Customer Discussions > Health forum

Anti Vaccines - Disease by Injection?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 226-250 of 10000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 3:03:37 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 4:49:38 AM PDT
Tasha David says:
You speak a lot about fear, but isn't this the very reason that you want people to get vaccinated, fear of diseases returning to epidemic levels and killing huge amounts of people even though historical mortality rates say the opposite? Pro vaccine advocates seem to like using the car analogies, but the difference is you are not mandated to use cars, even though thousands are killed every year, you still have the choice on whether to use them or not, and there are no penalties for not using them. This is the huge difference, once again it boils down to choice...

EDIT: Forgot to add that you can also sue the car companies for defective products but you can't sue the vaccine manufacturers

Posted on Jul 17, 2011 5:38:00 AM PDT
Ali says:
The difficulty with these vaccination debates---provaccination versus antivaccination---is that both sides are naive, irrational, and venting assumptions.

Posted on Jul 17, 2011 7:20:11 AM PDT
Oh, Yes, neither side has any facts. Thanks.
(sarcasm)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 10:26:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 11:33:20 AM PDT
clb says:
surgery is usually a go to, when a person will die without it.

kids are not going to die if a parent does not vaccinate.

repeating vaccines only, and then maybe provide short term immunity to a disease for which that shot was designed to prevent.

vaccines do not prevent deaths.

surgery yes, prevents deaths ,vaccines no.

modern medicine is fine, however vaccines are hardly modern and the ingredient list reads like something one would expect to find in a voodoo potion.
thanks but no thanks.
I'll stick to a healthy diet , watch my waistline, etc.. and avoid all vaccines.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 3:58:14 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 4:39:23 PM PDT
Ali says:
I had posted (in entirety), "The difficulty with these vaccination debates---provaccination versus antivaccination---is that both sides are naive, irrational, and venting assumptions" [Jul 17, 2011 5:38:00 AM PDT]. Directly beneath that, tree hugger appended (in entirety), "Oh, Yes, neither side has any facts. Thanks. (sarcasm)" [Jul 17, 2011 7:20:11 AM PDT].

This post by tree hugger is acutely ironic. I had written a post earlier about this---the preoccupation with "facts", search for "facts" to have faith in, and launching of propaganda to bow everyone to the "facts"---in response to tree hugger's first post to me in this discussion. (I didn't get around to posting it.)

I don't think that Annatasha David is antivaccinationist---she seems mostly to be discussing her own perspective---and I'm unsure whether DJD, who is at least somewhat grounded in philosophy of science, history of medicine, and sociology of knowledge (SoK), is antivaccinationist.

Yet, yes, tree hugger is an antivaccinationist---on a crusade---and, unable to distinguish an 'observation' from a 'record' from an 'interpretation' from a 'philosophy' from an 'opinion' from a 'conclusion' from a 'personal choice', in essence has no 'facts'. Whatever facts might have existed in such hailstorm have been so thoroughly misused and abused that they're in essence worse than useless, making even the provaccinationists appear rational.

This preoccupation with trying to rule people with "the facts" is like seeing 1920s rhetoric from the negative eugenics movement, which, as historian and philosopher of biology Garland Allen indicates in his book review of Edwin Black's War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, appears to still describe the psychology of American healthcare [Allen GE, "Was Nazi eugenics created in the US?", EMBO Rep, 2004 May;5(5):451-2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400158 = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299061].

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 4:50:42 PM PDT
No- I am NOT an antivaccinationist. See, you have your "facts" wrong. I am against the one-size-fits-all vaccination campaign. I am dismayed by some of the ingredients that are included in them. I am also concerned with the lack of long-term immunity, as well as the lack of long-term safety yet to be proven. And I feel that some vaccinations are completely useless, or frivolous. My son has been mostly vaccinated.

That said, I am also sick of you acting like you are the absolute only person on any thread that has any facts, and comprehesion thereof. You ARE NOT.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 4:55:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 7:38:38 PM PDT
Ali says:
Yes, tree hugger, I was aware of your stance---as you here describe it---which includes your incorporation of medical ideology, contradicting biology, to form your contruction of "the facts", positively proved, you assert [Clarke JN et al, "The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences", Soc Sci Med, 2007 Jan;64(1):164-73, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045377].

