Meeting with Trump emboldens anti-vaccine activists

originally posted by: tribal
a reply to: Annee

youre living in a dream world. The fact is, in any country with a healthy travel and tourism industry or with wide access to the rest of the wrolds population it is a certainty you and your child are coming in contact with unvaccinated or incomplete vaccinated people from other countries or even our own country all of the time.

No I'm not. I'm a realist.

I'm not taking my kid anywhere that doesn't have mandated vaccinations.

a reply to: tribal

I never said the victims are inconsequential. I just accept that it is currently impossible not to have them. Until biotechnology has developed enough where we can develop cures for people that are custom tailored to their individual DNA there will ALWAYS be casualties of medicine. Just from the shear fact that no two people share the same DNA. It's 100% inevitable. Sure, you could try to minimize that number as close to 0% as possible, which is what the government aims to do with its regulations like the cGMP regulations I quoted earlier, but that number will never equal 0. PLUS the close you get to 0% the cost and strain on the industry from regulations goes up exponentially. Do you know what an exponential graph looks like? And that's WITHOUT taking into account cases of fraud or corruption yet.

My company works very hard and takes medicine quality very important. The auditors who review our SOP's and watch us manufacture also take these things very important. Just because YOU want to stick your head in the sand about all the science and pretend like some outliers suddenly disqualify the whole field doesn't make your opinion correct or even logically sound. Look. You are wrong about how the pharmaceutical industry operates. You think you know what you are talking about because you read a few blogs. Probably some Natural News, but I can promise you've never actually talked to a pharmaceutical rep or spoken to a federal auditor about these things. Yet you presume to know what you are talking about. Then when someone comes along who can demonstrate better knowledge of the subject at hand comes along, you dismiss them because you can't accept that your biased worldview is wrong.

originally posted by: VinylTyrant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not if government forces it. Or do you not understand this is what my point is?

The government forces a lot of things on you. A vaccination is really the least of your worries in that regard. In fact, it's for your own good; plus the rest of the public's since you aren't contagious. Or do you like being a contagion and putting your fellow citizens at risk for disease?

You should really look up the number of people who die to these viruses versus the number of people who are harmed by vaccinations. It's not even a close comparison. Try starting with the Spanish Flu, a pandemic that exceeded the goddamn Black Death in fatalities by 4 to 1.

This issue always becomes so polarized.

Side #1: All CDC recommended vaccines are necessary and are not harmful. They should be mandatory.
Side #2: Vaccines are dangerous, the manufacturers evil, and they should not be required.

I'm somewhere in between, because I believe in facts. There are 2 main facts in this debate. (I'm not going to go and post links; you can look them up yourself if you care to.)

#1: Vaccines have been irrefutably proven to save lives.
#2: Vaccines have caused injuries in some cases.

Overall, I'm fairly certain that they've saved more lives than they've harmed. But personally knowing two families whose children have permanent neurological damage after receiving the CDC recommended rounds of vaccinations, my wife and I did not want to chance an injury to our children from the CDC's over-vaccination schedule. So neither of our sons are vaccinated (7 and 18 mos), and both are extremely healthy.

Some of the sickest kids I know have had full vaccination schedules, and have contracted viruses that they've been vaccinated against, sometimes more than once (whooping cough).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have questioned vaccines since be for it was a mainstream thing. I will continue regardless of what's said in this thread.

originally posted by: VinylTyrant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have questioned vaccines since be for it was a mainstream thing. I will continue regardless of what's said in this thread.

Great. You're an anti-vaxxer hipster. That still doesn't make your concerns justified.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not looking for your justification so that's good.

a reply to: projectvxn

do you understand that there are many people who lie in between pro-forced-vaxers and anti-vaxers? They are called skeptical people. They are called people who generally understand that each individual responds differently to different vaccines. They are people who understand that the risk of contracting some diseases are outweighed by the possible side effects of some vaccines. They are people who understand that, sometimes contracting a disease and building a natural, life-long immunity is better for one's body than receiving regular injected vaccinations that bring with them no verifiable way to know what is being injected into your body.

But, you go ahead and demonize everyone who doesn't fall in line by clumping them all into the "anti-vaxer" group. That makes you look much more intelligent than anyone who may have done research on vaccine side effects (per vaccine, not in general) and compared them to the health effects of contracting a disease (per vaccine) and then weighs the pros and cons of inoculation on an individual basis.

You talk about logical fallacies, but that is one of the biggest ones you can violate in a discussion like this. Not to mention that you are using the "Appeal-to-Authority" fallacy as well, along with the "Bandwagon" fallacy. If you want to start the finger pointing concerning the use of logical fallacies, you may want to rethink your strategy by not using any yourself.

ETA: And I'm concerned also with dicking around with my immune system artificially, especially with the recently discovered direct link between the immune system and the brain, which up until a year or two ago was a "fact" that it didn't exist. Remember, the people who discovered that direct link are outliers to many other studies on the subject, but they're not wrong. (that's where the appeal to authority and bandwagon fallacies come into play)

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Now why did you have to come in here making sense annd sounding logical? Your screwing up their whole show.

a reply to: VinylTyrant

Bad habit that I have, what with despising the worst-case-scenario, hyperbole-driven extremist views that many ATSers have on many topics on this site.

I do what I can--never really amounts to much, though. I appreciate you noticing.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well it's pretty much how I see it. I know vaccines have helped mankind but to the point it is now it's out of control. And it seems no one wants you talking about it. That's when you really know there's a problem.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

regular injected vaccinations that bring with them no verifiable way to know what is being injected into your body

It's this type of willful ignorance that ensures I will continue to hold denialism in contempt.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am sure that inhalers are a life saving and the best thing to treat asthma and lung congestion, but I guess for me as it was the first time I ever used one, I really didn't had congestion to begin with and neither asthma, I am no clear why it was prescribed, it wasn't my regular doctor the one that gave it to me but an alternative one.

I tell you, the reaction it gave me I will never forget it, as a person that are fit and do cardio at least 6 days a week getting my hart rate from normal 60 the highest to 145 it was scary just within seconds of using the inhaler.

Maybe I didn't how to use it. I hope I never have to use one ever again.

originally posted by: VinylTyrant
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well it's pretty much how I see it. I know vaccines have helped mankind but to the point it is now it's out of control. And it seems no one wants you talking about it. That's when you really know there's a problem.

Exactly. 70+ vaccinations by age 10 is probably NOT good for your immune system, especially on top of all the other ingredients and preservatives that are in them, some of them quite harmful when compounded as they are.

originally posted by: projectvxn
It's this type of willful ignorance that ensures I will continue to hold denialism in contempt.

I agree. You're quite contemptuous.

Unethical Human experimentation in the USA

a reply to: X88B88

What does that have to do with vaccines?

Let me answer that:

Nothing.

a reply to: seasonal

Actually there are millions more pro-vaccine-CHOICE advocates that believe actually not all vaccines should be taken by everyone, than their are anti-vaxers that believe no vaccines are right for anyone. It actually takes incredible levels of MSM zombie infestation in someone's brain to believe that all vaccines are good for everyone.


But no, sometimes no is the right answer. Even if yes were always the right answer to vaccines, what goes into my body is my choice, not yours. Actually you shoving things into my body is assault and I'd be justified to use whatever force necessary to stop you from trying to inject crap I don't want into my blood stream.

a reply to: projectvxn

It's not willful ignorance--I think that you need to look that term up and ponder its definition for a minute (or two, or three).

Unless you are at the lab creating the vaccines, you verify every ingredient, and watch it get mixed with your own eyes, you have no idea that is in there that may or may not be listed. I'm not saying that I think vaccines are the new MK Ultra experiment on the world (nor did I claim anything else nefarious about the vaccines...you interpreted that yourself, I guess), but you can not, with any sort of intellectual integrity, say that the comment I made and that you quote is equivalent to "willful ignorance."

Hold whatever you want to in contempt, but if you're going to do it, at least do it intelligently and with some sort of integrity without pretending that something I said has no logical merit, otherwise, all that you are doing is presenting yourself as an ideological alarmist, and that's never a good thing during a discussion.

So, like I said in my comment that you seemingly chose to ignore--you can pretend that I espouse some sort of "denialism" if you want to, but a healthy dose of skepticism concerning things injected into one's body is a perfectly acceptable thing to have when it comes to one's health and well being. Anyone who claims that as being "willful ignorance" apparently doesn't posses the skill of critical thinking. (that's not meant as a direct insult to you, but if you take it that way, I can't stop you from making that connection)

Best regards, as any further discussion on this matter with you will most likely yield predictably stagnant results.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: X88B88

What does that have to do with vaccines?

Let me answer that:

Nothing.

If you can't see the concern from that posting, then I fear that you are one of those people who ignorantly believe that history will never repeat itself. If so, like I said above, continuing this discussion with you will be fruitless, as you seem unwilling to even temporarily contemplate that an unfettered embracing of all vaccines is a dangerous position to take.

a reply to: X88B88

Don't you know that history never repeats itself? There's no possible way that any government-backed injection program pushed on the masses (and forced on some, like in California) could ever have negative consequences for U.S. citizenry. How dare you even suggest such a thing, especially to someone who calls it "willfully ignorant" to point out that there is no way for the average person to truly know what is included in the recipe of a vaccine?

/sarc

a reply to: marg6043

Unfortunately, I have asthma, and it sucks--royally, at times, especially since I am a very active person. Happily, though, mine seems to be more allergen-induced than exercise-induced, so I have that going for me, I guess.

But, a raised heart rate is a relatively normal side effect of using a rescue-type inhaler (albuterol and the like), and if you've never used on before, it would obviously be a more dramatic side effect if you're sensitive to that reaction than if you were a seasoned user, like me. In fact, it is something to which the body can build a resistance, so it has been mentioned to me by more than one doctor in my lifetime to only use them when necessary, or else it may not have the necessary efficacy when I truly was in a life-threatening asthma attack.

I don't blame you, though, for not liking that side effect. Sometimes I need to take a puff before going to bed--imagine trying to fall asleep right after using an inhaler.

In fact, I believe the model from the 90s (Nikki Taylor?) had a sister die from overdosing on an inhaler--I think it caused her to have heart failure or something associated with her heart. Inhalers are not toys, that's for sure. I hope that you never need to use one again, either--sadly, I'm beholden to one (Symbicort) on a daily basis, but it's a steroid inhaler that manages my asthma pretty well (with no raised heart rate), so my reliance on Albuterol has diminished over time. The side effect from Symbicort that I hate, though, is that my voice waivers and cracks when speaking in low volume now--it makes me sound nervous all of the time.

originally posted by: fractal5
Actually you shoving things into my body is assault and I'd be justified to use whatever force necessary to stop you from trying to inject crap I don't want into my blood stream.

Yep, I pity the day for the doctor/nurse if it comes down to someone attempting to force me to accept a vaccine that I do not want or declare for myself that I do not need. It wouldn't end very pretty if they pushed it too far.