I do not think I will get my kids vaccinated...

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by James81

Gotta be honest, haven't seen much in the way of "facts" in this thread. I've seen a boat-load of fear-mongering and conspiracy theories, though.

You haven't read any of my posts, then?

[Beuford]

Oh, I just realised! Proper sanitary conditions is a conspiracy theory! And things like malnutrition in the third world is just fear mongering! /endsarcasm

[bman]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Oh, I just realised! Proper sanitary conditions is a conspiracy theory! And things like malnutrition in the third world is just fear mongering! /endsarcasm

It's called selective reasoning.

You can throw as many evidence you want in their faces, even those publicly acknowledged facts, they would still try their best to avoid reading it because they're afraid to be wrong.

But the thing is once you tell them something they don't like to hear, even if it's the truth, you have been 'marked' for shutdown.

That means anything you tell them is automatically dismissed and you're automatically discredited even if you're telling the truth.

It is somehow a programming done to them since their indoctrination at a young age to automatically dismiss external information that is not in line with their preprogrammed 'reality'

Pretty much everything has to do with ego and denial.

Don't waste time educating them. They do not listen to reason. Pretty much everything that does not fit into their world view is automatically dismissed as nonsense.

[Beuford]

Yeah, you're right bman. And, I understand, because I used to be like it too. Although, I was 13 back then, and now I'm 15.

[James81]

Originally Posted by bman

It's called selective reasoning.

You can throw as many evidence you want in their faces, even those publicly acknowledged facts, they would still try their best to avoid reading it because they're afraid to be wrong.

But the thing is once you tell them something they don't like to hear, even if it's the truth, you have been 'marked' for shutdown.

That means anything you tell them is automatically dismissed and you're automatically discredited even if you're telling the truth.

It is somehow a programming done to them since their indoctrination at a young age to automatically dismiss external information that is not in line with their preprogrammed 'reality'

Pretty much everything has to do with ego and denial.

Don't waste time educating them. They do not listen to reason. Pretty much everything that does not fit into their world view is automatically dismissed as nonsense.

Interesting, because I've studied the anti-vaccination stuff and have seen *some* logic in it. I see some merit to the arguement when it's presented in a certain way. But the way in which YOU are presenting this stuff, makes you sound like a kook. No offense, but if you'd cut the conspiracy theory stuff and actually dug into some of the meatier points, you'd be a far more effective and reach far more of us poor ignorant souls.

Originally Posted by Beuford

Yeah, you're right bman. And, I understand, because I used to be like it too. Although, I was 13 back then, and now I'm 15.

You're only 15 years old? Do you even know what it's like to be faced with the decision of whether or not to vaccinate your kids? Because it's a much different feeling just talking theory than it is when you are actually standing there holding a little baby life in your hands who is dependent on you for EVERYTHING.

It's amazing how much your perspective changes when you actually have kids.

Just sayin'.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

Gotta be honest, haven't seen much in the way of "facts" in this thread. I've seen a boat-load of fear-mongering and conspiracy theories, though.

Thanks for being honest—I'm glad you basically admit that you only see what you want to see.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by bman

It's called selective reasoning.

You can throw as many evidence you want in their faces, even those publicly acknowledged facts, they would still try their best to avoid reading it because they're afraid to be wrong.

But the thing is once you tell them something they don't like to hear, even if it's the truth, you have been 'marked' for shutdown.

That means anything you tell them is automatically dismissed and you're automatically discredited even if you're telling the truth.

It is somehow a programming done to them since their indoctrination at a young age to automatically dismiss external information that is not in line with their preprogrammed 'reality'

Pretty much everything has to do with ego and denial.

Don't waste time educating them. They do not listen to reason. Pretty much everything that does not fit into their world view is automatically dismissed as nonsense.

I think you're right! But it won't stop me from posting information, because at one time I was "one of them."

My parents have the "trust the doctor at all costs" mindset, even after my mother got a total hysterectomy to "treat" her bad periods (isn't it a good thing doctors aren't mechanics? Because if they were, and you brought in a car with the "check engine" light on, their "cure" would be to yank out that light, give you the bill and say, "your car's all fixed now!" LOL.)

Even after years of having recurring UTI problems that my doctors "treated" with prescription pain meds and some antibiotics, I still didn't get a clue.

Even after I went on the pill, and then started getting yeast problems on top of the UTI problems, that my doctors "treated" by giving me antibiotics, I still didn't get a clue.

After I started eating the ADA, AMA and whatever "health" organization-approved low-fat, virtually no-meat diet, and I ended up fat, depressed, with horrible PMS and then endometriosis, I started to finally wake up, and realize that I needed to do my own research, and even then, be skeptical of what I found.

However, it took about ten years of submitting to the official orthodoxy before I got a clue. It may take others longer—especially if they're lucky enough not to have health problems.

You may be discouraged when you get the responses you do, but hang in there, because at least you've planted a seed. It may not start to sprout until someone goes on Lipitor, and then loses his memory, or when a perfectly healthy normal child gets autism, asthma, allergies, or whatever top ten list of health problems that were rare twenty years ago (and the "experts" are so quick to claim weren't caused by vaccines. Great! So what is causing all these problems? Funny how none of the "experts" seem to be as quick to find out as they are in their efforts to debunk the anti-vaccine arguments).

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

It's amazing how much your perspective changes when you actually have kids.

I know! The vaccine problem wasn't even on my radar until I got pregnant. Once I realized that I was totally responsible for a human being, it made me do so much research, and that is why I made the decision not to vaccinate.

The idea of injecting questionable ingredients into a little baby is just horrifying, even if I didn't think twice about getting them myself.

The same goes for other interventions and mutilations like circumcision (UGH!), hospital births and procedures, and "well" baby visits (if they're well, why subject them to a dirty, germ-filled doctor's office?).

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by James81

You're only 15 years old? Do you even know what it's like to be faced with the decision of whether or not to vaccinate your kids? Because it's a much different feeling just talking theory than it is when you are actually standing there holding a little baby life in your hands who is dependent on you for EVERYTHING.

It's amazing how much your perspective changes when you actually have kids.

Just sayin'.

I don't have kids so my reasoning about the reduction of diseases not being caused by vaccines is not credible. Sorry, I'll go have some kids then tell you that I won't vaccinate them because vaccines aren't responsible for the most part of the reduction in disease. Or, maybe when you have kids, you fear for their life so you make some irrational choices in how you go about their health care.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Beuford

I don't have kids so my reasoning about the reduction of diseases not being caused by vaccines is not credible. Sorry, I'll go have some kids then tell you that I won't vaccinate them because vaccines aren't responsible for the most part of the reduction in disease. Or, maybe when you have kids, you fear for their life so you make some irrational choices in how you go about their health care.

Both of my kids are vaccinated and they are so healthy, that it wears me out keeping up with them.

My kids are vaccine survivors apparently. Or have massively amazing genes and were able to withstand the sheer torture of injecting them with terrible, terrible chemicals.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the whole anti-vaccine thing is a bunch of fear-mongering propaganda.

I knew a woman who had kids that she didn't vaccinate. And her kid had whooping cough so terrible that it disgusted me.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by James81

My kids are vaccine survivors apparently. Or have massively amazing genes and were able to withstand the sheer torture of injecting them with terrible, terrible chemicals.

Or, maybe, just maybe, the whole anti-vaccine thing is a bunch of fear-mongering propaganda.

Maybe, just maybe, there is more to the anti vaccine thing than "That thing is filled with chemicals which are harmful and will damage you". Or did you miss the part about vaccinations getting far too much credit than they deserve for something which was not done by them?

[James81]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Maybe, just maybe, there is more to the anti vaccine thing than "That thing is filled with chemicals which are harmful and will damage you". Or did you miss the part about vaccinations getting far too much credit than they deserve for something which was not done by them?

That's called circular logic.

"The vaccinated doesn't get the sickness, but that doesn't mean that the vaccine is what actually stopped it."

Can't you see how 90% of the anti-vaccine propaganda is based on faulty or irrational logic?

Bear in mind, that I DO have an open mind about this (despite my post saying it was nothing but propaganda).

I'm willing to entertain some solid logic. I've even read a book about it. But the best that all my research has done for me has shown me that it might now be crucial to give all of the vaccines to babies and that you can put some of them off til they are older.

[Beuford]

The non-vaccinated who live in sanitary conditions, who don't have malnutrition, who don't live in an overcrowded area and who have clean water don't get disease, except for a few rare cases.

The vaccinated who live in sanitary conditions, who don't have malnutrition, who don't live in an overcrowded area and who have clean water don't get disease, except for a few rare cases.

People who live in unsanitary conditions, who don't have proper food supplies, who don't have clean water, and who live in overcrowded places will get diseases. After sanitary conditions and proper food distribution and so on became more common in developed countries, diseases dropped. This was before the vaccinations were invented.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Beuford

The non-vaccinated who live in sanitary conditions, who don't have malnutrition, who don't live in an overcrowded area and who have clean water don't get disease, except for a few rare cases.

The vaccinated who live in sanitary conditions, who don't have malnutrition, who don't live in an overcrowded area and who have clean water don't get disease, except for a few rare cases.

People who live in unsanitary conditions, who don't have proper food supplies, who don't have clean water, and who live in overcrowded places will get diseases. After sanitary conditions and proper food distribution and so on became more common in developed countries, diseases dropped. This was before the vaccinations were invented.

So, speaking of selective reading, you have ignored the posts of people who have actually lived there who pointed out that Kuala Lumpur is no more unsanitary than New York City, then?

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by aelle

So, speaking of selective reading, you have ignored the posts of people who have actually lived there who pointed out that Kuala Lumpur is no more unsanitary than New York City, then?

For a moment there, I thought you had me.

Then I read through all the posts and realised you were obviously reading a different thread, because I couldn't find anything about Kuala Lumpur being as sanitary as New York City.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Beuford

For a moment there, I thought you had me.

Then I read through all the posts and realised you were obviously reading a different thread, because I couldn't find anything about Kuala Lumpur being as sanitary as New York City.

See my post #52. I did not phrase it in those words exactly, but South East Asian cities do have very high sanitary conditions, as high if not more as US cities. And countries with higher health standards like Japan have more diseases outbreaks than the US and Europe. These outbreaks concern exactly the diseases that don't get systematic vaccinations and boosters in Japan while they do in the West.

[Beuford]

Aren't these Asian cities over populated and crowded though?

[aelle]

"Overpopulated" and "crowded" are loaded terms. Do you mean densely populated? Or more populated regardless of area? In both these counts, no more than Paris or NYC.
Sources:
List of metropolitan areas by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of cities proper by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

My kids are vaccine survivors apparently. Or have massively amazing genes and were able to withstand the sheer torture of injecting them with terrible, terrible chemicals.

It's hard to know, since there's no long-term studies. And even the short-term studies have no control group. This is science?

I knew a woman who had kids that she didn't vaccinate. And her kid had whooping cough so terrible that it disgusted me.

It's true getting pertussis is extremely worrisome in infants, but since the vaccine has mediocre effectiveness, it's probably not a good idea to rely on it solely for prevention:

"A substantial proportion of immunised school age children presenting to UK primary care with a persistent cough had evidence of a recent infection with Bordetella pertussis"

Whooping cough in school age children with persistent cough: prospective cohort study in primary care -- Harnden et al. 333 (7560): 174 -- BMJ

"Pertussis is one of the major causes of vaccine-preventable deaths. Although widespread vaccination against B. pertussis inittially resulted in a decline in incidence of the disease, there has been a dramatic rise over the last decade in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated"

"In the United States alone, there were 11,647 cases reported in 2003, the highest number reported since 1967. Indeed, in many countries there have been increasing reports of pertussis among vaccinated individuals whose [clinical] presentation is more protracted or atypical"

"Pertussis is considered an endemic disease, characterized aP = acellular vaccine by an epidemic every 2–5 years. This rate of exacerbations has not changed, even after the introduction of mass vaccination"

http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/ar06may-2.pdf

(More quotes from studies are in this article.)

"The effects of whole-cell pertussis vaccine wane after 5 to 10 years, and infection in a vaccinated person causes nonspecific symptoms (3-7). Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants (3-11). The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection (15-17). Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection."

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol6no5/pdf/srugo.pdf

What this means is that if you get the pertussis vaccine, you can still carry and share whooping cough. You can even get sick with it, although coughing may be reduced.

The main problem is that you might not realize that you've got whooping cough and you could be sharing it with unsuspecting vulnerable people.

"In the course of a large pertussis vaccine efficacy trial we realized that investigator compliance could have a major impact on calculated vaccine efficacy.

Conclusions. Our data suggest that observer compliance (observer bias), can significantly inflate calculated vaccine efficacy. It is likely that all recently completed efficacy trials have been effected by this type of observer bias and all vaccines have considerably less efficacy against mild disease than published data suggest."

The Effect of Investigator Compliance (Observer Bias) on Calculated Efficacy in a Pertussis Vaccine Trial -- Cherry et al. 102 (4): 909 -- Pediatrics


Here's a bit of history: GlaxoSmithKline was created after a merger between Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Glaxo Wellcome allowed thousands of babies to be vaccinated with toxic whooping cough vaccines it knew had not passed crucial safety tests.

"In the 3 years after Wellcome produced the toxic batches, dozens of British parents believed their children suffered brain damage or even died as a result of the whooping cough vaccine. But their views were dismissed by drug companies and health officials."

"One of the toxic batches was the same batch that led the Irish Supreme Court in 1992 to award £2.7 million (US$3.8 million) in compensation to Kenneth Best, a Cork boy who suffered permanent brain damage."

Drug Company Admits Unsafe Vaccines Were Used

It took twenty to thirty years for this information to reach the public. Add this to the long list of reasons why Big Pharma can't be trusted.

[Beuford]

Originally Posted by aelle

"Overpopulated" and "crowded" are loaded terms. Do you mean densely populated? Or more populated regardless of area? In both these counts, no more than Paris or NYC.

I actually took a look on wikipedia before to find an example and found out that Japan is about 10x more densely populated than the US.

And a lot of people in Asia are poor. Far more so than people in the US. You may be able to pull out one or two Asian cities and compare the sanitary conditions to a US city, but for Asia as a whole, I extremely doubt it is anywhere near as sanitary as the US. There are many contributing factors to the difference in disease breakouts between the US and Asia. You can't just say, because a city in south east Asia is sanitary, therefore it must be because they don't have as many vaccinations.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Beuford

I actually took a look on wikipedia before to find an example and found out that Japan is about 10x more densely populated than the US

Of course it is. It is much smaller, is a much older country than the US, so it learned to make the most of its land over the millenia, is almost completely urbanised and certainly has no deserts or wild land. For all these reasons, it's about as densely populated than the Netherlands. But you have to admit it is intellectually dishonest to take into account the death valley, Alaskan wilderness or extensive farming lands of the midwest to argue that the US is not densely populated. Compare what can be compared.

Originally Posted by Beuford

And a lot of people in Asia are poor. Far more so than people in the US. You may be able to pull out one or two Asian cities and compare the sanitary conditions to a US city, but for Asia as a whole, I extremely doubt it is anywhere near as sanitary as the US. .../...

Ha. You'd be surprised.They really, really aren't "far poorer" than Western countries. It's a common misconception in the West that South East Asia (and to a lesser extend, the Far East) are still 3rd world countries like we pictured them when they still were colonies. The truth is that the least well-off of these countries have sanitary conditions equivalent to those of the USA in the late 70s, and that the best-off have the highest sanitary conditions in the world. You walk in the streets of Bangkok, Yogyakarta, Seoul or Tokyo and see virtually no homeless people. It's a big shock to Europeans and an even bigger shock to Americans (because America has the fastest disintegrating middle class in the world and doesn't realize it yet). Economically and technologically, they are progessing much faster than the West ever did and will soon be the first world, ahead of us. Here's a fascinating 20-min video you can watch on this topic (and it's already several years old).

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Beuford

I extremely doubt it is anywhere near as sanitary as the US.

I wonder if they could be as obsessed about germs and cooties the way most pro-vax people in the States are. The ones I know want to live in an unrealistic sterile universe.

Ironically, they're the very ones who don't give a ♥♥♥♥♥ about buying organic food, and couldn't care less if the milk they drink has pus and germs (as long as it's sterilized by pasteurization! That's the most important thing! ).

There are many contributing factors to the difference in disease breakouts between the US and Asia.

That's right. And if you choose to vaccinate, you should go by what diseases are common in your geographical area. The current vaccine "one size fits all" plan is ludicrous for a large country like the U.S.

[Beuford]

Well I live in Australia and I've never seen someone who is starving and malnourished without shelter. Maybe the major cities of Asia are sanitary, but sanitary conditions is not proper food distribution. As I said earlier, there are more factors involved. Pretty sure if I ventured to Asia and went to a place which wasn't a major city I'd see large families living in small homes with livestock or similiar things. I'm sure it is not all like that, but you can't convince me that the conditions in Asia are the same as the US.

[Mogget]

Originally Posted by Infinte7

I will homeschool them if I have to, they are too important to me, then to pump them with chemicals I know nothing about...

Chit, I will take this back to the stone age if I have too, hunting squirrels and growing peas in my backyard...

I will not be defeated, "the truth will set you free", and I think the truth of the matter is, we have to start doing for ourselves instead of relying on the government to take care of us...

I accept that there may be risks associated with certain vaccines, but I get the impression that choosing to not vaccinate is a privilege bought at the expense of the multitudes who do vaccinate thus dramatically reducing the incidents of communicable diseases. I personally always understood that being vaccinated was not only a measure of self protection but an act that supported a disease free society.

If no-one vaccinated at all the spread of diseases would once again be greatly increased and so would preventable deaths in children, the elderly and the ill.

Claiming the benefit of a society with a greatly reduced disease load without taking on 'risk' of getting the vaccine seems selfish to me, and getting mega doses of antibiotics to combat a serious illness that you could have avoided contracting seems a poor way to avoid chemical exposure.

Here in Aus the vaccination schedule covers about 10-12 serious diseases that I think are well worth avoiding, though I am inclined to think that flu and chickenpox vaccines aren't so necessary if your child has normal robust health.

I'm curious - for those who oppose immunisation not for the "dead bug" but for the other ingredients... are there ways/means to campaign for alternative production? I've never looked into it.

If there were "controversy and side effect free" vaccines available ... would you then support vaccination? Or would there still remain a reason to object to it?

[Nex]

Lucky us in Romania, where they have no money for vaccines. Here, you have to go pay for them if you want them Of course, some important ones are done here as well, but 3 or 4 over the course of the entire primary school, not 50 !?!

And if you refuse to let your child have the vaccines, they won't allow him to attend school? Why? For fear of transmitting disease? Except the flu, what other diseases can be easily transmitted and undetected, to present a risk?

measles for once.

Herd immunity is too important, I am all for parents being given the decision, and well I believe that's where natural selection comes at play, but if they want to put their children in a school where other human beigns' lifes are at risk, please don't let their children get in there. Specially with all the sorts of paranoia and pseudoscience polluting parents' minds lately...

The idea of injecting questionable ingredients into a little baby is just horrifying,

It is your child's life at risk, so please think critically about this, there's no reason the ingredients got to be "questionable", you can research for each of these ingredients, why it is there and how it was tested not to be as remotely risky as the diseases that the vaccine will prevent. This is assuming you know how to filter the loonie web pages of disinformation out there. So, really, read critically, not only with an open mind, make sure to do it with a turned on mind... (BTW, being open minded also involves being open to the possibility of the 'closed' minded guys being right for once).

Anyway, I did this too many times, start here: Science-Based Medicine

That blog is simply full of counter-evidence and arguments against every single argument pulled by the anti-vaccination paranoids. Just look for vaccines in that blog and you'll have a lot of a source of opinion before whether you decide about this.

--
Sometimes I actually think there is a link between anti-vaccination teams and population control, this fearmongering, tends to affect mostly the more ignorant branches of society, which are also the ones an assumed evil government would love to get rid of to make savings. So, these guys stop vaccinating and Shazzam! Important reduction in those groups. The more educated (aka rich) will not fall for this. It is very clever actually. Ever wondered why celebrities and other elites are actually the ones spreading this fear-mongering? It has been getting VERY difficult for real science to have a saying about this in mainstream TV, BTW.

[Shray]

Originally Posted by liamona

Even after years of having recurring UTI problems that my doctors "treated" with prescription pain meds and some antibiotics, I still didn't get a clue.

Even after I went on the pill, and then started getting yeast problems on top of the UTI problems, that my doctors "treated" by giving me antibiotics, I still didn't get a clue.

After I started eating the ADA, AMA and whatever "health" organization-approved low-fat, virtually no-meat diet, and I ended up fat, depressed, with horrible PMS and then endometriosis, I started to finally wake up, and realize that I needed to do my own research, and even then, be skeptical of what I found.

However, it took about ten years of submitting to the official orthodoxy before I got a clue. It may take others longer—especially if they're lucky enough not to have health problems.

You may be discouraged when you get the responses you do, but hang in there, because at least you've planted a seed. It may not start to sprout until someone goes on Lipitor, and then loses his memory, or when a perfectly healthy normal child gets autism, asthma, allergies, or whatever top ten list of health problems that were rare twenty years ago (and the "experts" are so quick to claim weren't caused by vaccines. Great! So what is causing all these problems? Funny how none of the "experts" seem to be as quick to find out as they are in their efforts to debunk the anti-vaccine arguments).

Sorry to hear about your experiences with that doctor; it's an unfortunate truth that there is significant variance in the quality of med practitioners around. Some doctors will go the whole 9 yards, order the proper diagnostic tests (for example a UTI) to properly treat it, while others will stick with the protocol drugs, sometimes to no avail.

However, as for the latter part of your statement- I don't know if there exists any evidence of a dramatic increase in autism since the introduction of current vaccination schedules- sorry if it was posted earlier in this thread. The theory as to why asthma and other forms of atopy (allergic conditions, such as dermatitis, etc- all mediated by a specific type of antibody reacting against benign foreign tissue like dust mite faeces) are on the rise recently is due to the 'grubby bubby effect'- the cleaner society becomes, the less exposed as kids we are to antigens (ie molecules characteristic of bugs) and thus the more prone the immune system is to shift the wrong way and start reacting to benign things- there is good evidence for this.

I feel much of the scepticism as to a link between the mmr and autism, for example, spans from the lack of a possible mechanism to explain it- the mmr injection involves live yet fully attenuated and thus non-dangerous strains of measles, mumps and rubella being injected in, and thus in theory should not cause autism. The same is true for the flu shot causing chronic fatigue for example- the flu shot involves dead viral material being injected into you- these proteins have no capacity to cause more than a little local inflammation (important to spark immunity) and some systemic symptoms of fever (as the proteins are designed to 'simulate' the real thing), but beyond that a mechanism for adverse events does not exist.

[Shray]

Originally Posted by Beuford

Or did you miss the part about vaccinations getting far too much credit than they deserve for something which was not done by them?

actually the data is unequivocal- living conditions right before and right after say, the introduction of the Haemophilus Influenza Type B vaccine were exactly the same (early 2000s vs now), yet there's a huge difference in annual mortality from childhood bacterial meningitis and epiglottis before and after- its clear the only thing we have to thank is the vaccine.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by liamona

.../.... And if you choose to vaccinate, you should go by what diseases are common in your geographical area. The current vaccine "one size fits all" plan is ludicrous for a large country like the U.S.

You know, I very much agree with that. I am definitely for individuals questionning authoritarian arguments, researching issues and making conscious choices that depend on their individual situation. I may not agree with the final choice, but I support the process.
What I find apalling is people who declare (in this case) that vaccines don't work altogether, in any situation, despite massive evidence of the contrary, and who won't test their theory. I don't mind questioning, even if it leads to mistakes. I do mind obscurantism.

[bman]

Originally Posted by aelle

You know, I very much agree with that. I am definitely for individuals questionning authoritarian arguments, researching issues and making conscious choices that depend on their individual situation. I may not agree with the final choice, but I support the process.
What I find apalling is people who declare (in this case) that vaccines don't work altogether, in any situation, despite massive evidence of the contrary, and who won't test their theory. I don't mind questioning, even if it leads to mistakes. I do mind obscurantism.

The general consensus isn't that vaccines are harmful, IF DONE RIGHT.

The problem is they've been abused/contaminated by recklessness, whether deliberate or not.

In short, human greed/power has sabotaged the effectiveness/confidence in vaccines, possibly health/medical sector as well.

Now change vaccines to your banks/financial sector/real estate/credit and you get what I mean.

As long as human elements are involved, please be very careful about where you put your trust.

The medical AND science establishments are NOT FREE from corruption and conspiracy as long as you have people in these places.

Your financial sector has already proven itself to be a failure, there's no need to throw the conspiracy theory label around in that place.

Do not be surprised the same corruption could or already is happening in your food/health sector.

Your complacency has begun to rear it's ugly head and the financial scandals are probably just the tip of the iceberg and if you are still skeptical then I really feel sorry for you.


How many more warning signs have to be blatantly obvious before anyone wakes up and starts questioning what kind of people are in control of important sectors of human society ?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by bman

The general consensus isn't that vaccines are harmful, IF DONE RIGHT.

The problem is they've been abused/contaminated by recklessness, whether deliberate or not.

In short, human greed/power has sabotaged the effectiveness/confidence in vaccines, possibly health/medical sector as well.

Now change vaccines to your banks/financial sector/real estate/credit and you get what I mean.

As long as human elements are involved, please be very careful about where you put your trust.

The medical AND science establishments are NOT FREE from corruption and conspiracy as long as you have people in these places.

Your financial sector has already proven itself to be a failure, there's no need to throw the conspiracy theory label around in that place.

Do not be surprised the same corruption could or already is happening in your food/health sector.

Your complacency has begun to rear it's ugly head and the financial scandals are probably just the tip of the iceberg and if you are still skeptical then I really feel sorry for you.

How many more warning signs have to be blatantly obvious before anyone wakes up and starts questioning what kind of people are in control of important sectors of human society ?

But I do question it. Just like I question the impact of everything I consume, medical or not. If you are like me weighting the benefits of vaccination against its negative aspects, I applaud you. We are obviously not reaching the same conclusions, but that's not my point.
What I condemn is the deliberate obscurantism of people who want to reach a certain conclusion and disregard any evidence that points to the other side of the balance - people who claim that vaccines don't work because they don't want to vaccinate, in this case. Or, for that matter, people who claim that there are no possible side effects.