You say, "No - I am NOT an antivaccinationist. See, you have your 'facts' wrong. I am against the one-size-fits-all vaccination campaign" [Jul 17, 2011 4:50:42 PM PDT].

Your stance is perhaps the most common stance of antivaccinationists to begin with. You're speaking, as you typically do, as if words are 'monosemous'---have only one meaning each and therefore each word means just what you assume it to mean---instead of being 'polysemous', having diverse meanings. I didn't mean that you are 'antivaccine' per se---against the fundamental idea of vaccines---what appears to be how you're constructing my statement and then confuse your own construction, as usual, for discovery of objective fact irrefutable.

You are 'antivaccination', in my view, because you 'socially crusade' against current vaccination 'public policy'. That you want "safe vaccines"---in naive belief that "safe ingredients" would remain safe, immunologically and neurologically, when injected hypodermically---or want "more effective" vaccines, within the medicalized misconception that acute infectious diseases are generally harmful, not beneficial, to decently nourished children to begin with, fails to make you neutral in this 'social' debate over vaccination 'public policy'.

You're antivaccinationist in my opinion---not asserted as an objective fact to begin with since there is no such thing as an objective fact in 'sociology' in the first place---because you emit 'propaganda' against current vaccination practices. In sociology of knowledge---not merely in my own opinion---such emission of information 'packaged to trigger' a stance or belief upon an 'emotional cue' is called propaganda. Yet you declare you're just issuing the facts, free of subjectivity, just the facts! That you yourself assert that you emit "facts" verifies my point about you. Whether the information, itself, is true or false is besides the question of whether it's propaganda. Your tactics are social, whether or not you genuinely feel enlightened with "the facts".

My very first interaction with you began when you posted at me to try to 'intimidate' me. You mentioned Wasson and Webster---whom you suggested would prove that I was crazy for disagreeing with the supposedly obvious truth that you, without evidence or explanation, had just declared to me---after I reflected indications found in biology literature, namely virology textbooks and journals, that contradicted medical opinion and thus popular belief about influenzaviruses. You cannot amicably bear criticism of your cherished "facts"---which for you are quasireligion---and you counter with 'social' tactics. You appear unable to recognize that 'facts' do not make choices, anyway, which are made according to 'values'.

You say, "That said, I am also sick of you acting like you are the absolute only person on any thread that has any facts, and comprehesion thereof. You ARE NOT".

The above allegation is ironic coming from the prime fact dispenser. That you presume that I would even seek, myself, to declare "the facts"---irrefutable knowledge---illustrates your acculturated disconnection from current basic science, history, philosophy, and sociology. What makes information sound is that it is logically supported, and consistently so across diverse angles of scrutiny, not that it is irrefutable. I quite welcome challenges to my indications, why I respond with analysis, neither declaration that I had issued "the facts" nor assertion that the other person violated "the facts". By acculturation you're still fixated---alike most of Western society---on 'positivist' philosophy overturned decades ago.

Here, in this post, I've just given my own interpretation---not facts---as this involves 'sociology' and 'social psychology' and not 'natural science'. If you have logical critique or refutation---not merely your own assumptions confused with objective facts and thereupon denials and allegations---please, offer it. So far, perpetually going for the jugular vein with your "facts" to topple what is necessarily opinion any which way, you merely confirm my interpretation. As if spotting a ghost out to get you, you counter with your crucifix---more "facts" upon "facts"---why you're an antivaccination propagandist who has scarcely stepped outside personal assumptions and social ploys within merely a 'social' debate.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 4:56:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2011 7:35:10 PM PDT
KING CONAN says:
tree,
What the heck are you doing on here?
Rosanna Rosanna Rasmussen is going to be born within the week, You should be practicing deep breathing exercises, Not getting the baby upset with posters. ;)

P.S: I got a real killer deal, On some of those "FANCY RIB EYES" from Japan.

Posted on Jul 17, 2011 7:34:32 PM PDT
rasta says:
Here's a good resource for parents, it's not necessarily anti- or pro-, but very helpful in providing a well-rounded picture of this issue: "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccinations" by Stephanie Cave, M.D. (here's the isbn for an easy look up: 978-0-446-55571-5).

I found it interesting that the state gets funded for every fully-immunized child..

