Study: Unvaccinated kids are healthier than vaccinate kids [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Study: Unvaccinated kids are healthier than vaccinate kids


Pages : [1] 2

Glocksanity
10-08-2012, 11:48
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-vaccinated-children-have-2-to-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/

No study of health outcomes of vaccinated people versus unvaccinated has ever been conducted in the U.S. by CDC or any other agency in the 50 years or more of an accelerating schedule of vaccinations (now over 50 doses of 14 vaccines given before kindergarten, 26 doses in the first year).

And now you know why.

They make vaccines mandatory. They give unlimited indemnity to the vaccine manufacturers. The population gets sicker and sicker and we end up with Obamacare. What a great country!!

muscogee
10-08-2012, 12:07
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-vaccinated-children-have-2-to-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/

And now you know why.

They make vaccines mandatory. They give unlimited indemnity to the vaccine manufacturers. The population gets sicker and sicker and we end up with Obamacare. What a great country!!

The title is misleading. I was in the second grade when the U.S. started vaccinating for Polio. A lot of people my age grew up with braces on their legs so they could walk and had corrective to make both of their legs the same length. The afflicted limb was always smaller and weaker than the other one. There were people who spent most of their childhood and all their adult lives in iron lungs. Due to the vaccinations, you don't see that any more. We may have overdone it, but in general, vaccinations are a good thing.

m2hmghb
10-08-2012, 12:11
Sorry but that does not look like a study, it looks more like a survey. To quote "The information is from an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and from a German classical homeopathic practitioner". There is no peer review, there is no random sampling, there is nothing except a bunch of questions people answered on a website.

.264 magnum
10-08-2012, 12:27
What blind stupidity.

Think about the world today without vaccines against:

Smallpox (really the argument ends right here)
Polio
Tetanus
Diphtheria
Pertussis
Etc.

GLWyandotte
10-08-2012, 12:32
Interesting.
A "study" pushing a book on a website pushing the study.

If the ailments listed had anything to actually do with the vaccines for which they are intended it might be a *little* less dubious.

Psychman
10-08-2012, 13:08
The title is misleading. I was in the second grade when the U.S. started vaccinating for Polio. A lot of people my age grew up with braces on their legs so they could walk and had corrective to make both of their legs the same length. The afflicted limb was always smaller and weaker than the other one. There were people who spent most of their childhood and all their adult lives in iron lungs. Due to the vaccinations, you don't see that any more. We may have overdone it, but in general, vaccinations are a good thing.

Yup. Sugar cube administration!

hamster
10-08-2012, 13:30
What blind stupidity.

Think about the world today without vaccines against:

Smallpox (really the argument ends right here)
Polio
Tetanus
Diphtheria
Pertussis
Etc.

I have to agree. There are major childhood diseases that we should be vaccinating against.

Personally I don't think that chickenpox or other more minor diseases should necessarily be included, but there is no doubt or question in my mind that those listed are critical.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 13:32
That is not a "study" that is a sales pitch.

Pure BS.

Glocksanity
10-08-2012, 13:57
The argument is more along the lines that the over-dosaging of children with vaccines creates more health problems than it prevents.

It is one thing to give a few for some major diseases, but when kids end up getting thirty or forty or fifty vaccines before their bodies are able to develop a mature immune system, you are creating more health problems than you are preventing.

Like we really need mandatory HPV vaccines without parental consent?

My oh my, how ever did man evolve and survive without vaccines? I'll tell you how. Herd immunity kept the strong alive and the weak perished. It's called nature. Get used to it.

Vaccines are great if they are voluntary. But mandatory vaccines are tyranny. And they kill.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 14:05
The argument is more along the lines that the over-dosaging of children with vaccines creates more health problems than it prevents.

It is one thing to give a few for some major diseases, but when kids end up getting thirty or forty or fifty vaccines before their bodies are able to develop a mature immune system, you are creating more health problems than you are preventing.

Like we really need mandatory HPV vaccines without parental consent?

My oh my, how ever did man evolve and survive without vaccines? I'll tell you how. Herd immunity kept the strong alive and the weak perished. It's called nature. Get used to it.

Vaccines are great if they are voluntary. But mandatory vaccines are tyranny. And they kill.

And you have a medical degree/medical research degree from where? Can you point me in the direction of your peer reviewed articles?

Geko45
10-08-2012, 14:06
It is one thing to give a few for some major diseases, but when kids end up getting thirty or forty or fifty vaccines before their bodies are able to develop a mature immune system, you are creating more health problems than you are preventing.

Support this statement.

My oh my, how ever did man evolve and survive without vaccines? I'll tell you how. Herd immunity kept the strong alive and the weak perished. It's called nature. Get used to it.

And if you were lucky then you lived to the ripe old age of 40.

Glocksanity
10-08-2012, 14:07
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

NeverMore1701
10-08-2012, 14:07
http://i.qkme.me/35e4cu.jpg

Glocksanity
10-08-2012, 14:09
And you have a medical degree/medical research degree from where? Can you point me in the direction of your peer reviewed articles?

I don't have a degree in criminology, but I know more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 14:11
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

Correlation is not causation. Do you have a clinical study definitively linking these two claims?

I'd be more likley to suspect a more inclusive definition for the diagnosis of autism as the cause of the seeming increase in autism rates than I would the expanded use of vaccines.

Glocksanity
10-08-2012, 14:11
Support this statement.

It's out there for those willing to open their minds to truth.



And if you were lucky then you lived to the ripe old age of 40.

Tell that to Methuselah.

Glocksanity
10-08-2012, 14:14
I feel like I am talking to cavemen in this thread.

Maybe I should have said:

Cops and Vaccines are good for you! Trust all of them all the time. They are there to help you!!!

Ha ha ha.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 14:15
It's out there for those willing to open their minds to truth.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to find us some peer reviewed clinical studies. You made the claim. Cite your sources.

Tell that to Methuselah.

http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/facepalm.gif

Bren
10-08-2012, 14:16
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-vaccinated-children-have-2-to-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/



And now you know why.

They make vaccines mandatory. They give unlimited indemnity to the vaccine manufacturers. The population gets sicker and sicker and we end up with Obamacare. What a great country!!

:tinfoil::tinfoil::tinfoil:

So, if I click the link I get vaccineinjury.info and if I click the "disclaimer" I discover that the source of this fabulous scientific data, is copyright owner:

Traditional Homeopathy Andreas Bachmair,
Certified Homeopathic Practitioner (also under Swiss law) Park 31,
Bahnhofstr. 31
CH-8280 Kreuzlingen,
Switzerland: 0041-71-6700672 and Fax: 01212-5-350-17-504 (from Germany)_

Really? How stupid would I have to be to make healthcare decisions about children based on the combined knowledge of a web site by a homeopathy "practitioner" and some "vaccine injury" lawyers.:upeyes:

Hey, what do the guys in the voodoo shops in New Orleans think about vaccinations?:rofl:

Glocksanity
10-08-2012, 14:16
If vaccines are so safe, why do the drug companies demand and get total indemnity from the Nanny state from any and all side effects of the mandated vaccines?

Geko45
10-08-2012, 14:17
If vaccines are so safe, why do the drug companies demand and get total indemnity from the Nanny state from any and all side effects of the mandated vaccines?

Because of people like you.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 14:17
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

The U.S is also the world leader in people who have walked on the moon. Hell, we have an unchallenged monopoly in it.

According to your logic, a population of moon walkers is why we have the highest rate of autism.

See, that is not how math works. Besides not have a medical background, you such at math as well.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 14:20
According to your logic, a population of moon walker is why we have the highest rate of autism.

No, no, no... Vaccinations caused the sudden increase in "moon walking" in the U.S.

:whistling: :rofl:

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 14:21
If vaccines are so safe, why do the drug companies demand and get total indemnity from the Nanny state from any and all side effects of the mandated vaccines?

Because they would be sued out of existence by juries stacked with people like you and then we would all start suffereing the effects of things we have defeted.

G36's Rule
10-08-2012, 14:22
This thread has potential. Just need a few more GNG nutbaggers to show up...

Patchman
10-08-2012, 14:23
I'm against medication of any kind unless one's very, very sick. And yes, I do believe MDs today over-prescribe everything.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

series1811
10-08-2012, 14:23
The title is misleading. I was in the second grade when the U.S. started vaccinating for Polio. A lot of people my age grew up with braces on their legs so they could walk and had corrective to make both of their legs the same length. The afflicted limb was always smaller and weaker than the other one. There were people who spent most of their childhood and all their adult lives in iron lungs. Due to the vaccinations, you don't see that any more. We may have overdone it, but in general, vaccinations are a good thing.

There are risks in every medical procedure, but I agree that vaccinations are a pretty good bet overall.

I remember polio kids, and getting my sugar cube when I was young, and I am glad I did.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 14:23
No, no, no... Vaccinations caused the sudden increase in "moon walking" in the U.S.

:whistling: :rofl:

I would say it was a sudden influx of nazi rocket scientists....but ok. Vaccinations it is.

...and Freemasons, those damned, dirty Freemasons. It is always their fault.... and some Jew, somewhere, doing his Jewy Jewish things!

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 14:26
I'm against medication of any kind unless one's very, very sick. And yes, I do believe MDs today over-prescribe everything.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

Yeah, what could those people possibly do for the sake of all man kind...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01387/stephen-hawking_1387959c.jpg

ICARRY2
10-08-2012, 14:27
That is not a "study" that is a sales pitch.

Pure BS.

This.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 14:33
It is always their fault.... and some Jew, somewhere, doing his Jewy Jewish things!

http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

tsmo1066
10-08-2012, 14:43
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

:wow:

Soooooo, tonight's "Google-Fu" homework exercise for you is to research the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Be sure to have a report ready for class tomorrow morning.

:wavey:

devildog2067
10-08-2012, 14:44
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

"The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in obesity.

Therefore, being fat causes autism."

You can replace "obesity" with a number of other terms: car ownership, income levels, number of Xboxes, whatever you want.

You know what all of those things have in common with vaccines? None of them have any statistical correlation with autism.

devildog2067
10-08-2012, 14:45
http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

Now that is some serious comedic genius right there.

muscogee
10-08-2012, 14:48
Vaccines are great if they are voluntary. But mandatory vaccines are tyranny. And they kill.

You think the eradication of smallpox through mandatory vaccinations was a bad thing? I'm quite happy my children and grandchildren don't have to face that scourge. Guess that makes me a socialists.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 14:49
http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/i-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

:rofl:

Awesome, most awesome!

JJohnson
10-08-2012, 14:55
This thread has potential. Just need a few more GNG nutbaggers to show up...

Agree, should be good entertainment in case MNF is a blowout tonight.

