Anti-Vaxxer Bets Scientists $100,000 They Can’t Prove Measles Exists; Anti-Vaxxer Loses $100,000

This is wonderful. I mean how dumb can you be? Apparently $100,000.

originally posted by: PorteurDeMort
This is wonderful. I mean how dumb can you be? Apparently $100,000.

I hope he learned from this. He probably still thinks measles doesn't exist.

a reply to: Elton

This stunt is nothing more than propaganda and programming to get the anti vaccine people to look as foolish and uneducated as this man who lost the bet

I don't give a ***** he lost a bet

I am anti vaccine because I know what's in it

And I also know that in the 50s 60s 70s they weren't putting metals and adjuvants into vaccines

a reply to: Aaamok88

You and Lanka would get along quite well by the sounds of it..

Sounds like a pro-vaccine statement. To avoid the real issue about vaccines. No need for mandatory vaccines. That is what brought all this to attention to begin with. Just a bunch of crap to distract you from the real subject to get crap passed the sheeple.

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Chadwickus

I believe you misunderstood his point, the sheeple in this case are pro-vaxers who will trumpet this ludicrous bet as proof of how stupid anti-vaxxers are!

Hundreds of years of research, starting with Jenner and continuing to the work of countless immunologists and epidemiologists today, constitutes sufficient proof that anti-vaxers are stupid. But this kind of thing is the cherry on top.

See this is where you are showing a bit of "sheeple" in my opinion - though I despise that word. There is a frightening LACK of research as far as I'm concerned, starting with Jenner whose first vaccination attempts on his own son and a boy named Phipps produced apparently two very sickly individuals who no, never got pox, but whom both died in their early 20s; going on to the complete denial of vaccinated populations coming down with the diseases they're innoculated against, leading up to today with the blanket statement that "vaccines are safe and effective" and denying any problems, alarming correlations or any reports/evidence to the contrary. This is the opposite of science.

originally posted by: Drunkenparrot

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Chadwickus

originally posted by: Chadwickus

So anti vaxxers are sheeple?

I hate the word, but agree completely that they are.

Sheeple are followers. Anti-vaxxers are not followers. Following the norm would be to follow what you doctor asks and that is to be vaccinated. Sounds more like pro-vaxxers to me.

In all honesty, the anti vaccination crowd are.

They hear some nonsensical pseudo science that conforms to their pre established beliefs that some nefarious power that be is working towards some kooky agenda that mirrors an Austin Powers movie plot.

Every thread is guaranteed to have at least one anti vaxer waving that discredited paper citing a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism is icing on the cake.

Agreed, anti-vaxers tout some ridiculous things and cite many bogus sources/info. But quite honestly, THAT is what is being promulgated in the media right now to bring anti vaxers down, and unfortunately, it's working. For me though, it does nothing to detract from the ACTUAL studies that have been done, published in peer reviewed medical journals; it does nothing to detract from the simple act of putting 2 and 2 together and observing relatively obvious correlations, and by listening to people's personal stories. By the same token, I see most pro vaxers just repeating what the media/FDA/medical profession/CDC keep repeating, which never cites any studies, proof, but simply repeat a mantra that everyone accepts because they A: want to, B: accept because it's coming down from the "official" source.

a reply to: thebtheb

originally posted by: thebtheb

Agreed, anti-vaxers tout some ridiculous things and cite many bogus sources/info

maybe you should validate the claims yourself. google is your friend. I don't want to inject embalming fluid

originally posted by: thebtheb

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Chadwickus

I believe you misunderstood his point, the sheeple in this case are pro-vaxers who will trumpet this ludicrous bet as proof of how stupid anti-vaxxers are!

Hundreds of years of research, starting with Jenner and continuing to the work of countless immunologists and epidemiologists today, constitutes sufficient proof that anti-vaxers are stupid. But this kind of thing is the cherry on top.

See this is where you are showing a bit of "sheeple" in my opinion - though I despise that word. There is a frightening LACK of research as far as I'm concerned,

When you get a seat on the ACIP, AAFP, or some similar organization, then I will start to care about what frightens you.

starting with Jenner whose first vaccination attempts on his own son and a boy named Phipps produced apparently two very sickly individuals who no, never got pox, but whom both died in their early 20s;

So looking at a sample size of two, you decided the smallpox vaccination makes people sick and kills them in their twenties. Looking at a sample size of millions, actual scientists have concluded that isn't true. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter, because the smallpox vaccine has eradicated smallpox in the wild--much to the chagrin of the anti-vaxers.

going on to the complete denial of vaccinated populations coming down with the diseases they're innoculated against,

No one denies that. Only anti-vaxers think the science allegedly shows all vaccines are 100% effective. It's a straw man. It's easily disproven by reference to just about any published study anywhere. Anti-vaxers use this straw man because they cannot argue effectively against the actual science.

leading up to today with the blanket statement that "vaccines are safe and effective" and denying any problems, alarming correlations or any reports/evidence to the contrary. This is the opposite of science.

No one denies that vaccines cause adverse effects, however the rate of adverse effects is lower than the rate of adverse effects from not being vaccinated. That is what is meant by "safe and effective." When the relationship is inverted, the vaccine's recommendation is modified, or it is pulled from the market (e.g. oral polio vaccine, the first rotavirus vaccine). When anti-vaxers talk about the adverse effects and do not compare them to the effects of non-vaccination, that is a lie by omission, and it is a lie with real health consequences for many people.

WOW It only took 4 years for someone to prove it, wassup wit dat ?

a reply to: [post=19116718]FurvusRexCaeli[/po


The international medical council on vaccination has stated that although smallpox has been declared eradicated, it is still infecting people, there are member who state vaccines do more harm than good.
I have not had any sort of vaccine since I was 16, I am now past my allotted biblical span of years.
Since reading so much about mercury, fetus matter, aluminium, other junk in vaccines to many to remember, I'm just glad I have kept away from all of them.

a reply to: Elton

The whole story sounds like a made of load of rubbish to me. lol

a reply to: Elton

"Biologist"

He should have his degree stripped from him


We're did this loon even get his degree from?

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

Hundreds of years of research, starting with Jenner and continuing to the work of countless immunologists and epidemiologists today, constitutes sufficient proof that anti-vaxers are stupid. But this kind of thing is the cherry on top.

There is a lot of proof and countless research to show that pro-vaxxers are stupid too.

The eradication of small pox says otherwise.


Do you know any kid with polio? No I don't either.

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: thebtheb

originally posted by: thebtheb

Agreed, anti-vaxers tout some ridiculous things and cite many bogus sources/info

maybe you should validate the claims yourself. google is your friend. I don't want to inject embalming fluid

Oh my gosh, chemicals are scary.



Ignorance is frightening.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Now that chemicals are scary reply goes right up there with the worst anti-vaxer stuff. True dat!

a reply to: crazyewok

You've heard it before I'm sure, but have you ever actually gone and researched it: both those diseases were on their way out before the vaccines were introduced. And polio still exists. In fact, the CDC says on its own site that there is indeed a vaccine induced strain that circulates. And in fact, the vaccine strain is now going through India and Africa, since because the US decided not to use that vaccine here anymore (gee, I wonder why) but apparently it's perfectly fine for India and Africa, and now both have the vaccine strain circulating, which is actually more virulent than the "wild strain."

"Vaccines eradicated polio, small pox" is a STATEMENT. There is NO proof whatsoever to back it up. It's just an assumption that's so old, everyone assumes it's true.

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: thebtheb

originally posted by: FurvusRexCaeli

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: Chadwickus

I believe you misunderstood his point, the sheeple in this case are pro-vaxers who will trumpet this ludicrous bet as proof of how stupid anti-vaxxers are!

Hundreds of years of research, starting with Jenner and continuing to the work of countless immunologists and epidemiologists today, constitutes sufficient proof that anti-vaxers are stupid. But this kind of thing is the cherry on top.

See this is where you are showing a bit of "sheeple" in my opinion - though I despise that word. There is a frightening LACK of research as far as I'm concerned,

When you get a seat on the ACIP, AAFP, or some similar organization, then I will start to care about what frightens you.

That statement blows my mind. Nothing remotely putting vaccines in a bad light is ever going to come out of those organizations, considering they are vitally linked to the drug companies, and since they've been telling us for years to take vaccines. Do you think if they came across something bad about vaccines that they would promulgate it?

starting with Jenner whose first vaccination attempts on his own son and a boy named Phipps produced apparently two very sickly individuals who no, never got pox, but whom both died in their early 20s;

So looking at a sample size of two, you decided the smallpox vaccination makes people sick and kills them in their twenties. Looking at a sample size of millions, actual scientists have concluded that isn't true. Fortunately, it doesn't really matter, because the smallpox vaccine has eradicated smallpox in the wild--much to the chagrin of the anti-vaxers.

Nope, apparently you missed my point altogether - I was just going for a basic historical value and that's about it. You can pick apart my words and deduce some ridiculous pronouncement I've apparently made, but it's pretty obvious your conclusion has nothing to do with what I said.

going on to the complete denial of vaccinated populations coming down with the diseases they're innoculated against,

No one denies that. Only anti-vaxers think the science allegedly shows all vaccines are 100% effective. It's a straw man. It's easily disproven by reference to just about any published study anywhere. Anti-vaxers use this straw man because they cannot argue effectively against the actual science.

Really? Then why do we always hear that "vaccines are safe and effective," almost all the time? I don't use this to any purpose except to point out that there are sound reasons why people question vaccines.

a reply to: thebtheb

Spamming the thread isn't necessary. Get your point across in one concise post, or go away.

a reply to: Elton

I bet Jenny McCarthy is a tad pi$$ed at this development.