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 8:22:29 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
Ali,

I am beginning to lose faith in science as we know it now. I have been debating this guy on facebook about GM technology, and he's spouting off about having 400 peer reviewed studies showing the benefits of GM technology, and whenever I bring up studies to counter his, he says that scientists have debunked these studies, yet he can't accept the possibility of there being powerful companies pulling strings to make it hard for scientists to come out against them. He also can't see that funding partners having the ability to veto what results will be released to the public because of confidentiality, as a serious conflict of interest. It really feels like I am having the exact same arguments that I have on here, only the subject is different! How can we discuss things scientifically anymore, if science has become like a prostitute giving her favours to only those who can pay for them...it is very disheartening...
As for you saying that tree hugger is an anti vaccinationist, how can this be if she still uses some vaccines for her son. I understand myself being one, because I do believe that vaccines have not been the gift to humanity that they are made out to be, I really do believe that the world would be better off without them but I also believe that people should be able to choose to vaccinate if they feel the benefits out weigh the risks. If the pro vaccination advocates could just use their vaccines and leave the people who don't alone, we wouldn't have all the animosity that goes on between both sides.

I am curious though would you call yourself anti vaccinationist?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 8:24:20 PM PDT
Don't lose faith in science. Lose faith in human behavior.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 8:28:12 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
but the problem is, it is people who are controlling the science...

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 8:32:20 PM PDT
It's the application of the science. There is science behind the way vaccines work, it's just we abuse it by making it mandatory and not taking into account we all do not have the same biology.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 8:38:02 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
My goodness, I just had to pick myself off the floor....I agree with everything you just said! What are your thoughts on GM technology, just out of curiousity? Or should I quit while I am ahead!?!...lol

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 10:20:08 PM PDT
I have no opinion yet on GM technology as of yet. It's a double-edged sword like so many other things.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2011 11:54:19 PM PDT
Tasha David says:
Curses, I was hoping you might have heard of some studies I might be able to use to confound this guy!! He is quite nasty and very arrogant, for example his facebook page is called "Anti GM activists should be charged with crimes against humanity" he makes you look like an angel...lol!
I don't know if you have heard or not but they have started GM wheat trials here! They have completed 3 months of animal trials and now they are talking about human trials soon! Greenpeace has ticked off pro GM promoters by destroying one of their trial crops, so it is quite a big thing at the moment! And sorry for going off topic, no more talk of GM but if anyone does know any studies, I would be very appreciative of links!!! I have got the ones by Seralini, Surov, Ermakova, and the one about bt toxins crossing placenta to unborn babies, can't remember who did that one...ok now no more gm...

Posted on Jul 18, 2011 3:32:15 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 18, 2011 2:33:44 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
For those who question how I can consider that the success of the smallpox vaccine is a major contributor to global overpopulation, consider this: by around 1800, there had been a total of 100,000 vaccinations, mostly in England, but France and other European countries got on the bandwagon quite early also. Let's think just about those who would have died if they had not been vaccinated, and see where those numbers would lead to in todays world. How many people walking the earth today would not exist, whose parents would not have existed, whose grandparents would not have existed if those few had died instead of surviving thanks to the smallpox vaccination. If they had not been vaccinated, probably 10,000 would have died of smallpox; that was the going death rate for children. How many descendants of those 10,000 who did not die would be alive today? Let's make it ridiculously easy; the point here is not to be exact (we couldn't anyway) but to get a wild guess just to see if there is anything to my thesis.

Let's assume that everyone dies on their 26th birthday, so let's not count the older generation. Let's assume that, of our 10,000 who did not die but would have but for the vaccine, that 1000 of them would have ended up dying of other causes in 25 years. Let's assume that they marry each other, and that they have 4 children in each family, and that they have these four children by the time they have reached 25 years of age. In other words, let's assume that 25 years = one generation, and that 90% of the breeding population lives to double in number in 25 years. By 1825, only 9000 of our original 10,000 would have had children, for a total of 18,000 children. Then all the original ones die in 1826, and the children are raised by others. By 1850, some of the 18,000 children would have died and not lived to reproduce, but at the same rate, 4 children per family, our original 10,000 is now 32,400. Remember, we aren't counting the older generation. If we keep going forward like that, by 1900, our 10,000 who did not die would have turned into 104,976. By 1950, our 10,000 would have turned into 340,122, and by the year 2000, our 10,000 who did not die because of the vaccine will have turned into more than 1,101,995 people.