Ragnar
10-08-2012, 15:15
It's out there for those willing to open their minds to truth.





In other words, you've got nothing. :upeyes:

Ragnar
10-08-2012, 15:18
If vaccines are so safe, why do the drug companies demand and get total indemnity from the Nanny state from any and all side effects of the mandated vaccines?

Because when the government mandated vaccines it also assumed liability for them.

http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html


Got any more crap to spew?

nmk
10-08-2012, 15:27
I was having a rough day. Then I read the OP and became sad. Now I can't stop laughing from the responses.

The word "study" actually means something in the scientific community.

oldgraywolf
10-08-2012, 15:49
You guys who doubt the OP's conclusion must not realize that vaccines are part of a grand conspiracy. I'm glad the interwebs are here to allow those who know the truth out from under their rocks and give them some exposure. To enlighten us sheeple....

*cough*

beatcop
10-08-2012, 15:52
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F_sB-JFHT2Q/TEdtHeUTu1I/AAAAAAAAAuI/fXOPJVCHndo/s1600/photo91.jpg

This stuff comes up every month...two reasons:

-people want to believe there's a conspiracy
-people don't want to be told what to do

Risk vs. Reward...do the math.

muscogee
10-08-2012, 15:58
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcHNYenN7OY

tantrix
10-08-2012, 16:01
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

That's because parents are idiots and don't do any research before pumping their kids full of "safe" vaccines.

mhambi
10-08-2012, 16:10
Yeah, what could those people possibly do for the sake of all man kind...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01387/stephen-hawking_1387959c.jpg

http://i46.tinypic.com/21mt7rl.jpg

F14Scott
10-08-2012, 16:10
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

The US is the leader in nuclear aircraft carriers per capita.

We are also the world leader in NFL players injured on Sundays.

YOU do the math.

hint: correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

RonS
10-08-2012, 16:37
The majority of violent crimes in America are committed within hours after consuming bread, for heaven's sake, ban bread, the life you save may be your own.

I wonder how many people fall for that drivel? America has so many Autistic children because there are codes for it that doctors can use to bill insurance companies. Even the literature from support groups credits improved diagnostics for the huge increase in reported cases.

Annoyedgrunt
10-08-2012, 16:55
Interesting thread.

In almost every other thread that touches on government intervention and "mandating" things, everyone here, including many in this thread rises up, thumps their chests, and shouts about tyranny and the gov't screwing up perfectly good programs, they should keep their nose out of the business of private citizens, etc. But when it comes to vaccines, suddenly it's a good thing.

Just did a 30-second google search, and came up with two parents that tried to refuse vaccinating their kids, and were told to appear in court and either subject their children to on-the-spot, state-mandated vaccines of up to 17 doses, or face imprisonment. Also, if they ignored the court's demand, they would also be subject to a $50 fine for each day their child was “out of compliance” or up to 10 days in jail.

So, which is it? Is government intervention a good thing or not? :dunno:

Patchman
10-08-2012, 16:55
I'm against medication of any kind unless one's very, very sick. And yes, I do believe MDs today over-prescribe everything.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

Yeah, what could those people possibly do for the sake of all man kind...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01387/stephen-hawking_1387959c.jpg

No one individual is indispensable to mankind. Certainly a handful of people have made great impacts on mankind's history, but who's to say that if they hadn't existed, the world would have stopped? Or that no one else after them would have picked up what they did.

LSUAdman
10-08-2012, 16:55
By the OPs logic, somehow 3rd world countries would have a staggering population of healthy people. Yet...that's not the case. Hmmm.

I thought everything that coorelated was true?

GLWyandotte
10-08-2012, 17:03
I wonder how many people fall for that drivel? America has so many Autistic children because there are codes for it that doctors can use to bill insurance companies. Even the literature from support groups credits improved diagnostics for the huge increase in reported cases.

Well, yeah.
100 years ago everyone died of manic exhaustion, consumption or bad air.
We now know these causes of death have a real name, not a lumped in catch all.

janice6
10-08-2012, 17:04
The title is misleading. I was in the second grade when the U.S. started vaccinating for Polio. A lot of people my age grew up with braces on their legs so they could walk and had corrective to make both of their legs the same length. The afflicted limb was always smaller and weaker than the other one. There were people who spent most of their childhood and all their adult lives in iron lungs. Due to the vaccinations, you don't see that any more. We may have overdone it, but in general, vaccinations are a good thing.


A number of my pre-school friends cought Polio and never returned to the neighborhood.

They did work.

norm357
10-08-2012, 17:07
http://www.parade.com/health/2012/10/07-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-vaccines.html

frizz
10-08-2012, 17:08
There are risks in every medical procedure, but I agree that vaccinations are a pretty good bet overall.

I remember polio kids, and getting my sugar cube when I was young, and I am glad I did.
Mine had LSD on it.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 18:17
No one individual is indispensable to mankind. Certainly a handful of people have made great impacts on mankind's history, but who's to say that if they hadn't existed, the world would have stopped? Or that no one else after them would have picked up what they did.

That could all be true but it isnt. What is...is.

I am not nearly as worried about who could have done what as I am your desire to decide which humans are worthy to live and which are not. That is the key topic based on what you put on the table.

RonS
10-08-2012, 18:50
Vaccinations protect populations and civilizations. Individuals suffer ill effects sometimes. Beats walking around behind a waggon yelling "Bring out your dead".

Patchman
10-08-2012, 19:08
That could all be true but it isnt. What is...is.

I am not nearly as worried about who could have done what as I am your desire to decide which humans are worthy to live and which are not. That is the key topic based on what you put on the table.

Which individual who lives or dies is up to g-d. I'm not saying I have the right to say who should be vaccinated or not. I'm saying that as a population, MDs now-a-days over prescribe medication. Why? Because you can't be sued for prescribing a medication.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 19:15
Which individual who lives or dies is up to g-d. I'm not saying I have the right to say who should be vaccinated or not. I'm saying that as a population, MDs now-a-days over prescribe medication. Why? Because you can't be sued for prescribing a medication.

Focus. Lets hit the key issue here.

You said:


Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

NeverMore1701
10-08-2012, 19:15
Which individual who lives or dies is up to g-d. I'm not saying I have the right to say who should be vaccinated or not. I'm saying that as a population, MDs now-a-days over prescribe medication. Why? Because you can't be sued for prescribing a medication.

Living and dying is up to who, exactly?

Patchman
10-08-2012, 19:21
Living and dying is up to nature.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 19:26
Living and dying is up to nature.

Yes. Just like the biggest momma bear keeps her cubs from getting eaten...so we have developed pharmaceuticals and surgical technology to keep our kids from dying from a number of things. How is that any different from you using a tool for self defense?

Until something supernatural happens...EVERYTHING is natural. Smart is just as natural as strong.

Ragnar
10-08-2012, 19:28
Living and dying is up to nature.

A minute ago it was god. And then it was Darwin. Now it's nature.

Make up your mind.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 19:44
You're saying, let's use man made science to keep the playing field level.

I'm saying, let's use nature to level the playing field.

Man made science is here to stay. OK, I get that. But the human body doesn't change that quickly. Diseases that you get will kill you, or, if you survive it, makes you stronger (and you pass that on to your children). Yes, this sounds like a line from an Arnold Schwarzengger movie, but it's true.

NeverMore1701
10-08-2012, 19:45
You're saying, let's use man made science to keep the playing field level.

I'm saying, let's use nature to level the playing field.

Man made science is here to stay. OK, I get that. But the human body doesn't change that quickly. Diseases that you get will kill you, or, if you survive it, makes you stronger (and you pass that on to your children). Yes, this sounds like a line from an Arnold Schwarzengger movie, but it's true.

Well, hard to argue with someone with your extensive medical credentials.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 19:48
A minute ago it was god. And then it was Darwin. Now it's nature.

Make up your mind.

If you do, or don't, believe in god, that your thing.

"Darwin" is a shorthand for saying nature's "survival of the fittest" theory. Whether you want to link nature with god, that's up to you.

fnfalman
10-08-2012, 19:49
What blind stupidity.

Think about the world today without vaccines against:

Smallpox (really the argument ends right here)
Polio
Tetanus
Diphtheria
Pertussis
Etc.

A lot less people, which wouldn't have been a bad thing.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 19:51
Well, hard to argue with someone with your extensive medical credentials.

I have no medical credentials. I only have life experience.

So what are your credentials that says vaccinations are best for mankind? And that no other opinions need apply?

HollowHead
10-08-2012, 19:51
Living and dying is up to nature.

It most certainly is not. HH

devildog2067
10-08-2012, 19:53
Which individual who lives or dies is up to g-d.

Do you carry a weapon?

Why?

You weren't born with it. Maybe you shouldn't defend yourself with it. Maybe if you can't defend yourself with your fists, you don't deserve to live. Maybe you should leave it up to God.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

We evolved brains and hands and technology to help us survive in the world. Medicine is just another one of those tools.

NeverMore1701
10-08-2012, 19:56
Do you carry a weapon?

Why?

You weren't born with it. Maybe you shouldn't defend yourself with it. Maybe if you can't defend yourself with your fists, you don't deserve to live. Maybe you should leave it up to God.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

We evolved brains and hands and technology to help us survive in the world. Medicine is just another one of those tools.

Don't argue with him, don't you know he has life experience?!








:whistling:

Patchman
10-08-2012, 20:04
Do you carry a weapon?

Why?

You weren't born with it. Maybe you shouldn't defend yourself with it. Maybe if you can't defend yourself with your fists, you don't deserve to live. Maybe you should leave it up to God.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

We evolved brains and hands and technology to help us survive in the world. Medicine is just another one of those tools.


OK. you have a gun, and your opponent has a gun. Who lives and who dies is dependent on what?

Mr Spock
10-08-2012, 20:19
You're saying, let's use man made science to keep the playing field level.

I'm saying, let's use nature to level the playing field.

Man made science is here to stay. OK, I get that. But the human body doesn't change that quickly. Diseases that you get will kill you, or, if you survive it, makes you stronger (and you pass that on to your children). Yes, this sounds like a line from an Arnold Schwarzengger movie, but it's true.

A monkey will use a stick to get ants out of a tree. Would you argue that this is nature, or would you argue that this "monkey-made technology" is allowing the monkey to get more food than it should naturally have?

The same thing with a bird crafting a nest. The bird knows how to build a sometimes complex structure for the betterment of its offspring.

Next, an ant hill with its maze of tunnels and dedicated egg rooms.

Modern medicine is simply our stick, nest, or ant hill. It is the culmination of our current ability to safeguard our species against danger based on our natural evolution.

You discuss survival of the fittest as if the only thing that matters is strength. Which is more fit to survive, the strong man who only knows how to hold a club or the asthmatic who can't run but knows how to make a musket and can mix black powder?

