Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

a reply to: Boadicea

LOL ... you did jump in, but you didn't. Okay, I guess that's (not) logical. Mostly irrelevant though; you like all of us can say what you want.

LOL ... so justification and confirmation are totally different terms in your mind? Okay. /shrug

It made you smile, eh? Good. Who do you think is reading the thread, mostly? That's right, anti-vaxxers.

What you see as "confirmation" I see as "confirmation bias." Different strokes, eh?

I'm not going to continue to talk about other posters with you. That's off-topic. Apparently, I'm the only one here that has a problem with that. Posting about another posting "calling a spade a spade" and not pretending that lies and misunderstanding are just as valid and real as proven scientific facts is off-topic. Period.

Unless of course you're not really interested in the core issues here and are just looking for starry validation for your beliefs ...

If there were no government-mandated vaccination we'd still be dealing with a host of horrible diseases. Period.

What you see as "friendly" is your own perception. You don't like being told that your beliefs are non-factually based, I'm sure. Speaking the truth is not, however "unfriendly." And it's also not "friendly" to allow misunderstandings and errors to be presented as "just as valid" as the truth.

Thanks for answering my questions. Indeed, we are on different sides of the issue here.

Your position, in my estimation, is intensely dangerous to society at large. Your position favors hear-say and opinion equally with research and scientific understanding, which is also intensely dangerous to society at large.

If you and those like you who "question" the reality of immunology lived on an island by yourselves, more power to you.

You don't. You live with us and beside us. Your ideas are not just odd or tangential ... they're dangerous.

In my opinion based on decades of established scientific and medical fact.

No hard feelings though, I hope!

a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, no hard feelings. I can see the virtue in your position. I understand the potential tragedy that could come from an irrational fear of vaccination...

I just hope you can see the potential tragedy that could come from an irrational faith and trust in govt and/or Big Pharma... if not today, then one day... and the sooner the better.

We need to find the proper balance.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope, no hard feelings. I can see the virtue in your position. I understand the potential tragedy that could come from an irrational fear of vaccination...

I just hope you can see the potential tragedy that could come from an irrational faith and trust in govt and/or Big Pharma... if not today, then one day... and the sooner the better.

We need to find the proper balance.

The "side" opposing the anti-vaccination movement is unfairly characterized as having irrational faith in government and/or "big Pharma" ... in fact, just the opposite. I am in favor of REAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH into the safety of how vaccinations are administered, etc. That's a very reasonable, thoughtful, science-based opinion.

I'm sorry, homeopathy and the like are simply not medically or scientifically sound. There's no basis for refusing to immunize children, and mounds of data and decades of facts that suggest that we should.

Allowing that there is "a different opinion" is not kindness in this regard; it's poison.

Immunization saves millions of lives. That's an nonconvertible fact.

What's with the recent tend of anti vaxxers pretending to be pro-vaccination, just "concerned" and "just asking questions"? At least have the honesty and strength of character to stand by your convictions, even if they are wrong.

" I'm not anti vaccine, I just parrot the anti vaccine talking points and steadfastly refused to accept information from anything other than anti vaxxer sources ".

a reply to: GetHyped

I am pro-vaccination. But I am also against government involvement in a parent's decision to vaccinate. It's a reasonable opinion.

Can't speak for anyone else, but just so you know and so anyone else reading this knows, your comment does not apply to me.

a reply to: Gryphon66

With all due respect, you are assuming too much.

Reasonable precautions for reasonable risks. My hubby gets hurt occasionally at work, and because tetanus shots wear off, he has to get another one every so many years. Because my hubby works on dirty yukku construction sites with lots of heavy metal and equipment, injuries, and therefore tetanus, is a real concern, so he gets the shots regularly. Me? I haven't had one for probably 20 years. But I don't share that risk, so getting tetanus shots isn't a priority for me. Reasonable precautions for reasonable risks. Likewise, does a three-month-old baby need an HPV shot? Of course not. Reasonable precautions for reasonable risks. That's not anti-vaxx... just good sense.

Further, there is absolutely no doubt that vaccines can and do cause adverse reactions. The real question is not "if," but how much. So in the real world, both vaccinating and not vaccinating can have undesirable outcomes. You know that. You also know that is only one of many things that could go wrong and cause harm to people. We also both know that neither one of us has the whole truth.

Again, people will just have to do their own due diligence, consider all the pros and cons, and come to their own conclusions.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm assuming too much about what, exactly? Please be specific so that I can respond more directly.