In other words, just those few who owed their lives to the vaccine that long ago, in just a few places, before the vaccination bandwagon had gotten into gear, would have more than a million descendants walking this earth today. And we have not looked at the totality of the 19th century vaccinations, or the 20th century either. The number of people walking around on this earth who would not be alive, who would not even be a thought, if that vaccine had never become an item of mass treatment, is unbelievable. From just those few in my example, I must say that a million "extra" people is not a lot compared to the more than 6 billion humans on earth, but I'm trying to illustrate what is called the exponential function to demonstrate how a small change years ago can have severe consequences years later. And the fact is that I chose that small number because it was easier than trying to calculate the different rates of vaccinations in different countries with time over the last two centuries. Consider that, two generations ago, two million people a year were dying of smallpox--just 50 years ago. Just 2 extra million people who would have lived from just one of those years would have several million descendants today had they been vaccinated. The number of people who did not die from smallpox is unbelievable. So one could argue that the success of the smallpox vaccine is one of mankind's greatest calamities because it has led to so many millions of "extra" people being alive to take up limited resources.

Posted on Jul 18, 2011 5:06:29 AM PDT
Wow!

Haven't we been busy??!

Luckily, a lot of "new" posts are really old ones.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2011 5:12:59 AM PDT
Same poop Mike......just being warmed up in a different microwave.

Posted on Jul 18, 2011 5:18:40 AM PDT
....or for the Mercola fans "being warmed up in an infrared oven".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2011 5:24:51 AM PDT
SV-40, polio vaccine causing outbreaks and, my perennial favorite "Doctors would not drink a glass of vaccine preservatives!"

Ugh! The humanity!

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2011 6:24:46 AM PDT
From an anti-vaxxer, you can have mine. Just don't force this on me and you can do what you want.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 18, 2011 6:30:14 AM PDT
Dear Faye
Don't know which state you are in, but check the law, because in Michigan we have exemption for philosophical,medical,etc...I have constantly been lied to over the years about you won't be allowed here until you tell them the law and suddenly the exemption form appears.

Posted on Jul 18, 2011 7:12:07 AM PDT
Dr. C. King says:
Seems appropriate to put a link to Roald Dahl's story of his young daughter, who died of measles encephalitis, on this thread.

http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alternative/38012/World-famous-writer-Roald-Dahl-MEASLES-A-dangerous-illness

In reply to earlier comments made: The link between MMR and autism has been entirely debunked. The article claiming the connection has been withdrawn and Dr Wakefield has been struck off the GMC register in the UK.

Posted on Jul 18, 2011 3:05:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 18, 2011 9:49:36 PM PDT
ParrotSlave says:
I am really curious to see if today's vaccination opponents are also opposed to variolation, since it had been a folk practice for centuries, as early as the 10th century in China, long before the invention of the vaccine. I suspect that since variolation was not invented by traditional western doctors [TWD], vaccine opponents would consider it "good." On the other hand, in is definitely a form of vaccination. Which way will they go?

Smallpox vaccination induces immunity by the injection of a virus related to smallpox, vaccinia, which is closer to cowpox, and was originally thought to be cowpox. Smallpox, vaccinia, and cowpox all probably have a common ancestor. The practice of variolation consists of inducing cases of actual smallpox, using scabs from smallpox victims. The reason for doing this is that there are two strains of smallpox, one being much more lethal than the other, but immunity to one promises immunity to the other. So by infecting people with the less lethal strain, variola minor, which had a mortality rate of only 2% to 3%, they became naturally immune to the more lethal strain, which had a mortality rate as high as 30% (the percentages vary between eras and between populations; the mortality rate among American Indians at the time of the conquest has been estimated to be about 90%). In addition to the problem of mortality from variola minor itself, variolation had the additional complication that it spread other diseases simulteously, such as tuberculosis and syphlis. Dr. Stefan Riedel, now of Johns Hopkins, reports that one of the first comparative epidemiological analyses in medicine may have been that conducted regarding the Boston smallpox epidemic of 1721, in which the mortality rate for naturally acquired smallpox was observed to be 14%, but the mortality rate for variolation was only 2%. Approximately 50% of Boston's population were infected during that epidemic. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200696/)
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ... 400 Next ›
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Health forum


Active discussions in related forums  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  227
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Jun 17, 2011
Latest post:  Oct 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 17 customers

Search Customer Discussions