can find of Glyphosate is in biased articles on both sides. The CDC doesn't mention it as an ingredient anywhere. That tells me that it's in such a small small amount, that it poses no harm whatsoever.
    Ingredient? I'm not saying there's Glyphosate in vaccines if that's what you mean, I'm simply drawing a comparison; it's difficult to trust an institution on the subject of something like vaccines when you couldn't even trust them to list a substance like Glyphosate as a probable cancer agent (in the face of much evidence suggesting that it was). In other words: CDC, like most organizations, suffers from corporate bias and has a history of being misinformed, purposely or otherwise.

    A big coincidence? Yes, it is a coincidence. That's all it is.
    That's a pretty broad statement for you to make, given that you don't actually know that. It might be a coincidence, it might not. What we know for sure is that there are neurotoxins in vaccines, so it isn't exactly a huge leap in logic to theorize that vaccines cause can cause autism, especially when autism rates have, once again, grown proportionally in relation to administration of vaccines. Even studies that have "debunked" Thimerosal's relationship with autism clearly state that this is not because Thimerosal is safe, but rather, that it is present in such small doses that it couldn't cause autism -- to which I interject a point from my previous post: the cumulative effect is real, and toxins can build up over time, so repeated exposures to Thimerosal or other compounds can, and do, have an effect. Like I said before, you don't have to trust me: ask any doctor why they stagger vaccinations.

    Here's an article from the CDC linking to many other articles also by the CDC.
    You're reading between the lines. Putting aside the fact that this article uses colorful wording like "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism" to dismiss findings that possibly support the theory, the article also clearly states that Thimerosal is only present in multi-vial flu vaccines... for children. That says nothing about adults, and this is only relevant to the United States. Moreover, if you didn't know already, those multi-vial flu vaccines are among the most common. If anything, this article is more damning towards your argument than supportive of it.

    Thimerosal has been reduced to trace amounts since 2001. So there can't be a link.
    I'll repeat once again: it's called the cumulative effect. Even if we can totally rule out that these "trace amounts" aren't harmful (and we can't), just because there are "trace amounts" of something doesn't mean that it can't have long term effects; it just means that short term effects are harder to observe.

    As for aluminum salt(not the raw metal), that's in drinking water, antacids, and antiperspirants. ]
    Neurotoxic compounds are found in more than just vaccines? You don't say... Here's an article from the PubMed.gov:

    Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe? - PubMed - NCBI

    "Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science's understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted."

    Wait, so this almost sounds like... we're using known neurotoxins in vaccines despite a lack of medical knowledge as to their effects; and the government even admits it. Hmm, yep, the autism myth has been debunked.
    Last edited by StarDood64; 14th October 2019 at 01:47 AM.

  7. #26
    ProfileAchievementsGamer StatsInventoryLikes List
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Last Seen
    Today 02:48 PM
    Posts
    74
    Wong
    3,585
    Quote Originally Posted by S1LVERST@R35 View Post
    So for the links :
    -You've seen my though on pro-con
    -For the fact-check measles link : i didn't think so much misshaps happened, i understand it raises concerns. However i find this study unfair on a point.
    It is presenting measles vaccine as Killing more than measles (which it apparently does), but it is put in such way that it makes it look like the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease, when like they themselves say these are but few hundred if thousands of death in a year in the word when average was 2.6 millions for the disease. But i think it's because it's journalist work, they like to put things too simply.
    Both these links are havily sourced and it's pleasing.
    -National Vaccine Information Center - Julian Whitaker, MD. That one is not a good source i think because on the contrary of the previous two links this one is not sourced. Also the one speaking is a nutritionist neck deep in alt medicine militancy, so neither the best informed, nor the most objective (by far).
    -Vaccine Side Effects and Adverse Events | History of Vaccines link : i like the fact that it both explains possible side effects and remind that babies can get simply close by time to the vaccine. Correlation is not causality, a oh-so-needed reminder.
    -The Proof that vaccinations can spread disease link : Politcal agenda in the very title of the foundation; twisting facts for their agenda (like the no measles death between 2005 and 2014 against 108 MMR death, no death doesn't mean no infection: 108 death is soooo low compared to the tenth if not hundres thousand babies born each year in the US that it's wildly dangerous to call it a threat, which they do); auto-referencing; Weston Price, the foundator, not even working in the vaccination or epidemiology sector as he was dentist and nutritionist etc...
    -Cdc vaccination planning : impressing, but when you look at it, even the first years where they get the most shots, it's all spread by a minimum of two months per dose of the same vaccine (time needed to eliminate potentially dangerous chemicals, to properly eliminate pathogens etc... + safety break). Also vaccines which need several injections work like this either because the appropriate dose is too dangerous for one or two shots, or because the immune system need several encounter to properly register it, like reviewing lessons several times before an exam)
    -Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine récipients link : this is waaaaaay to short of a review to specify anything, and also the traces were found less than two week after injection, which means the vaccine can very well still be processing at this time (even if it's taking too long after ten days, i think).
    -The last link : wtf ? I think you gave the wrong link. Even when going into their short revews linked, they don't say anything about vaccines, they even give you reasons such as health behavior, environmental parameters, and "the cost of inaction". It's out of subject.