Tetanus isn't communicable wide-range. Immunization is a personal precaution intended to keep individuals safe.

Then you jump to "does a three month old need an HPV shot?" and pretend that's just the same as you running the risk of tetanus.

The two examples you wish to present as equal are not similar in the least.

Vaccines do cause reactions in a small number of cases. They prevent diseases in infinitely more cases. We can explore actual numbers if you'd like me to prove that point.

You're presenting the bad effects/good outcomes as if they are equal in magnitude; they are not. Not by a long shot.

In fact they are different in multiple ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE in uncompromising favor of "good outcomes."

Those are some pretty fundamental misrepresentations of reality.

Further, you invoke "due diligence" as if the matter is still up for consideration, that there are additional facts that need to be considered.

Every medical treatment has some component of risk. Getting up in the morning has some component of risk.

However, 99.99% of the time, we will be fine from getting up, from medical treatment, and from immunization.

In fact, we'll likely be far better for it than if we ignored those precautions.

I'm not sure how you can debate that fact with a clear conscience.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm assuming too much about what, exactly? Please be specific so that I can respond more directly.

You assume too much when you assume that I am anti-vax. I'm not.

Tetanus isn't communicable wide-range. Immunization is a personal precaution intended to keep individuals safe.

Then you jump to "does a three month old need an HPV shot?" and pretend that's just the same as you running the risk of tetanus.

The two examples you wish to present as equal are not similar in the least.

Vaccinations are vaccinations. It demonstrates that I am not anti-vaxx. I could have told you that our kids had all their shots, but that was years ago... I used the most recent example.

Further, you invoke "due diligence" as if the matter is still up for consideration, that there are additional facts that need to be considered.

Damn right... this ain't over by a long shot!!! You can bet your sweet bippy it's still up for consideration... and you can also bet that it is exactly this attitude and lack of respect for people that worries me the most. NOT the vaccines.

a reply to: Boadicea

Ah. You just link to sites which are anti-vax, post an anti-vax article, and have repeated most of the main anti-vaxxer points.

The fact that ... what ... your husband reasonbly gets a tetanus shot and you don't ... proves you're not "anti-vax"?

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense.

Tetanus is not generally communicable between people. There is a host of diseases that are. Comparing vaccinations for the two categories is mistaken.

No, the science of immunology is not "up for consideration." The science is clear.

Where have I demonstrated (or where has anyone else demonstrated) a lack of respect for people. Having respect for people doesn't include not telling them the truth, or allowing anyone to endanger society as blatantly as going un-immunized would.

In fact, standing up against such nonsense is a matter of the highest concern and care for people.

/shrug

a reply to: Gryphon66

Where have I demonstrated (or where has anyone else demonstrated) a lack of respect for people. Having respect for people doesn't include not telling them the truth, or allowing anyone to endanger society as blatantly as going un-immunized would.

In fact, standing up against such nonsense is a matter of the highest concern and care for people.

What a crock. I know you think I should be hanging my head in shame... and possibly beating myself with a cat o'nines... but I'm really just shaking it in horror.

We both know that neither you nor anyone can guarantee the safety and efficacy of vaccinations for everyone, not today and not ever. No one person has that much control over the process. There are so many ways that the truth is hidden from the masses under color of law that it is impossible for anyone to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Furthermore, we both know that medical science is fallible, claims are made and touted as gospel truth that are later proven false -- and often dangerous. Drugs have been put on the market that KILL people, and it's still harder than hell to get them pulled. ALL medical procedures have risks, including vaccinations.

And yet, in your arrogance, when I -- or anyone -- exercises any reasonable and healthy caution (pun intended) you wonder how they can do so in good conscience.... Well, I'll tell you: Because I don't pretend to be all-knowing and all-seeing, and I don't presume to have the wisdom or the authority to dictate what others should or should not do with and to their bodies. I will respect (and fight for, if necessary) people's right to do their own due diligence, come to their own conclusions, and act -- or not -- accordingly.

By the way, we never stopped eating eggs either... and nothing but rich creamery butter for us

originally posted by: GetHyped
What's with the recent tend of anti vaxxers pretending to be pro-vaccination, just "concerned" and "just asking questions"? At least have the honesty and strength of character to stand by your convictions, even if they are wrong.

" I'm not anti vaccine, I just parrot the anti vaccine talking points and steadfastly refused to accept information from anything other than anti vaxxer sources ".

It's very similar to those who use the phrase;
"I'm not racist, but...".