In the real world, wisdom and cunning will always win over strength or physical constitution. This goes back even to times when humanity was in a very clear "state of nature".

Sun tzu knew this. Atilla knew this. When Napoleon forgot this, he marched into Russia.

F14Scott
10-08-2012, 20:20
You're saying, let's use man made science to keep the playing field level.

I'm saying, let's use nature to level the playing field.

Man made science is here to stay. OK, I get that. But the human body doesn't change that quickly. Diseases that you get will kill you, or, if you survive it, makes you stronger (and you pass that on to your children). Yes, this sounds like a line from an Arnold Schwarzengger movie, but it's true.

1) It's not Arnold, it's Nietzsche.

2) Do you eat food made with preservatives? Packaged in plastic? Canned? Refrigerated? Cooked with any of that sciencey fire? Seems to me that if you find some road kill or a mushroom, you should eat it. Then, if you die, that's what god/nature/Darwin intended. Classifying, cooking, and preserving food all smack of artificially avoiding the natural and good process of either dying off because you can't eat poison or passing on your superior, creator-endowed, genetically-capable digestive system to your progeny.

Mr Spock
10-08-2012, 20:21
OK. you have a gun, and your opponent has a gun. Who lives and who dies is dependent on what?

Since you're giving guns to both people, I'll go ahead and say that we both shoot each other in the gut. One of us goes to a level 2 trauma center and the other to some homeopathic practitioner who spends his days pushing a book against vaccines on his website.

Who lives and who dies? Why do you pick the one you pick?

Mr Spock
10-08-2012, 20:23
1) It's not Arnold, it's Nietzsche.

2) Do you eat food made with preservatives? Packaged in plastic? Canned? Refrigerated? Cooked with any of that sciencey fire? Seems to me that if you find some road kill or a mushroom, you should eat it. Then, if you die, that's what god/nature/Darwin intended. Classifying, cooking, and preserving food all smack of artificially avoiding the natural and good process of either dying off because you can't eat poison or passing on your superior, creator-endowed, genetically-capable digestive system to your progeny.

Lol... Next he's going to tell us Steven Segal proclaimed God is dead, and that he killed him with a roundhouse kick.

tsmo1066
10-08-2012, 20:24
Diseases that you get will kill you, or, if you survive it, makes you stronger (and you pass that on to your children).

That's really not true. Some diseases strengthen one's immune system, to be sure, but others, like Polio, often leave their victims weakened, crippled and permanently disfigured for life.

The old adage of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" doesn't always ring true when it comes to childhood diseases.

sputnik767
10-08-2012, 20:27
The argument is more along the lines that the over-dosaging of children with vaccines creates more health problems than it prevents.

It is one thing to give a few for some major diseases, but when kids end up getting thirty or forty or fifty vaccines before their bodies are able to develop a mature immune system, you are creating more health problems than you are preventing.

Like we really need mandatory HPV vaccines without parental consent?

My oh my, how ever did man evolve and survive without vaccines? I'll tell you how. Herd immunity kept the strong alive and the weak perished. It's called nature. Get used to it.

Vaccines are great if they are voluntary. But mandatory vaccines are tyranny. And they kill.

Just about everything is in your statement is 100% wrong. Like you, I don't have a medical degree, but unlike you, I will have one in less than 2 years. I really wish people would quit spouting this sort of misinformation. It's useless at best and harmful at worst.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 20:29
1) It's not Arnold, it's Nietzsche.

2) Do you eat food made with preservatives? Packaged in plastic? Canned? Refrigerated? Cooked with any of that sciencey fire? Seems to me that if you find some road kill or a mushroom, you should eat it. Then, if you die, that's what god/nature/Darwin intended. Classifying, cooking, and preserving food all smack of artificially avoiding the natural and good process of either dying off because you can't eat poison or passing on your superior, creator-endowed, genetically-capable digestive system to your progeny.

Do I prefer eating foods with preservatives? No. Do I have a choice? Realistically, no.

As for forefathers who were hunter/gathers, they recognized what foods were editable. They then passed that knowledge on to their progeny, who were smart enough to understand that. Those who didn't grasp that knowledge (and their progeny) aren't here anymore.

Z71bill
10-08-2012, 20:29
The US is the leader in nuclear aircraft carriers per capita.

We are also the world leader in NFL players injured on Sundays.

YOU do the math.

hint: correlation does not necessarily indicate causation.

So you mean a lot people washing their car doesn't create a sunny day?

I almost NEVER see anyone washing their car when it is raining -:dunno:

So no one washing their car creates rain?

:cool:

Mr Spock
10-08-2012, 20:33
Do I prefer eating foods with preservatives? No. Do I have a choice? Realistically, no.

As for forefathers who were hunter/gathers, they recognized what foods were editable. They then passed that knowledge on to their progeny, who were smart enough to understand that. Those who didn't grasp that knowledge (and their progeny) aren't here anymore.

Are you willing to redefine old age as 45 and middle aged as 20? If we're going back to hunting/gathering tribes, then those numbers are about right.

Oh, and the difficulty level of your retort is: no mythical people. If you're arguing nature, how 'bout leaving the storybooks out of the discussion?

tsmo1066
10-08-2012, 20:34
So you mean a lot people washing their car doesn't create a sunny day?

I almost NEVER see anyone washing their car when it is raining -:dunno:

So no one washing their car creates rain?

:cool:

Washing a car creates a sunny day?!? Come on! That's just an old wive's tale!

Everyone knows that putting on swimsuits and suntan lotion is what causes sunny days!

:supergrin::wavey:

Patchman
10-08-2012, 20:35
That's really not true. Some diseases strengthen one's immune system, to be sure, but others, like Polio, often leave their victims weakened, crippled and permanently disfigured for life.

The old adage of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" doesn't always ring true when it comes to childhood diseases.

I come from a background where polio vaccination was not universal, so I know some who are affected by that disease. And I also know they go on to produce healthy children. But that's part of nature. They survived and they moved on to reproduce. Darwin's theory at work.

tsmo1066
10-08-2012, 20:42
I come from a background where polio vaccination was not universal, so I know some who are affected by that disease. And I also know they go on to produce healthy children. But that's part of nature. They survived and they moved on to reproduce. Darwin's theory at work.

They may move on (when they don't die from it), but it certainly doesn't make them, or their children, any stronger.
Polio also often causes premature muscular degeneration in adults years, or even decades, after infection.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/childrens_health_issues/viral_infections_in_infants_and_children/polio.html

HollowHead
10-08-2012, 20:47
I come from a background where polio vaccination was not universal, so I know some who are affected by that disease. And I also know they go on to produce healthy children. But that's part of nature. They survived and they moved on to reproduce. Darwin's theory at work.

Have you even read On The Origin Of Species? HH

Patchman
10-08-2012, 20:51
They may move on (when they don't die from it), but it certainly doesn't make them, or their children, any stronger.
Polio also often causes premature muscular degeneration in adults years, or even decades, after infection.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/childrens_health_issues/viral_infections_in_infants_and_children/polio.html

"Stronger" is not necessarily physically stronger. Survivors of polio may be mentally "stronger" because they know they overcame something serious. And their children can take pride in knowing their parent was strong enough to overcome some serious illness by living out a full and normal life, which in turn could instill in them (the children) a sense of pride or achievement or proudness in the family heritage.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 20:52
Have you even read On The Origin Of Species? HH

Yes. Twice. And there was no mention of polio vaccinations.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 20:53
"Stronger" is not necessarily physically stronger. Survivors of polio may be mentally "stronger" because they know they overcame something serious. And their children can take pride in knowing their parent was strong enough to overcome some serious illness by living out a full and normal life, which in turn could instill in them (the children) a sense of pride or achievement or proudness in the family heritage.

So, in your warped world, that is fine, but becoming a surgeon or scientist who actually fixes such things is "unatural?"

Geko45
10-08-2012, 20:54
What doesn't kill you makes you weaker, not stronger. That's just feel good nonsense. You survive polio, small pox, spanish flu, whatever... you are weaker for it. Now, the overall strength of the surviving population might come up slightly in the aftermath of a pandemic, but not because any individuals were made stronger. Rather, because the weak were simple killed off and no longer count towards the population mean.

With that said, I think it would be somewhat Darwinian to allow people to opt out of vaccinations for their children. Their offspring carrying their genetically inferior intelligence would be more likely to die before reproducing and the offspring of the more intelligent would be more likely to survive and pass on their genes. If you're to stupid to recognize the advantages of vaccination then your progeny should not carry forward.

Yep, works for me.

.264 magnum
10-08-2012, 20:55
I have no medical credentials. I only have life experience.

So what are your credentials that says vaccinations are best for mankind? And that no other opinions need apply?

Don't be an idiot.

Again:
Smallpox
Polio
etc.
Beating back these horrific diseases proves vaccinations are best for mankind.

tsmo1066
10-08-2012, 20:56
"Stronger" is not necessarily physically stronger. Survivors of polio may be mentally "stronger" because they know they overcame something serious. And their children can take pride in knowing their parent was strong enough to overcome some serious illness by living out a full and normal life, which in turn could instill in them (the children) a sense of pride or achievement or proudness in the family heritage.

By that logic, car safety devices should be done away with since people who survive violent wrecks may become "mentally stronger" and instill pride in their children by living a "normal" life in spite of their crippling injuries.

.264 magnum
10-08-2012, 20:56
A lot less people, which wouldn't have been a bad thing.


http://medicalpictures.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/smallpox-pictures.jpg

Geko45
10-08-2012, 21:00
Don't be an idiot.

No, let the idiots opt out and continue dieing at higher than necessary rates. That should give the darwinian advantage to the more intelligent that recognize the advantages to vaccination.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:08
So, in your warped world, that is fine, but becoming a surgeon or scientist who actually fixes such things is "unatural?"


"becoming a surgeon or scientist?" You mean choosing to be a medical researcher, a scientist or a MD for the purpose of researching a cure for these conditions?

There's nothing unnatural or wrong with having the knowledge to cure/prevent these things. In fact, knowledge is good. But there's also nothing wrong with people refusing to undergo these vaccinations.

(Or are you saying universal mandatory vaccination?)

sputnik767
10-08-2012, 21:10
I feel like I am talking to cavemen in this thread.

Maybe I should have said:

Cops and Vaccines are good for you! Trust all of them all the time. They are there to help you!!!

Ha ha ha.

Sometimes it's ok to admit that you don't know what you are talking about, or at least stop talking. Because talking out of your butt doesn't make it favorable for you.

Mr Spock
10-08-2012, 21:13
First you say

"I'm against medication of any kind unless one's very, very sick. And yes, I do believe MDs today over-prescribe everything.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with."