    Well thank for the links and now a final word :
    I still learned a lot from those. Like vaccines fuck-ups being more frequent than i thought, or more specific intel on what side-effects.
    In the end i'm grateful for the "second chance", i learned about the topic and why people can be scared.
    In the end i didn't change my mind one bit, but i understand the opposite opinion better.

    Also if you want to know, i arleady myself had vaccine-related issue. I had a pretty scary back-out after my last flu injection (my sight blurred, i lost balance and even conciousness at some point), but it had no lasting concequences and i think it's more because i got an intra-muscular shot when i'm used to intraveinous ones, must have been shock. Next week i'm gonna this year's flu injection, if it happens again, i have to admit i'll be very worried, but i don't know yet.
    And even if, worst-case scenario, i can't get vaccined anymore, i'll still be able to live normally thanks to my compatriots' high vaccination rate.
    Not necessarily because they directly protect me, but just for the respect towards others that vaccination imply.

    Thank you for this discussion.
    I didn't have a chance to response to both you and pseudohippie's posts earlier, and given that your response was much longer, I decided to answer him first. So, I suppose I'll be a degenerate double poster and answer you now.

    First off, let me say that I'm proud of you. Transcending the bias and anger we have towards people who disagree with us is one of the hallmark signs of personal growth. Whether we're arguing about vaccines, or discussing our favorite food items, the minute someone states an opposite opinion, it's very difficult to look beyond that. Even topics as meaningless as music or fashion can spur heated arguments among most people, so when you stumble onto a topic as virulent as the vaccination debate, it's easy to see how tempers can rise quickly. To your credit, you went from saying I "disgusted you", to saying that you now understand the opposite viewpoint better and are appreciative of my response; again, that is very mature behavior, and I commend you for it. Even though your opinion has not changed, you kept an open mind -- good on you for that.

    In relation to the rest of your posts, frankly, I'm having a hard time finding anything to argue against, because most of what you said is actually in agreeance. I think that on a very basic level, we share the same beliefs; we both have a decent grasp of the science behind vaccines and we agree on how they function. However, there is a fork in the road of sorts, where your beliefs are diverging from mine, and yet I don't quite know where that's coming from. I mean no insult when I say this, but to be perfectly honest, you've not said one single thing to actually explain why you believe what you believe. Almost all of your arguments in favor of vaccines are circumstantial and experience-derived rather than factual and scientific. Aside from disagreeing with the content of a few of my links, what exactly are you disagreeing with? You recognize that we don't fully understand vaccines and that they can harm us, yet you still believe they are necessary?

    Let me make things simple, and ask you one question: if we do not fully understand how vaccines work, if we know that they contain neurotoxic/carcinogenic chemicals, if we know that vaccines can spread disease, and if we know that the average person is more likely to die from a lightning bolt than the diseases that vaccines prevent... why do you support vaccines? If you can answer that question with a legitimate argument, I will be impressed, because frankly I don't believe you have one.

  8. #27
    ProfileAchievementsGamer StatsInventoryLikes List
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Seen
    14th October 2019 12:22 PM
    Location
    France
    Age
    21
    Posts
    291
    Personality
    harrymacdougall
    Wong
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by StarDood64 View Post
    Let me make things simple, and ask you one question: if we do not fully understand how vaccines work, if we know that they contain neurotoxic/carcinogenic chemicals, if we know that vaccines can spread disease, and if we know that the average person is more likely to die from a lightning bolt than the diseases that vaccines prevent... why do you support vaccines? If you can answer that question with a legitimate argument, I will be impressed, because frankly I don't believe you have one.
    -First : we can't know everything on a subject, so not knowing everything is not a problem. The question is, do we know enough ?
    -Second : we know enough to make them work, so i'm good with. But of course i have to agree that we need improvement. For now it works, we don't fully know how, but we'll know and improve or abandon the technology if we find a better one.
    -Third : one of your links was saying one child in twenty thousand died from vaccine side effet. Yes, it's awfully high and a bit worrying, but it's also really low because it means that this one death still allows 19,999 or because vaccine are no 100% efficient, let's say 19,000 others to live without having to worry about the related diseases in their lives. 1 in 20,000 means these accidents are 0.00005% of the cases, and i consider it to be low enough. If i told you that anything has 99.99995% of chances to make you rich, and 0.00005% to make you go bankrupt, i think you would consider it (well no because it would mean you received a chain e-mail scam, but you get my point).

    In the end my view is pretty simple : those people dying from vaccines are few enough for me to call it an acceptable loss, a worthy sacrifice. A sacrifice that must be diminished, but still a worthy sacrifice. The gains outweight the risk (risks we must decrease), the protection outweighs the accidents, it's as simple as that.
    Never overestimate mankind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •