Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Stupid people being stupid (re: Vaccines)

YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:23:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

The comments didn't seem particularly angry.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:28:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And regardless of whether or not they are wrong about this, is it really necessary to demonize them? They simply made a choice not to receive an inoculation, and to not have their children receive inoculations.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:36:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

Wouldn't the only people who'd be in danger be those who were not inoculated, from the carriers who weren't inoculated?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:38:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:36:04 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

Wouldn't the only people who'd be in danger be those who were not inoculated, from the carriers who weren't inoculated?

Don't vaccines work by giving you a weakened illness, so your body can overcome it and be immune? Thus, you now carry the disease yourself, and the means to fight it.

Regardless, this is what I don't understand about the argument - why are others in danger because of my decision?
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:40:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?

It's not about me. It's about people who cannot get the vaccine because they have cancer, or various other afflictions that prevent them from being able to be vaccinated.

It is also because of the public health crisis that emerges when a highly infectious communicable disease that is preventable by vaccine has an outbreak because stupid people who take medial advice from Jenny McCarthy put their kids in danger.

Like, the people who suffer here are the kids who were not vaccinated because their parents are stupid and the kids who would be vaccinated but for certain medial conditions that preclude their ability to safely do so.

If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:40:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:28:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And regardless of whether or not they are wrong about this, is it really necessary to demonize them? They simply made a choice not to receive an inoculation, and to not have their children receive inoculations.

No kid should have to suffer measles because their parent is stupid. That is what's at stake here.
Tsar of DDO
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:41:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:38:31 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:36:04 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

Wouldn't the only people who'd be in danger be those who were not inoculated, from the carriers who weren't inoculated?

Don't vaccines work by giving you a weakened illness, so your body can overcome it and be immune? Thus, you now carry the disease yourself, and the means to fight it.

Regardless, this is what I don't understand about the argument - why are others in danger because of my decision?

Yeah. I'm not necessarily condoning the Anti-Vaccine conspiracy theories, but it seems a bit suspicious how society pushes for everyone to have one and those who don't have their children vaccinated are looked down upon as if they were child molesters.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:43:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:40:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:28:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And regardless of whether or not they are wrong about this, is it really necessary to demonize them? They simply made a choice not to receive an inoculation, and to not have their children receive inoculations.

No kid should have to suffer measles because their parent is stupid. That is what's at stake here.

In modern America measles probably would not be deadly. It'd be an unpleasant experience, and that's it. Most likely they'd recover from it and be fine.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:44:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:40:05 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?

It's not about me. It's about people who cannot get the vaccine because they have cancer, or various other afflictions that prevent them from being able to be vaccinated.
Aren't you just as dangerous if you are vaccinated? If not, in the immediate aftermath of being vaccinated?

It is also because of the public health crisis that emerges when a highly infectious communicable disease that is preventable by vaccine has an outbreak because stupid people who take medial advice from Jenny McCarthy put their kids in danger.
I get that, but that doesn't affect you or your vaccinated kids, right?
So, my non-vaccinated kids are not threatening you or your kids. Is this correct?

Like, the people who suffer here are the kids who were not vaccinated because their parents are stupid
yes, but I'm not asking about them.
and the kids who would be vaccinated but for certain medial conditions that preclude their ability to safely do so.
Again, aren't those vaccinated carrying the illness? Isn't that how we killed Indians, with Smallpox from our immunity to them, but not theirs?

If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:46:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:40:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:28:57 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
And regardless of whether or not they are wrong about this, is it really necessary to demonize them? They simply made a choice not to receive an inoculation, and to not have their children receive inoculations.

No kid should have to suffer measles because their parent is stupid. That is what's at stake here.

Yet, that's not how it's often reported, is it?
The parents (or kids) are seen as the aggressors endangering so very many lives.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:48:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:41:08 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Yeah. I'm not necessarily condoning the Anti-Vaccine conspiracy theories, but it seems a bit suspicious how society pushes for everyone to have one and those who don't have their children vaccinated are looked down upon as if they were child molesters.