Then you say

"becoming a surgeon or scientist?" You mean choosing to be a medical researcher, a scientist or a MD for the purpose of researching a cure for these conditions?

There's nothing unnatural or wrong with having the knowledge to cure/prevent these things. In fact, knowledge is good. But there's also nothing wrong with people refusing to undergo these vaccinations.

(Or are you saying universal mandatory vaccination?)

So is curing/preventing these things good, or interfering with survival of the fittest, as you've previously proposed?


Also, I would appreciate very much if you'd address the other posts I've made in response to some of your earlier claims. Thanks.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:13
What doesn't kill you makes you weaker, not stronger. That's just feel good nonsense. You survive polio, small pox, spanish flu, whatever... you are weaker for it. Now, the overall strength of the surviving population might come up slightly in the aftermath of a pandemic, but not because any individuals were made stronger. Rather, because the weak were simple killed off and no longer count towards the population mean.

With that said, I think it would be somewhat Darwinian to allow people to opt out of vaccinations for their children. Their offspring carrying their genetically inferior intelligence would be more likely to die before reproducing and the offspring of the more intelligent would be more likely to survive and pass on their genes. If you're to stupid to recognize the advantages of vaccination then your progeny should not carry forward.

Yep, works for me.

Don't be an idiot.

Again:
Smallpox
Polio
etc.
Beating back these horrific diseases proves vaccinations are best for mankind.


Good. So you gentlemen would have no issues with those who choose to opt out of universal mandatory vaccinations.

F14Scott
10-08-2012, 21:14
Do I prefer eating foods with preservatives? No. Do I have a choice? Realistically, no.

As for forefathers who were hunter/gathers, they recognized what foods were editable. They then passed that knowledge on to their progeny, who were smart enough to understand that. Those who didn't grasp that knowledge (and their progeny) aren't here anymore.

You certainly do have a choice. Organically grown fruits and vegetables. Whole grains you grind yourself. Free range animals for meat. Sure, it would be expensive, but paying all that money for the health benefits would surely be worth it.

But, wait. Wouldn't driving to the store in a techno-car be artificially defeating your hunter-gatherer roots? I mean, if you don't walk to hunt or gather it, aren't you denying your offspring the potential pride of your hardship?

Sir, in so many different and interesting ways, your suppositions and rebuttals have been soundly and thoroughly picked apart, by some of the brightest guys on this board, no less. I don't know whether I want you to stop (to save yourself further embarrassment) or to continue ('cause this is fun). So, by all means, do either... :wavey:

Geko45
10-08-2012, 21:17
Good. So you gentlemen would have no issues with those who choose to opt out of universal mandatory vaccinations.

Actually, no. As long as no tax dollars are used to treat their subsequent polio and small pox infections and the parents are required to watch their child whither away and die due to their stupidity. Other than that, no, not at all...

Seems like a Swift solution to the problem to me.

sputnik767
10-08-2012, 21:19
"becoming a surgeon or scientist?" You mean choosing to be a medical researcher, a scientist or a MD for the purpose of researching a cure for these conditions?

There's nothing unnatural or wrong with having the knowledge to cure/prevent these things. In fact, knowledge is good. But there's also nothing wrong with people refusing to undergo these vaccinations.

(Or are you saying universal mandatory vaccination?)

The problem is, the majority of people who refuse vaccinations do so because of a lack of understanding. They are not making an educated decision. Sure there are some people who can't receive the flu shot because of an egg allergy, or live-attenuated vaccines because they are immunosuppressed for example, but those people are few. These threads here always smell of conspiracy theories, "research" that is not actually research, and worst of all, misinformation and fear-mongering. Keep this simple thing in mind: if you are refusing vaccinations, you are doing so based on nothing more than our own stupidity. But while you are certainly allowed to be stupid, trying to make your case to other gullible people puts their lives and the lives of others under their care potentially at risk.

Mr Spock
10-08-2012, 21:20
I have a growing suspicion that Patchman is not the "follower of Darwin" he professes to be.

He previously mentioned "G-d", which is significant because those who won't even spell god tend to show an inordinate reverence for the Christian belief system, including intelligent design and the derision of anyone who claims evolution as an answer.

He then retorted to a comment about life spans by invoking Methuselah, which is clearly a reactive comment from a religious perspective.

These items, coupled with his rabid defense of his warped, misinterpreted, and almost absurd to the point of farcical description of Darwinism makes me think he is simply attempting (poorly, as it were) to lampoon the entire concept of evolution and Darwin's theories regarding survival of the fittest.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 21:23
"becoming a surgeon or scientist?" You mean choosing to be a medical researcher, a scientist or a MD for the purpose of researching a cure for these conditions?

There's nothing unnatural or wrong with having the knowledge to cure/prevent these things. In fact, knowledge is good. But there's also nothing wrong with people refusing to undergo these vaccinations.

(Or are you saying universal mandatory vaccination?)

You are not staying on message. You dont even know what your arguement is, you just know how you feel. Good luck with that.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:23
By that logic, car safety devices should be done away with since people who survive violent wrecks may become "mentally stronger" and instill pride in their children by living a "normal" life in spite of their crippling injuries.

Let's not forget smoking, drinking alcohol to excess or doing drugs. What are you going to do, pass universal laws to prevent everyone to stop doing these things? Because it's good for society?

Geko45
10-08-2012, 21:24
Or maybe this, parents may opt out of vaccinations for their children, but if their child subsequently dies from a desease that was preventable through vaccination then then they are fair game for negligent homicide charges. Seems fair to me, if they are so certain they are choosing the correct course then they have nothing to worry about.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:31
You are not staying on message. You dont even know what your arguement is, you just know how you feel. Good luck with that.

Yes, this is how I feel. Believe it or not, universal vaccination is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

HollowHead
10-08-2012, 21:33
Or maybe this, parents may opt out of vaccinations for their children, but if their child subsequently dies from a desease that was preventable through vaccination then then they are fair game for negligent homicide charges. Seems fair to me, if they are so certain they are choosing the correct course then they have nothing to worry about.

Interesting. Would the same hold true for Jehovah's Witnesses, Chritian Scientists and Seventh Day Adventists? HH

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 21:36
Yes, this is how I feel. Believe it or not, universal vaccination is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

You still are off message.

Again, the key data point you put on the table. At this point, vaccinations are a detail lost in the noise of you "big picture" thoughts on allowing children to die that we can fix.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

Focus.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:38
Or maybe this, parents may opt out of vaccinations for their children, but if their child subsequently dies from a desease that was preventable through vaccination then then they are fair game for negligent homicide charges. Seems fair to me, if they are so certain they are choosing the correct course then they have nothing to worry about.

And if a child crossing the street gets hit by a drunk driver, the parents should be responsible because the parents didn't teach the child how to cross the street correctly?

Or if the child turns out to be a really bad person and kills some one, then the parents should charged with murder for bad parenting?

Your child drinks and gets into a DWI accident, killing someone, you should be charged with murder?

Geko45
10-08-2012, 21:39
He then retorted to a comment about life spans by invoking Methuselah, which is clearly a reactive comment from a religious perspective.

To be fair, the Methuselah reference was actually Glocksanity, not Patchman, but I do agree with your central thesis.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 21:41
And if a child crossing the street gets hit by a drunk driver, the parents should be responsible because the parents didn't teach the child how to cross the street correctly?

Or if the child turns out to be a really bad person and kills some one, then the parents should charged with murder for bad parenting?

Your child drinks and gets into a DWI accident, killing someone, you should be charged with murder?

Red herrings all, in each instance above someone else is much more directly responsible than the parent (i.e. the drunk driver in the first scenario or the child themself in the second and third).

tsmo1066
10-08-2012, 21:42
Let's not forget smoking, drinking alcohol to excess or doing drugs. What are you going to do, pass universal laws to prevent everyone to stop doing these things? Because it's good for society?

Eh? They DO have laws governing smoking age, minimum age for drinking, DUI laws, automobile safety standards, etc.

Are you advocating removing all of that?

:dunno:

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:47
You still are off message.

Again, the key data point you put on the table. At this point, vaccinations are a detail lost in the noise of you "big picture" thoughts on allowing children to die that we can fix.



Focus.

Rabbi, focus. The thread is about vaccinated vs unvaccinated children.

My position is, no, children should not be vaccinated against the several diseases. Let nature take it's course.

My "big picture" position is that universal mandatory vaccination should NOT be forced upon families.

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 21:51
Rabbi, focus. The thread is about vaccinated vs unvaccinated children.

My position is, no, children should not be vaccinated against the several diseases. Let nature take it's course.

My "big picture" position is that universal mandatory vaccination should NOT be forced upon family.

No. What you said here is a bigger issue than the vaccine issue.

In your quest for freedom from something, you would advocate the death of children. Your position is not very well thought out.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:53
Red herrings all, in each instance above someone else is much more directly responsible than the parent (i.e. the drunk driver in the first scenario or the child themself in the second and third).

Bad parenting is contributory negligence in all three cases.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 21:54
Rabbi, focus. The thread is about vaccinated vs unvaccinated children.

Ok, good. Then you agree that your tangential analogies about smoking, drinking, drug abuse, DUI, and other types of criminal behavior are all moot side topics with no real purpose other than to obfuscate the fact that you have no coherent thought to put forward on this topic other than your vague notion of what "feels" right.

HollowHead
10-08-2012, 21:56
Bad parenting is contributory negligence in all three cases.

A child getting hit by a drunk driver while crossing the street is, "bad parenting?" OK, you win. HH

Patchman
10-08-2012, 21:57
No. What you said here is a bigger issue than the vaccine issue.

In your quest for freedom from something, you would advocate the death of children. Your position is not very well thought out.

No, Rabbi, you've mis-reading my posts. My posts are a reply to the thread's topic: vaccination or no vaccination for children.

F14Scott
10-08-2012, 21:59
Bad parenting is contributory negligence in all three cases.

I see you've chosen to continue the fight. Bravo, sir.

Are you now also a legal scholar? Because I've never heard of a single case where the charge was "bad parenting contributory negligence." Can you cite a source?

Patchman
10-08-2012, 22:04
I see you've chosen to continue the fight. Bravo, sir.

Are you now also a legal scholar? Because I've never heard of a single case where the charge was "bad parenting contributory negligence." Can you cite a source?

My point exactly. My post you're referring to was in response to post 103, which said that if a parent refuses to vaccinate a child, and the child dies, then the parent is guilty of negligent homicide.

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 22:05
My position is, no, children should not be vaccinated against the several diseases. Let nature take it's course.
Should we also eschew asthma medication, corrected vision, antibiotics, ... for our children (and ourselves) since those also circumvent environmental pressures for natural selection?

-ArtificialGrape

Geko45
10-08-2012, 22:09
My point exactly. My post you're referring to was in response to the other post which said that if a parent refuses to vaccinate a child, and the child dies, then the parent is guilty of homicide.

I said negligent homicide, and it wouldn't be the result of "bad parenting" in the same manner as your other examples (all of which were at least one level removed), but rather from denying their child an obvious life saving medical procedure (direct inaction).

But back to my last point, are we staying on the topic of vaccinations or are we taking side trips down every "what if" scenario you can think of? Or option three (your apparent choice) where you can take as many tangents as you like, but you expect all of us to confine ourselves explicitly to vaccinations?

Patchman
10-08-2012, 22:12
Should we also eschew asthma medication, corrected vision, antibiotics, ... for our children (and ourselves) since those also circumvent environmental pressures for natural selection?

-ArtificialGrape

How strongly do you believe in the theory of natural selection?

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 22:14
No, Rabbi, you've mis-reading my posts. My posts are a reply to the thread's topic: vaccination or no vaccination for children.

No, nothing else matters until you deal with this, you said it.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 22:16
I said negligent homicide, and it wouldn't be the result of "bad parenting" in the same manner as your other examples (all of which were at least one level removed), but rather from denying their child on obvious life saving medical procedure (direct inaction).

But back to my last point, are we staying on the topic of vaccinations or are we taking side trips down every "what if" scenario you can think of? Or option three (your apparent choice) where you can take as many tangents as you like, but you expect all of us to confine ourselves explicitly to vaccinations?

My posts have always been about vaccinations. It's everyone else who jumped on about everything "what ifs."

Patchman
10-08-2012, 22:19
No, nothing else matters until you deal with this, you said it.

Yes, vaccinations should not be mandatory because not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory should not be interfered with.

Does it sound cold and heartless? Yes. Do I believe it? Yes.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 22:21
My posts have always been about vaccinations. It's everyone else who jumped on about everything "what ifs."

Where did I mention any "what ifs" before you introduced these tangent scenarios?

Or maybe this, parents may opt out of vaccinations for their children, but if their child subsequently dies from a desease that was preventable through vaccination then then they are fair game for negligent homicide charges. Seems fair to me, if they are so certain they are choosing the correct course then they have nothing to worry about.

And if a child crossing the street gets hit by a drunk driver, the parents should be responsible because the parents didn't teach the child how to cross the street correctly?

Or if the child turns out to be a really bad person and kills some one, then the parents should charged with murder for bad parenting?

Your child drinks and gets into a DWI accident, killing someone, you should be charged with murder?

Rabbi
10-08-2012, 22:21
Yes, vaccinations should not be mandatory because not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory should not be interfered with.

No, your statement is much larger than vaccinations.

Unfortunately, not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest should not be interfered with.

Your position is not very well thought out.

ArtificialGrape
10-08-2012, 22:22
How strongly do you believe in the theory of natural selection?
Very strongly, although I'm not the same advocate of eugenics that you seem to be.

As others have pointed out, our advances as a species include not only our ability to provide food and shelter from weather and predators, but all of our other advances that allow us to survive childhood and reproduce, and raise children that are able to reproduce.

-ArtificialGrape

Patchman
10-08-2012, 22:23
No, your statement is much larger than vaccinations.



Your position is not very well thought out.

OK, if you say so.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 22:29
How strongly do you believe in the theory of natural selection?

Natural selection is a scientific theory that puts forth an explanation of the natural world. It is not a doctrine that it is to be "believed in". At least, not in the context you are suggesting. You can believe that it is either a valid theory or an invalid one, but that says nothing on it's moral implications.

And if you would interpet the theory correctly, then you would see that all it says is that if a specimen has a useful adaptation then it is more likely to successfully pass on its genes to the next generation. In our case, our big brains and problem solving abilities are our adaptation that give us an edge and make us more successful than other mammals. So, using complex medical technology that we invent (including vaccinations) is entirely consistent with the theory.

Geko45
10-08-2012, 22:33
:yawn:

I'm gonna adapt myself to a nice warm bed.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 22:41
Natural selection is a scientific theory that puts forth an explanation of the nastural world. It is not a doctrine that it is to be "believed in". At least, not in the context you are suggesting. You can believe that it is either a valid theory or an invalid one, but that says nothing on it's moral implications.

And if you would interpet the theory correctly, then you would see that all it says is that if a specimen has a useful adaptation then it is more likely to successfully pass on its genes to the next generation. In our case, our big brains and problem solving abilities are our adaptation that give us an edge and make us more successful than other mammals.

OK, maybe that's why I also support the re-introduction of wolves and bobcats back into the wildness.


So, using complex medical technology that we invent (including vaccinations) is entirely consistent with the theory.

You're talking about natural selection of humans over other mammals. I'm talking about natural selection within the human population. This means assuming everyone has the same access to vaccinations, but some want the right to opt out of being forced to get it.

HollowHead
10-08-2012, 22:50
I'm talking about natural selection within the human population. This means assuming everyone has the same access to vaccinations, but some want the right to opt out of being forced to get it.

The stupid will have dead children. Great... HH

Patchman
10-08-2012, 22:56
The stupid will have dead children. Great... HH

Not being vaccinated is only one of many ways children don't make it into adulthood. As you said, the stupid will have dead children, and death comes in many flavors. :dunno:

dre23
10-08-2012, 23:08
Yes, vaccinations should not be mandatory because not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory should not be interfered with.

Does it sound cold and heartless? Yes. Do I believe it? Yes.

By this reasoning then organ transplants should not be allowed, diabetics no insulin supplements, hell the entire medical field should cease to exist. Really?

Kahala
10-09-2012, 03:13
WHAT IS A VACCINATION? A vaccination is a way of preventing what would
otherwise be deadly and potentially incurable disease.

Before the polio vaccine, 13,000 to 20,000 people were paralyzed by polio, and about 1,000 people died from it each year in the United States. Polio is a virus transmitted through the stool, nasal mucus, or saliva. It is often transmitted through contaminated water or food. By vaccinating you can prevent people from getting and spreading it which leads to...The last cases of naturally occurring paralytic polio in the United States were in 1979, when an outbreak occurred among the Amish in several Midwestern states.

See there are people called parents...parents generally care about their kids enough that they don't want them to go through pain and suffering then be severely disabled for the rest of their life, or even die young. There is also another group called humanitarians...this group actually cares about other humans and their quality of life, not just themselves ...hard to believe I know, hope that helps you understand where they are coming from

Also, there was a study that linked vaccines to autism and it was found to be a blatant fraud. Over the following decade, epidemiological studies consistently found no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism(http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452)

Too bad we can't vaccinate for the complete lack of research and critical thinking skills

Psychman
10-09-2012, 04:48
No one individual is indispensable to mankind. Certainly a handful of people have made great impacts on mankind's history, but who's to say that if they hadn't existed, the world would have stopped? Or that no one else after them would have picked up what they did.

Originally Posted by Patchman http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19499266#post19499266)
Yes, vaccinations should not be mandatory because not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory should not be interfered with.


So if your child contracted small pox or polio or some other life threatening disease (that you could have prevented) , you would feel fine that he or she suffered a crippling disorder or died just because you think Darwin was correct?

IvanVic
10-09-2012, 04:51
Sorry but that does not look like a study, it looks more like a survey. To quote "The information is from an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and from a German classical homeopathic practitioner". There is no peer review, there is no random sampling, there is nothing except a bunch of questions people answered on a website.

That's irrelevant. Call it a study and 90% of people will believe it without reading any further.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ArtificialGrape
10-09-2012, 05:38
That's irrelevant. Call it a study and 90% of people will believe it without reading any further.
Make up a statistic, and 84% of the population will accept it, no questions asked.

ArtificialGrape
10-09-2012, 05:42
Natural selection is a scientific theory that puts forth an explanation of the natural world. It is not a doctrine that it is to be "believed in". At least, not in the context you are suggesting.
Good point, and I should have made the same clarification. I no more hold a belief in evolution through natural selection than I hold a belief in gravity -- I recognize it to be true.

That said, I'll reiterate that intelligence is a survival adaptation. It should not be shunned.

-ArtificialGrape

Bren
10-09-2012, 05:50
Natural selection is a scientific theory that puts forth an explanation of the natural world. It is not a doctrine that it is to be "believed in". At least, not in the context you are suggesting. You can believe that it is either a valid theory or an invalid one, but that says nothing on it's moral implications.

And if you would interpet the theory correctly, then you would see that all it says is that if a specimen has a useful adaptation then it is more likely to successfully pass on its genes to the next generation. In our case, our big brains and problem solving abilities are our adaptation that give us an edge and make us more successful than other mammals. So, using complex medical technology that we invent (including vaccinations) is entirely consistent with the theory.

Resistance to serious disease, especially childhood disease, is also a trait that affects natural selection, so Patchman does have a point that vaccination leads to a population that lacks natural/genetic resistance to disease (which is naturally achieved by those who don't have the resistance dying before they reproduce).

On the other hand "survival of the fittest" is never changed - but by changing the environment, as with medical care, welfare, protection from crime, or all sorts of modern things, we change the definition of who is "fittest." People assume "survival of the fittest" means people should continue to get stronger, faster and smarter, but that is not the case. It may very well be that the "civilized society" doesn't result in the strong/fast/smart reproducing more, but instead in the stupid and weak reproducing more. Certainly seems that way.

Bren
10-09-2012, 05:53
Originally Posted by Patchman http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=19499266#post19499266)
Yes, vaccinations should not be mandatory because not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory should not be interfered with.


So if your child contracted small pox or polio or some other life threatening disease (that you could have prevented) , you would feel fine that he or she suffered a crippling disorder or died just because you think Darwin was correct?

That isn't at all what he said. Like the "should" part or not, he is clearly correct that artificial resistance to disease, through vaccination, leads to a population that lacks natural resistance.

I personally don't care, because I have no interest in the long term future of people, after I'm gone. So, I would vaccinate. But that doesn't make Patchman wrong about the consequences.

However, getting back to the original topic, I thought it was a much more interesting thing that somebody actually advocates basing your children's medical care on a survey by a homeopathic healer. Someone half a step below "faith healer" in the medical hierarchy. That wasn't interesting to anybody?

OctoberRust
10-09-2012, 06:22
What blind stupidity.

Think about the world today without vaccines against:

Smallpox (really the argument ends right here)
Polio
Tetanus
Diphtheria
Pertussis
Etc.


Agreed. A bunch of conspiracy nuts love to fudge the numbers and say vaccines = instant death.

I believe the one who started this whole deal on vaccines is now being held with criminal charges due to such.... I could be wrong though.

Peace Warrior
10-09-2012, 06:52
"The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in obesity.

Therefore, being fat causes autism."

You can replace "obesity" with a number of other terms: car ownership, income levels, number of Xboxes, whatever you want.

You know what all of those things have in common with vaccines? None of them have any statistical correlation with autism.
Vaccines in general being good or bad is up in the air, but the autism link is still being studied due to vaccines; namely, after the mercury was removed, the incidences of autism remain.

Here is only one link, but there is a wealth of info out there that's fair and analytical. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535)

Geko45
10-09-2012, 07:06
namely, after the mercury was removed, the incidences of autism remain.

That's because a much more compelling argument for the apparent increase in autism is simple over-diagnosis. Thirty years ago, a child would not be diagnosed as autistic unless he was sitting in the corner rocking back and forth while being largely unresponsive to normal stimuli. Today, if little Timmy daydreams to much in class he gets diagnosed as mildly autistic (or ADHD) and handed a prescription.

OctoberRust
10-09-2012, 07:12
That's because a much more compelling argument for the apparent increase in autism is simple over-diagnosis. Thirty years ago, a child would not be diagnosed as autistic unless he was sitting in the corner rocking back and forth while being largle unresponsive to normal stimuli. Today, if little Timmy daydreams to much in class he gets diagnosed as mildly autistic (or ADHD) and handed a prescription.


Thanks Geko, exactly what I was about to post in response to PW.

SMASH gng ignorance!!! :supergrin:

Nickotym
10-09-2012, 07:17
Interesting thread.

In almost every other thread that touches on government intervention and "mandating" things, everyone here, including many in this thread rises up, thumps their chests, and shouts about tyranny and the gov't screwing up perfectly good programs, they should keep their nose out of the business of private citizens, etc. But when it comes to vaccines, suddenly it's a good thing.


This has always made me scratch my head. I thought most people who support guns had enough sense to question the government's "we know best for you" attitude.

Now can any of the vaccine supporters show me one study that proves that it was vaccines that slowed those diseases or better sanitary practices that slowed those diseases? (ETA: Remember, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.) If you research the efficacy of vaccines I have no problem with you giving them to your children. I would ask you to respect my decision not to vaccinate my children. You know, "agree to disagree".

Dennis in MA
10-09-2012, 07:49
Sorry but that does not look like a study, it looks more like a survey. To quote "The information is from an internet questionnaire by vaccineinjury.info and from a German classical homeopathic practitioner". There is no peer review, there is no random sampling, there is nothing except a bunch of questions people answered on a website.

Yeah, but the survey had ads for vaccines. So it's credible. :rofl:

TactiCool
10-09-2012, 15:27
That's because a much more compelling argument for the apparent increase in autism is simple over-diagnosis. Thirty years ago, a child would not be diagnosed as autistic unless he was sitting in the corner rocking back and forth while being largely unresponsive to normal stimuli. Today, if little Timmy daydreams to much in class he gets diagnosed as mildly autistic (or ADHD) and handed a prescription.

And what proof do you have to assert the veracity of that statement? Show me a study that conclusively proves that over diagnosis is the sole cause for the increase in autism. I've looked, and I sure can't find one.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22425036

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19004564

tsmo1066
10-09-2012, 15:32
:yawn:

I'm gonna adapt myself to a nice warm bed.

Sleep outside on the ground instead. Your children will be stronger for it!

:wavey:

Glock20 10mm
10-09-2012, 15:35
What blind stupidity.

Think about the world today without vaccines against:

Smallpox (really the argument ends right here)
Polio
Tetanus
Diphtheria
Pertussis
Etc.

Most likely be a lot less liberals running around screwing things up.

airmotive
10-09-2012, 15:41
Mrs. Airmotive, who at the age of 38, was just placed on the autism spectrum. She's an RN who graduated with a 3.98 from one of the most competitive BSN universities in the country. Yeah...the spike in autism rates have a LOT to do with diagnosis creep.
In the last 38 years, my wife hasn't changed...the definition of autism has changed.

Geko45
10-09-2012, 15:50
Show me a study that conclusively proves that over diagnosis is the sole cause for the increase in autism. I've looked, and I sure can't find one.

If you know anything at all about how clinical studies are performed you would know that no one would ever make that claim no matter how compelling the evidence. Even if you find strong evidence of a corollary effect, there are always residuals (or errors) that represent other factors that have at least some influence. So, you either intentionally stated your request in a manner you knew would be unsupportable or you have no idea what you're talking about.

At any rate, a cursory search turned up this study which showed that at least one of the diagnostic systems used for identifying autism has most likely been overdiagnosing the disorder.

Three diagnostic systems for autism: DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5g43742p524j423/)

ICD-10 draft research criteria for childhood autism were applied to a previously published data set comparing DSM-III and DSM-III-R to clinicians' diagnoses of autism. The ICD-10 approach paralleled clinicians' patterns of diagnosis and, to a lesser extent, the DSM-III system. Relative to either clinicians, DSM-III, or ICD-10 the DSM-III-R system overdiagnosed the presence of autism. Implications for research and for future revision of diagnostic criteria are discussed.

I've looked, and I sure can't find one.

You must not have looked very hard.

sputnik767
10-09-2012, 15:52
This has always made me scratch my head. I thought most people who support guns had enough sense to question the government's "we know best for you" attitude.

Now can any of the vaccine supporters show me one study that proves that it was vaccines that slowed those diseases or better sanitary practices that slowed those diseases? (ETA: Remember, correlation does not necessarily equal causation.) If you research the efficacy of vaccines I have no problem with you giving them to your children. I would ask you to respect my decision not to vaccinate my children. You know, "agree to disagree".

Correlation does not equal causation is an all-encompassing term that people like you tend to use as a fall back when they simple don't know what else to say. But when we have data showing the incidences of typical childhood diseases plummeting after vaccination programs were began, correlation does equal causation. Lets put it simply, better hygiene did not eradicate smallpox, vaccines did. Unfortunately, the kind of proof that you are looking for can't exist. All we can do is retrospective studies and try to identify what happened, and prove it with statistical analysis. As I said before, people like you are not making an educated decision, they are doing it for other reasons, be it paranoia, distrust of the government, or simply lack of understanding. But it does not make you an intelligent person for doing so, no matter what you like to believe.

OlliesRevenge
10-09-2012, 16:05
Vaccines are not mandatory - Nearly everyplace outside the military it is possible to take some type of exemption (and it wouldn't even surprise me if there was an exemption for military members).

Before my daughter was born, the wife and I settled on a dramatically modified vaccine schedule, rather than the one size fits all "pump 'em full of shots" insanity -- For example, we did not allow our newborn to receive a HepB shot within minutes of her birth, as the wife was confident she did not have HepB, and we weren't planning on giving our newborn a blood transfusion (duh!).

There are two sides to the vaccine debate -


Medical Freedom.
Safety and efficacy of the vaccines.

Most of the conformist "take your shots" arguments can be handled in the medical freedom area alone since we have a concept called 'informed consent' that must be adhered to in medicine. Forcing someone to take shots against their will is a violation medical ethics and basic human rights.

Vaccines are not a panacea, they are a drug product manufactured by big Pharm corporations for a profit. They have risks and benefits. They are not subjected to double blind placebo controlled studies before approval, as most drugs are. Hell, Vioxx was subjected to double blind placebo controlled studies before approval... and it still wound up killing people and costing Merck billions in settlements. Given the additional fact that vaccine manufacturers are exempt from liability -- Caveat Emptor!

We are told that vaccines create immunity -- and in spite of the lack of research done to prove efficacy I have no reason to doubt this. I do have a problem with the logic of trying to mandate vaccines for everyone though. If they create immunity for me, why should I care if you are vaccinated or not? If I'm immune to the disease you have, I shouldn't care.

If we explore this conflict of logic we will find some doublethink at work. At the individual level, we are given the thumbs up & told that vaccines will protect us 100%. When the argument is made for for vaccine mandates though; we discover the "herd immunity" argument, which is based on the idea that vaccines don't work for everyone, and that we need to vaccinate a large percent of the population to prevent a particular disease from proliferating. So do vaccines work all the time, or just some of the time? You can't have it both ways.

Brian Lee
10-09-2012, 16:11
That is not a "study" that is a sales pitch.

Pure BS.


I actually agree with Rabbi today.

That wasn't a "study" - just a sales pitch.

RonS
10-09-2012, 16:15
Natural selection applies to species, not individuals. The ability of a species to get food, make babies and keep them alive pretty much defines survival of the fittest. Refusing to wear clothing to keep warm, build shelters, cultivate food or employ medical technology might make stronger, tougher individuals of the few who survived but would be a good way to test if cockroaches really would inherit the earth after the human race goes extinct.

Brian Lee
10-09-2012, 16:16
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

Maybe the autism is caused not by vaccines, but by any one of the other million or so possible causes that are currently up for debate.

I lean toward the belief that we should probably keep the vaccines and stop feeding our kids non-stop junk food made out of field corn that's been dosed with higher levels of herbicide than ever before.

sputnik767
10-09-2012, 16:24
Maybe the autism is caused not by vaccines, but by any one of the other million or so possible causes that are currently up for debate.

I lean toward the belief that we should probably keep the vaccines and stop feeding our kids non-stop junk food made out of field corn that's been dosed with higher levels of herbicide than ever before.

This is actually an excellent point. I have seen some studies that suggest our dependence on corn, especially in the form of high fructose corn syrup is possibly contributing to the obesity epidemic. Without getting into too much detail, the metabolism of glucose is very highly regulated in your body, whereas the metabolism of fructose is virtually unregulated. HFCS is obviously mainly fructose, whereas sucrose (table sugar) is a dimer molecule of glucose and fructose. So still contains 50% fructose, but not as much as HFCS.

Paul53
10-09-2012, 17:21
If an Aborigine designed an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably fail.

cowboy1964
10-09-2012, 17:57
Vaccinations cause Herpes?? Wow, learn something every day.

Rabbi
10-09-2012, 18:18
If an Aborigine designed an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably fail.

Cultural bias in testing is real but your statement is not true. cross cultural psychology has a pretty good handle on these sort of things. "IQ" is pretty universal(even if some groups are smarter than others) if we remove the bias (which would not be "IQ"

F14Scott
10-09-2012, 19:31
We are told that vaccines create immunity -- and in spite of the lack of research done to prove efficacy I have no reason to doubt this. I do have a problem with the logic of trying to mandate vaccines for everyone though. If they create immunity for me, why should I care if you are vaccinated or not? If I'm immune to the disease you have, I shouldn't care.

If we explore this conflict of logic we will find some doublethink at work. At the individual level, we are given the thumbs up & told that vaccines will protect us 100%. When the argument is made for for vaccine mandates though; we discover the "herd immunity" argument, which is based on the idea that vaccines don't work for everyone, and that we need to vaccinate a large percent of the population to prevent a particular disease from proliferating. So do vaccines work all the time, or just some of the time? You can't have it both ways.

I don't think anyone says vaccines are 100 percent effective. Vaccines are most effective when used on populations, rather than individuals, precisely because they are less than 100 percent effective. when you take a vaccine that is say, 98 percent effective and use it on in a population, the herd immunity that happens at the roughly 85 percent immunized range protects the other 2 percent.

TactiCool
10-09-2012, 20:26
If you know anything at all about how clinical studies are performed you would know that no one would ever make that claim no matter how compelling the evidence. Even if you find strong evidence of a corollary effect, there are always residuals (or errors) that represent other factors that have at least some influence. So, you either intentionally stated your request in a manner you knew would be unsupportable or you have no idea what you're talking about.

At any rate, a cursory search turned up this study which showed that at least one of the diagnostic systems used for identifying autism has most likely been overdiagnosing the disorder.

Three diagnostic systems for autism: DSM-III, DSM-III-R, and ICD-10 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5g43742p524j423/)


I appreciate you looking up that study for me, really I do. However the study is from 1992 and says nothing about the subsequent publications, so it does not conclusively correlate to the dramatic increases in autism cases that we see under the use of DSMIV and DSMIV-TR.

Really, I don't think DSMIII-R is culprit, since the drastic spike in autism occurred after the newer DSMIV was published in 1994.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

http://www.americanchiropractic.net/autism/Autism%20statistics,%20US%20dept%20pf%20ed.pdf

airmotive
10-09-2012, 22:53
Am I the only person who can see my posts?
Am I on everyone's ignore list? (probably a pretty decent chance on that one).

Again....My wife, who is and has been a healthcare professional for 15 years, was just recently evaluated and found to be on the autism spectrum. (Asbergers) She has just become one of the numbers.

She has not changed in the last 39 years.
The definition of autism has changed.

I bet if quite a few GTers took some simple online surveyes, you just might find yourself to be a natural born window licker.

AK_Stick
10-09-2012, 23:22
Am I the only person who can see my posts?
Am I on everyone's ignore list? (probably a pretty decent chance on that one).

Again....My wife, who is and has been a healthcare professional for 15 years, was just recently evaluated and found to be on the autism spectrum. (Asbergers) She has just become one of the numbers.

She has not changed in the last 39 years.
The definition of autism has changed.

I bet if quite a few GTers took some simple online surveyes, you just might find yourself a natural born window licker.



Hell, I'm a certified window licker

<<<<CE....

MrGlock21
10-10-2012, 00:05
This thread has potential. Just need a few more GNG nutbaggers to show up...

well... I ,too, thought that there was potential. But when reading on, I got bored ...The usual egotistical exersice of back and forth 'lecturing' sometimes wears out pretty quick.

OctoberRust
10-10-2012, 06:50
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28118212.jpg

Hauptmann6
10-10-2012, 07:10
and some Jew, somewhere, doing his Jewy Jewish things!

So you admit that it's all your fault!

MtBaldy
10-10-2012, 07:43
Am I the only person who can see my posts?
Am I on everyone's ignore list? .

Ya know, I've often wanted a function to see who's, or at least how many, "Ignore" lists I'm on. Then, after reflecting, I usually come to the conclusion I'd probably rather not know. At any rate, you're not on mine.

SDGlock23
10-10-2012, 08:29
There has been for quite some time now evidence pointing to autism being induced by vaccinations. Many articles can be found on this, here is just one http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html

Also what better way to keep the populace needing the drugs the major pharmaceutical companies cash in on than to infect the very people who will be needing them? They load up our children with all sorts of bad stuff via forced vaccinations and all. I'm not saying all of it is bad, but how do you know that they aren't sneaking things into the vaccine that they won't tell you about?

OctoberRust
10-10-2012, 08:41
Am I the only person who can see my posts?
Am I on everyone's ignore list? (probably a pretty decent chance on that one).

Again....My wife, who is and has been a healthcare professional for 15 years, was just recently evaluated and found to be on the autism spectrum. (Asbergers) She has just become one of the numbers.

She has not changed in the last 39 years.
The definition of autism has changed.

I bet if quite a few GTers took some simple online surveyes, you just might find yourself to be a natural born window licker.

Where can I take this test without forking out any money or going to a hospital? I'm willing to be I'm a window licker. :supergrin:

djf
10-10-2012, 09:29
The US is the world leader in autism by a staggering large margin.

We are also the world leader in mandatory vaccines.

You do the math.

Interesting you mention this. I work in the Autism research field. One of my customers is Ami Klin who is arguably the top researcher in the field of Autism. They all say that Autism is most likely a genetic disorder.

Here's a Ted talk by Ami Klin. Note how he never mentions vaccines.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ami_klin_a_new_way_to_diagnose_autism.html

Basically, I'm suggesting that you're completely full of crap.

.264 magnum
10-10-2012, 09:48
Interesting you mention this. I work in the Autism research field. One of my customers is Ami Klin who is arguably the top researcher in the field of Autism. They all say that Autism is most likely a genetic disorder.

Here's a Ted talk by Ami Klin. Note how he never mentions vaccines.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ami_klin_a_new_way_to_diagnose_autism.html

Basically, I'm suggesting that you're completely full of crap.

Agreed the OP and several others in this thread at 100% full of crap.

Brucev
10-10-2012, 09:56
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/new-study-vaccinated-children-have-2-to-5-times-more-diseases-and-disorders-than-unvaccinated-children/



And now you know why.

They make vaccines mandatory. They give unlimited indemnity to the vaccine manufacturers. The population gets sicker and sicker and we end up with Obamacare. What a great country!!

Someone needs to get some sleep. That often helps irrational thinking.

Rabbi
10-10-2012, 10:32
So you admit that it's all your fault!

Oh no...not my fault...my design!

http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/5017/palpatineo.jpg

:rofl::rofl:

Geko45
10-10-2012, 10:42
I appreciate you looking up that study for me, really I do. However the study is from 1992 and says nothing about the subsequent publications, so it does not conclusively correlate to the dramatic increases in autism cases that we see under the use of DSMIV and DSMIV-TR.

Alright, how about this. Should a truly autistic child be able to 'outgrow' the condition? It was my understanding that autism was incurable. The study below (2012) looked at children that were orignally given a diagnosis on the autism spectrum, but later no longer met the critieria for ASD. The study identified other factors that may have contributed to the change in diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate descriptive characteristics and co-occurring neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions in young children, children, and adolescents with a current and consistent or past but not current (PBNC) diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and how such characteristics and conditions may engender a change in diagnosis of an ASD.

METHODS: Cross-sectional data of 1366 children with a parent-reported current or PBNC ASD diagnosis were obtained from the National Survey of Children’s Health 2007 data set across 3 developmental stages: young children (aged 3–5 years), children (aged 6–11 years), and adolescents (aged 12–17 years). Multinomial logistic regression was used to examine demographic characteristics and co-occurring conditions that differentiate the groups with a current ASD from groups with a PBNC ASD.

RESULTS: Results indicated the co-occurring conditions that distinguish groups currently diagnosed with an ASD from groups with a PBNC ASD diagnosis. In young children, current moderate/severe learning disability, and current moderate/severe developmental delay; in children, past speech problem, current moderate/severe anxiety, and past hearing problem; and in adolescents, current moderate/severe speech problem, current mild seizure/epilepsy, and past hearing problem.

CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the presence of co-occurring psychiatric and neurodevelopmental conditions are associated with a change in ASD diagnosis. Questions remain as to whether changes in diagnosis of an ASD are due to true etiologic differences or shifts in diagnostic determination.

Dennis in MA
10-10-2012, 10:52
This message is hidden because airmotive is on your ignore list.


I'm sorry. Were you saying something? :rofl::rofl:


I totally agree. Next we'll be talking about how we're all dying of mercury poisoning from our fillings.

Geko45
10-10-2012, 11:01
Am I the only person who can see my posts?
Am I on everyone's ignore list? (probably a pretty decent chance on that one).

Sorry, I was caught up in my own little world... I must be autistic.

Again....My wife, who is and has been a healthcare professional for 15 years, was just recently evaluated and found to be on the autism spectrum. (Asbergers) She has just become one of the numbers.

She has not changed in the last 39 years.
The definition of autism has changed.

Exactly, autism is treated as spectrum now and not a well defined condition. Almost anybody can be tested on the wrong day and score somewhere on the scale.

tantrix
10-10-2012, 11:05
Exactly, autism is treated as spectrum now and not a well defined condition. Almost anybody can be tested on the wrong day and score somewhere on the scale.

I know more than one couple who have kids diagnosed as "autistic". Truth is they never discipline at all and their kids are little bad-asses. And yep, they give them medication for the "condition". :upeyes:

I wish they'd start prescribing medication to the dumbass parents instead of the kids.

airmotive
10-10-2012, 11:22
Sorry, I was caught up in my own little world... I must be autistic.



Exactly, autism is treated as spectrum now and not a well defined condition. Almost anybody can be tested on the wrong day and score somewhere on the scale.

...and when we got back to the car I say, "See! I TOLD you you were retarded. NOW will you believe me?!?!"

Lucky for me, "a-hole" isn't on the autism spectrum.
(not yet, anyway)

:rofl:

Geko45
10-10-2012, 11:33
Lucky for me, "a-hole" isn't on the autism spectrum.

I believe they call it arse-pergers...

:tongueout:

vrex
10-10-2012, 11:42
We are told that vaccines create immunity -- and in spite of the lack of research done to prove efficacy I have no reason to doubt this. I do have a problem with the logic of trying to mandate vaccines for everyone though. If they create immunity for me, why should I care if you are vaccinated or not? If I'm immune to the disease you have, I shouldn't care.


That is the simple logic no one seems to get, why would vaccinated people/parents have any concern being around unvaccinated kids?

yet they passionately and with rage want YOU to stand in line with them.

mass populas mentality- while we all are consumed by "zombie apocalypse" scenarios....go figure

fwm
10-10-2012, 12:57
I have to agree. There are major childhood diseases that we should be vaccinating against.

Personally I don't think that chickenpox or other more minor diseases should necessarily be included, but there is no doubt or question in my mind that those listed are critical.

Chickenpox is NOT a minor disease. Chickenpox in childhood causes the virus to live in your body forever, causing shingles later in life. As many of my contemporary relatives can attest to, shingles at 60 is very debilitating, and can lead to permanent nerve problems.