Well, in the eyes of some (like YYW), this is child abuse/neglect/endangerment.
This is the heart of the issue: Parental choice.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 2:53:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This kind of sets a dangerous precedent, if you ask me.
Imagine, in 300 years:

"Hello citizens of the Human Empire! I am a Senator from Mars, speaking to you today about brains! Society has become so advanced and complex that normal humans are unable to keep up! As a response, parents everywhere are giving their kids brain replacement surgery, where their natural, inferior brains are being replaced with artificial, superior brains! Parents who refuse to replace their children's natural brains are guilty of child abuse! I propose that we throw them all in jail!"
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 3:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:48:28 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:41:08 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:

Yeah. I'm not necessarily condoning the Anti-Vaccine conspiracy theories, but it seems a bit suspicious how society pushes for everyone to have one and those who don't have their children vaccinated are looked down upon as if they were child molesters.

Well, in the eyes of some (like YYW), this is child abuse/neglect/endangerment.
This is the heart of the issue: Parental choice.

I work for a lab which is instrumental to the beginning stages of vaccine development, so I can give you a basic rundown of the theory.

Your immune system is blind. It is very good at killing things, but it cannot tell the different between healthy cells and invading bacteria or viruses. One of the ways to tell the difference is by looking at surface proteins, which can each be thought of as a lock made for a specific key. However, there are a huge amount of surface proteins, so you cannot expect the 'killer cells' to float around with a huge molecular key ring of every potential bad thing. What antibodies are is a 'kill' protein, which the 'killer cells' pick up as a 'kill me' message, attached to a specific 'key' molecule which fits a molecular 'lock', or antigen, like the surface proteins on bad cells. So there is a whole section of your immune system dedicated to running around, finding bad cells that are harming your body, finding the 'lock' surface proteins (antigens), running and getting 'keys' made, and then running around attaching keys with 'kill me' signals (antibodies) to all of the bad cells so the killer cells can do their job. Once a full battle is going on, there are special cells called memory cells which are just like big stockpiles of one particular antibody, so that your body has enough antibodies to to tag all of the bad cells. These stay in your system, and that is why with many diseases you cannot get the same one twice: your body is ready to identify and kill the pathogen the second it enters your body.

When you are injecting someone with a vaccine, you are injecting them with inert pathogens which cannot mount an offense against your body, but never the less provide antigens. Your body starts building up antibodies against the pathogen, even though there's no real infection. This way, when you do have a viable pathogen enter your system the body is ready to kill it, just as if you have already been infected with it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 3:35:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:38:31 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:36:04 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

Wouldn't the only people who'd be in danger be those who were not inoculated, from the carriers who weren't inoculated?

Don't vaccines work by giving you a weakened illness, so your body can overcome it and be immune? Thus, you now carry the disease yourself, and the means to fight it.

Regardless, this is what I don't understand about the argument - why are others in danger because of my decision?

The problem is that widespread vaccination can actually eradicate dangerous diseases. That's what happened smallpox, and what has almost happened to to polio. But if it isn't widespread, then people who aren't vaccinated basically act as a fertile breeding ground, in which the pathogen may even eventually develop a resistance to the vaccine (by losing the antigens which are in the vaccine, for example.)

Think of it like mosquitos on a desert island. If there is a neighborhood, and everyone chlorinates their pools (pools are the only standing water), then after a year or two there are no more mosquitos and chlorination can stop. If 20% of the population refuses to chlorinate, then everyone else keeps chlorinating forever, and the society still has to deal with mosquitos. Not a perfect example, but you get the gist about how eradication is the best case scenario, and refusing to chlorinate sabotages that and creates more work and suffering for everyone.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:02:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
lol this is my favorite:

"They shift the blame to others, and deny problems with the vaccine until there is too much evidence to ignore. Then, without skipping a beat, a new vaccine or a new recommendation will hit the market... people will shift to the new "improved" vaccine, or the updated recommendation for more boosters, and business will continue as usual. There will always be people who have problems with vaccines, and they will always be ignored or ridiculed. Nothing changes!"

Derp. How do vaccines work? We certainly never discover new things about diseases, nor better ways to go about vaccinating, nor ways to develop vaccines in tandem with the evolving diseases they're created to protect us from.

/sarcasm
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:17:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

Skepsikyma gave a larger response but I'll just speak my part briefly anyway.

The people who are immediately in danger are the very young and the sick.

Infants and young children who are not yet vaccinated for one reason or another are at risk of catching these diseases and are most likely to suffer and die from them- and they do. They are the innocents who suffer and die for the sake of "parental right to choose" and their deaths are the primary reason for the vitriol and moral outrage thrown at anti-vaxxers.

Some people already have compromised immune systems due to illness or lifelong disease and are unable to further compromise their immune system by getting vaccinations and are also likely to catch these diseases, suffer, and die- and they do.

However, if/when large numbers go unvaccinated: everybody is at risk.

If large numbers of people go unvaccinated and the disease is allowed to proliferate while some people's immune systems fight it off (after all the suffering and hospital bills, of course), this means that there will be some casualties- not just in the human population but also within the virus's population. That means that, if allowed to carry on-even in a minority of the population-, the virus will inevitably evolve, making it's general population stronger than what was there before. This evolution of the virus necessitates new and different vaccines, more money and time put into researching each individual disease. In short, allowing the virus to proliferate in even a minority of the population will put even the vaccinated at risk.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2015 4:22:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't think people who refuse vaccinations for their kids are necessarily being stupid or unreasonable. The issue of whether it's safe or not is a very technical one (i.e., not obvious), so for most people, all they have to go on are the opinions of professionals in the field, who have been wrong before. But personally, I think everyone should get vaccinated.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 2:43:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:53:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This kind of sets a dangerous precedent, if you ask me.
Imagine, in 300 years:

"Hello citizens of the Human Empire! I am a Senator from Mars, speaking to you today about brains! Society has become so advanced and complex that normal humans are unable to keep up! As a response, parents everywhere are giving their kids brain replacement surgery, where their natural, inferior brains are being replaced with artificial, superior brains! Parents who refuse to replace their children's natural brains are guilty of child abuse! I propose that we throw them all in jail!"

This is so far fetched I don;t even see how you can use it as a valid argument. And I wouldn't say society sees these people as child molesters. Not even close. But I would be upset if I found out my son got the measles because some mother decided not to vaccinate her child. That is the risk they are taking with my kids. IMO the benefits here greatly out weigh the costs.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 2:47:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 2:43:08 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:53:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This kind of sets a dangerous precedent, if you ask me.
Imagine, in 300 years:

"Hello citizens of the Human Empire! I am a Senator from Mars, speaking to you today about brains! Society has become so advanced and complex that normal humans are unable to keep up! As a response, parents everywhere are giving their kids brain replacement surgery, where their natural, inferior brains are being replaced with artificial, superior brains! Parents who refuse to replace their children's natural brains are guilty of child abuse! I propose that we throw them all in jail!"

This is so far fetched I don;t even see how you can use it as a valid argument. And I wouldn't say society sees these people as child molesters. Not even close. But I would be upset if I found out my son got the measles because some mother decided not to vaccinate her child. That is the risk they are taking with my kids. IMO the benefits here greatly out weigh the costs.

It's "farfetched" because people generally are not willing to think long-term.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 4:07:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
As an adult most of us aren't up to date on our shots and most of us aren't dead from theMeasles. I'd say every shot that can be out of date on me probably is. The Tetanus shot may be up to date because O did step on a nail a while back but that's it.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 3:12:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 2:47:11 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 2/4/2015 2:43:08 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:53:45 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
This kind of sets a dangerous precedent, if you ask me.
Imagine, in 300 years:

"Hello citizens of the Human Empire! I am a Senator from Mars, speaking to you today about brains! Society has become so advanced and complex that normal humans are unable to keep up! As a response, parents everywhere are giving their kids brain replacement surgery, where their natural, inferior brains are being replaced with artificial, superior brains! Parents who refuse to replace their children's natural brains are guilty of child abuse! I propose that we throw them all in jail!"

This is so far fetched I don;t even see how you can use it as a valid argument. And I wouldn't say society sees these people as child molesters. Not even close. But I would be upset if I found out my son got the measles because some mother decided not to vaccinate her child. That is the risk they are taking with my kids. IMO the benefits here greatly out weigh the costs.

It's "farfetched" because people generally are not willing to think long-term.

I think we are but mabe that senario is a tad too dramatic. People always assume anything mandated is some type of governamt conspiracy. You can't afford to think that way when you have kids. It just isn't responsible to not get your kid vaccinated becuase the governemt may use these methods to control our brains one day.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 6:27:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

It's not that vacinnes aren't effective, but that they are simply much less necesary than the media would like you to think. Of course half the media creditors can be tracked to a pharmaceutical company or to a political party that serves those companies. I still remember the recent bird flu "crisis": Infected persons? 10. Vaccines purchased by States? 10 thousand.

Now is the other way around. We want pills for hepatitis C that are worth an " each, but pharmaceuticals are selling them to us at 20 thousand " each.

This people in which we delegate our health issues are really psychopaths that can not be trusted. They are even capable of infecting someone through a fake-vacine, cause an outbreak, and then start selling real vaccines like gold. Reality surpassing fiction.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 6:50:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Concept art:

http://www.charlestondailymail.com...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:22:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 6:27:21 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

It's not that vacinnes aren't effective, but that they are simply much less necesary than the media would like you to think. Of course half the media creditors can be tracked to a pharmaceutical company or to a political party that serves those companies. I still remember the recent bird flu "crisis": Infected persons? 10. Vaccines purchased by States? 10 thousand.

And why were there only ten cases? Could it, perhaps, have something to do with strategic large-scale vaccinations?

Now is the other way around. We want pills for hepatitis C that are worth an " each, but pharmaceuticals are selling them to us at 20 thousand " each.

That is an insurance issue which has nothing to do with the science behind vaccines. I agree that many medical prices are inflated outrageously.

This people in which we delegate our health issues are really psychopaths that can not be trusted. They are even capable of infecting someone through a fake-vacine, cause an outbreak, and then start selling real vaccines like gold. Reality surpassing fiction.

Source?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 10:23:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 4:17:28 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

Skepsikyma gave a larger response but I'll just speak my part briefly anyway.

The people who are immediately in danger are the very young and the sick.

Infants and young children who are not yet vaccinated for one reason or another are at risk of catching these diseases and are most likely to suffer and die from them- and they do. They are the innocents who suffer and die for the sake of "parental right to choose" and their deaths are the primary reason for the vitriol and moral outrage thrown at anti-vaxxers.

Some people already have compromised immune systems due to illness or lifelong disease and are unable to further compromise their immune system by getting vaccinations and are also likely to catch these diseases, suffer, and die- and they do.

However, if/when large numbers go unvaccinated: everybody is at risk.

If large numbers of people go unvaccinated and the disease is allowed to proliferate while some people's immune systems fight it off (after all the suffering and hospital bills, of course), this means that there will be some casualties- not just in the human population but also within the virus's population. That means that, if allowed to carry on-even in a minority of the population-, the virus will inevitably evolve, making it's general population stronger than what was there before. This evolution of the virus necessitates new and different vaccines, more money and time put into researching each individual disease. In short, allowing the virus to proliferate in even a minority of the population will put even the vaccinated at risk.

Yep, pretty much hit the nail on the head =)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2015 6:58:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 10:22:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/5/2015 6:27:21 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

It's not that vacinnes aren't effective, but that they are simply much less necesary than the media would like you to think. Of course half the media creditors can be tracked to a pharmaceutical company or to a political party that serves those companies. I still remember the recent bird flu "crisis": Infected persons? 10. Vaccines purchased by States? 10 thousand.

And why were there only ten cases? Could it, perhaps, have something to do with strategic large-scale vaccinations?

No, the vaccines used were also negligible. Thing is, suddenly there was a huge fear campaing for an illness that supposes half the danger they wanted us to think.

Let me put you some of the holders of the two main newspapers of my country after the alleged crisis of bird flu:

"Spain destrois 6 million vaccines against influenza A who were not used. Spain spent 98 million euros in vaccines and prevention. Only 3 million people were vaccinated." (http://www.20minutos.es...)

THE HOAX OF BIRD FLU - "We've been tricked" sentences a former spanish vicepresident of the World Health Organization (WHO). "We want to expose all this huge operation of intoxication" adds a German expert. Already renowned doctors investigated for possible corruption. All numbers given were exaggerated. Enrichment of some pharmaceutical and the millions spent by governments on useless vaccines. The farce of the pandemic begins to crumble."
"At least 150 million people will die because of bird flue" said happily the World Health Organization (WHO), speaking about the supposed victims that would die from June to December last year, four times more than the flu of 1918, the largest pandemic in world history. Panic pure and simple.
"We have been fooled, starting with the WHO and the laboratories" says Pedro Caba, former vice president of the WHO. "The formula is simple: create the problem, instill all possible fear and then sell the solution. Never fails".

To date only 272 people have died. And but two people, all the other victimas already had a pathology before contracting the A-flu. In total, far fewer than the 3,000 or 4,000 who die each year from seasonal flu in Spain. The cost of the alert -made by several studies supported by prestigious epidemiologists- has been high in all aspects: 333 million euros that Zapatero's government spent on the compulsory purchase of vaccines and antivirals. Not to mention health spending (still unspecified) that led to the flood of visits to hospitals and health centers, both public and private.

The business of fear worked perfectly. Pharmaceutical, billing 700.000 million a year, nearly four times the annual budget of Spain, spend most of their income (35%) in promotion and global marketing of their products.

In all this time (2010) only 14000 people have died in the 208 countries where the A-flu virus is present. WHO is facing an unprecedented crisis of credibility. Pharmaceuticals are accused of promoting the fiasco to enrich themselves. Prestigious specialists are marked as corrupt. Governments are reluctant to explain the real reasons that led them to spend hundreds of millions on vaccines and antivirals that are "useless" against influenza A.

Wolfgang Wodarg, German epidemiologist and president of the Health Commission of the European Council, has targeted the pharmaceutical lobbies, accused of orchestrating a global psychosis perfectly designed around bird flu to enrich themselves. "In April, when the first alarm came to me from Mexico, I was surprised by the data that supposedly justified the WHO pandemic declaration. There was not even 1,000 sick, and they were talking about a pandemic of the century. There was nothing that justified it. Influenza A was a golden opportunity for laboratories whose leaders knew they would behoove the jackpot if a pandemic was declared . [...] I have found, for example, that Klaus Stohr, who was head of the department of epidemiology at the WHO at the time of A-flu, and thus prepared the plans to cope with the pandemic, became a high Novartis executive [one of the largest vaccine companies also contracted by Spain]. And there are similar links between Glaxo, Baxter, etc. and influential members of the World Health Organization. "

"For New Zealand were expected 18,000 dead, but only 17 died. The same is true of Australia or Canada. But nobody paid atention to any real numbers. They were not interested in telling the truth. They were playing hundreds of billions of dollars"

WHO consultant, Albert Osterhaus, would have guilty written in his bank account. "He is the nexus of an international network known as The pharmaceutical mafia" according to the online newspaper The Market Oracle, specializing in financial matters. The suspicion that he has used its influence and scientific prestige to serve the interests of laboratories, has penetrated even in the Dutch Parliament, that has has opened an investigation to trace the origin of Osterhaus money in 2009 as the bank account of the virologist grew substantially as fears of pandemic spread.

"This is a public health crisis planned to detail. WHO even dared to modify the definition of "pandemia" to launch a global high alert when there were only 1,000 infected in Mexico." [...] "Before, WHO was funded by member countries, according to their GDP. When many of them stopped paying because they didn't had enough money for themselves, the organization was in crisis. Then the laboratories charged with dollars came like saviours, and little by little they grew more and more power. What happened now? It does not take a rocket scientist to deduce it." Dr. Caba said.

Spain, like many other countries, entered the cloth. It was with 10 million antiviral "Tamiflu" from Swiss drugmaker Roche, but only 6,000 doses were used. The marketing of fear had worked quite well throughout the world. Roche and Glaxo, producer of another antiviral "Relenza", went through the roof in the markets and earned 8,800 million in 2005. That with only 440 people infected worldwide, and only 262 deaths. There was not a single death from bird flu in Spain, except for a duck in the Basque Country (July 2006). But the wave of hysteria costed us 63 million euros, to which must be added 1.8 million to condition the Army lab where we guarded and encapsulated a portion of antivirals, and 3.3 million more on advertising. A scandal.

http://www.elmundo.es...

Now is the other way around. We want pills for hepatitis C that are worth an " each, but pharmaceuticals are selling them to us at 20 thousand " each.

That is an insurance issue which has nothing to do with the science behind vaccines. I agree that many medical prices are inflated outrageously.

Sure, the science behind vaccines is not the problem. I'm a biotechnologist, I know they work. But sadly the work of biologists is tainted by what businessmen and politicians do with the mentioned work.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2015 4:17:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

You never responded to me- I really hope that means my answers made sense to you..? I'm trying to get a sense of how I can better explain this topic because it often seems like there is no good way to explain it to people if they don't have some kind of background in evolution or biology or both.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
KhaosMage
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2015 9:02:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/10/2015 4:17:26 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:31:20 PM, KhaosMage wrote:
At 2/3/2015 2:19:36 PM, YYW wrote:
http://nymag.com...

Take a look at some of the tweets/forum posts anti-vaccine people are writing. It's as if anger and stupidity had a child of rage that was mentally handicapped.

Answer me this, since I do not know the answer:
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, and I get the disease, why are you in danger?
If you are vaccinated, and I am not, aren't I in danger from you carrying the disease? (or are vaccines not the same as anti-bodies)

You never responded to me- I really hope that means my answers made sense to you..? I'm trying to get a sense of how I can better explain this topic because it often seems like there is no good way to explain it to people if they don't have some kind of background in evolution or biology or both.

I'm a little out of my depth here, so I got scared and ran away. LOL

You said this:
If large numbers of people go unvaccinated and the disease is allowed to proliferate while some people's immune systems fight it off (after all the suffering and hospital bills, of course), this means that there will be some casualties- not just in the human population but also within the virus's population. That means that, if allowed to carry on-even in a minority of the population-, the virus will inevitably evolve, making it's general population stronger than what was there before. This evolution of the virus necessitates new and different vaccines, more money and time put into researching each individual disease. In short, allowing the virus to proliferate in even a minority of the population will put even the vaccinated at risk.

But, that is exactly what happens. I think I heard 3% of the population are either unvaccinated, allergic to vaccination, or the vaccination is ineffective. If we add (if needed) the very young and the old, this is a healthy minority of the population (potentially more in numbers than gays).
So, is this outbreak due to the anti-vaccinators or due to people who are at risk anyway?
The fundemental thing is, if you are vaccinated and I have measles, and I contaminate you, you fight the disease, but, can you still contaminate another? If so, then I see no way for this to be blamed solely on the anti-vaccinators, nor can this disease be irradicated completely, anyway.