A simple vaccination at an early age can stop MUCH suffering later.

fwm
10-10-2012, 13:14
That is the simple logic no one seems to get, why would vaccinated people/parents have any concern being around unvaccinated kids?

yet they passionately and with rage want YOU to stand in line with them.

mass populas mentality- while we all are consumed by "zombie apocalypse" scenarios....go figure

Because, as we speak, their is a resurgence of many of these diseases among the many unvaccinated, leading to higher insurance premiums for all of us. (There are even new cases of polio)

As much as you don't want your child vaccinated, you really don't want them to have polio or any of those other diseases, and the possibility increases with every unvaccinated person.

NOLA_glock
10-10-2012, 13:38
I appreciate you looking up that study for me, really I do. However the study is from 1992 and says nothing about the subsequent publications, so it does not conclusively correlate to the dramatic increases in autism cases that we see under the use of DSMIV and DSMIV-TR.

Really, I don't think DSMIII-R is culprit, since the drastic spike in autism occurred after the newer DSMIV was published in 1994.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

http://www.americanchiropractic.net/autism/Autism%20statistics,%20US%20dept%20pf%20ed.pdf

In a psychobiology class, I was told that the DSM-IV significantly broadened the defining criteria for what constitutes autism over what was in the DSM-III. I've found the relevant text, but it's not really something I know how to interpret.

DSM-III:
Diagnostic Criteria for Autistic Disorder

At least eight of the following sixteen items are present, these to include at least two items from A, one from B, and one from C.

A. Qualitative impairment in reciprocal social interaction (the examples within parentheses are arranged so that those first listed are more likely to apply to younger or more disabled, and the later ones, to older or less disabled) as manifested by the following:
1.Marked lack of awareness of the existence or feelings of others (for example, treats a person as if that person were a piece of furniture; does not notice another person's distress; apparently has no concept of the need of others for privacy);
2. No or abnormal seeking of comfort at times of distress (for example, does not come for comfort even when ill, hurt, or tired; seeks comfort in a stereotyped way, for example, says "cheese, cheese, cheese" whenever hurt);
3. No or impaired imitation (for example, does not wave bye-bye; does not copy parent's domestic activities; mechanical imitation of others' actions out of context);
4. No or abnormal social play (for example, does not actively participate in simple games; refers solitary play activities; involves other children in play only as mechanical aids); and
5. Gross impairment in ability to make peer friendships (for example, no interest in making peer friendships despite interest in making fiends, demonstrates lack of understanding of conventions of social interaction, for example, reads phone book to uninterested peer.

B. Qualitative impairment in verbal and nonverbal communication and in imaginative activity, (the numbered items are arranged so that those first listed are more likely to apply to younger or more disabled, and the later ones, to older or less disabled) as manifested by the following:
1. No mode of communication, such as: communicative babbling, facial expression, gesture, mime, or spoken language;
2. Markedly abnormal nonverbal communication, as in the use of eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, or gestures to initiate or modulate social interaction (for example, does not anticipate being held, stiffens when held, does not look at the person or smile when making a social approach, does not greet parents or visitors, has a fixed stare in social situations);
3. Absence of imaginative activity, such as play-acting of adult roles, fantasy character or animals; lack of interest in stories about imaginary events;
4. Marked abnormalities in the production of speech, including volume, pitch, stress, rate, rhythm, and intonation (for example, monotonous tone, question-like melody, or high pitch);
5. Marked abnormalities in the form or content of speech, including stereotyped and repetitive use of speech (for example, immediate echolalia or mechanical repetition of a television commercial); use of "you" when "I" is meant (for example, using "You want cookie?" to mean "I want a cookie"); idiosyncratic use of words or phrases (for example, "Go on green riding" to mean "I want to go on the swing"); or frequent irrelevant remarks (for example, starts talking about train schedules during a conversation about ports); and
6. Marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others, despite adequate speech (for example, indulging in lengthy monologues on one subject regardless of interjections from others);

C. Markedly restricted repertoire of activities and interests as manifested by the following:
1. Stereotyped body movements (for example, hand flicking or twisting, spinning, head-banging, complex whole-body movements);
2. Persistent preoccupation with parts of objects (for example, sniffing or smelling objects, repetitive feeling of texture of materials, spinning wheels of toy cars) or attachment to unusual objects (for example, insists on carrying around a piece of string);
3. Marked distress over changes in trivial aspects of environment (for example, when a vase is moved from usual position);
4. Unreasonable insistence on following routines in precise detail (for example, insisting that exactly the same route always be followed when shopping);
5. Markedly restricted range of interests and a preoccupation with one narrow interest, e.g., interested only in lining up objects, in amassing facts about meteorology, or in pretending to be a fantasy character.

D. Onset during infancy or early childhood
Specify if childhood onset (after 36 months of age)

DSM-IV:
Diagnostic Criteria for Autistic Disorder

I. A total of six (or more) items from A., B., and C., with at least two from A., and one each from B. and C.

A. qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

1. marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
2. failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
3. a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people, (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
4. lack of social or emotional reciprocity ( note: in the description, it gives the following as examples: not actively participating in simple social play or games, preferring solitary activities, or involving others in activities only as tools or "mechanical" aids )

B. qualitative impairments in communication as manifested by at least one of the following:
1. delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language (not accompanied by an attempt to compensate through alternative modes of communication such as gesture or mime)
2. in individuals with adequate speech, marked impairment in the ability to initiate or sustain a conversation with others
3. stereotyped and repetitive use of language or idiosyncratic language
4. lack of varied, spontaneous make-believe play or social imitative play appropriate to developmental level

C. restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least two of the following:
1. encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
2. apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
3. stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
4. persistent preoccupation with parts of objects


I. Delays or abnormal functioning in at least one of the following areas, with onset prior to age 3 years:
A. social interaction
B. language as used in social communication
C. symbolic or imaginative play

III. The disturbance is not better accounted for by Rett's Disorder or Childhood Disintegrative Disorder

DSM-I and DSM-II hardly mentioned autism at all.

TactiCool
10-10-2012, 14:19
Alright, how about this. Should a truly autistic child be able to 'outgrow' the condition? It was my understanding that autism was incurable. The study below (2012) looked at children that were orignally given a diagnosis on the autism spectrum, but later no longer met the critieria for ASD. The study identified other factors that may have contributed to the change in diagnosis.

As you said, there certainly will be some measurable error, but I think the answers to these questions regarding the past and current DSM's will be when the new DSMV is released in the middle of next year. This new publication will have a much stricter criteria for the diagnosis, even to the point that it is criticized by some for being so restrictive.

So, it should be interesting in the coming years to see how this will affect the levels of diagnosis.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/03428175u72v1135/fulltext.html

Ragnar
10-10-2012, 14:23
There has been for quite some time now evidence pointing to autism being induced by vaccinations. Many articles can be found on this, here is just one http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html

Also what better way to keep the populace needing the drugs the major pharmaceutical companies cash in on than to infect the very people who will be needing them? They load up our children with all sorts of bad stuff via forced vaccinations and all. I'm not saying all of it is bad, but how do you know that they aren't sneaking things into the vaccine that they won't tell you about?

Yeah, an article from a web site with an agenda. :upeyes:

They push thimerosal as the cause, but there are two problems;

1) It hasn't been in most vaccines for over 10 years, yet autism is up.

2) Thimerosal doesn't contain the "bad" mercury compound. There is a vast difference between ethyl and methyl mercury when it comes to toxicity and bio effects.

SRS
10-10-2012, 14:29
That is the simple logic no one seems to get, why would vaccinated people/parents have any concern being around unvaccinated kids?

yet they passionately and with rage want YOU to stand in line with them.


There are some good reasons:

1. Vaccines are not 100% effective, and with each unvaccinated person, the risk of transmission increases. In other words, the fact that people choose not to get vaccinated increases the risk of disease for both the unvaccinated and those for which the vaccine was ineffective.

2. People who choose not to get common vaccines are essentially freeloaders. Vaccines have a risk and benefit. People that get vaccines choose to accept the risk in return for the benefit. People who choose not to accept the risk still largely receive the benefit based on the risk accepted by the vaccinated via herd immunity. Add to that the fact that the unvaccinated increase the risk of disease. See 1.

I'm not saying it's right, but there are perfectly rational reasons for people to insist on mandatory vaccinations.

vrex
10-10-2012, 14:35
Because, as we speak, their is a resurgence of many of these diseases among the many unvaccinated, leading to higher insurance premiums for all of us. (There are even new cases of polio)

As much as you don't want your child vaccinated, you really don't want them to have polio or any of those other diseases, and the possibility increases with every unvaccinated person.

Achieving great strength always comes at a risk...I doubt those stats are from places where households proper nutrition and a healthy lifestyle are practiced.

None of what you are saying even compares to illnesses that there IS no real vaccination for sir.

vrex
10-10-2012, 14:40
There are some good reasons:

1. Vaccines are not 100% effective, and with each unvaccinated person, the risk of transmission increases. In other words, the fact that people choose not to get vaccinated increases the risk of disease for both the unvaccinated and those for which the vaccine was ineffective.

2. People who choose not to get common vaccines are essentially freeloaders. Vaccines have a risk and benefit. People that get vaccines choose to accept the risk in return for the benefit. People who choose not to accept the risk still largely receive the benefit based on the risk accepted by the vaccinated via herd immunity. Add to that the fact that the unvaccinated increase the risk of disease. See 1.

I'm not saying it's right, but there are perfectly rational reasons for people to insist on mandatory vaccinations.


my answers to your points:

1. Exactly, then DON'T do it or modify the schedule to allow the body to recover between shots.

2. People getting the vaccines accept nothing. They are sheep being led to the abbatoir, listening to some stupid half retarded "doctor" who makes money every time he sticks a needle into your healthy kid.

Vaccines were and are an idea with its heart in the right place, but like everything we have perverted it and now it is totally out of control.

glockdoc21
10-10-2012, 15:03
I'm a doctor...and my kids all got their flu shots this morning. When you've seen people die from preventable things like the flu, you make sure to get vaccinated. I realize that they're not a panacea, but I've NEVER seen a case of measles, mumps, rubella, polio or smallpox. So that should say somethings. We are seeing some of these diseases resurface because of the large numbers of unvaccinated illegal immigrants here, and I guarantee you that it makes me nervous to see these diseases again (I've havent seen them yet, but I've gotten some emails from colleagues that are seeing them in the southeast). Vaccinate your kids..

PS- autism is largely (not solely) kids that just need their butts kicked...there I said it.

SRS
10-10-2012, 15:26
my answers to your points:

1. Exactly, then DON'T do it or modify the schedule to allow the body to recover between shots.

2. People getting the vaccines accept nothing. They are sheep being led to the abbatoir, listening to some stupid half retarded "doctor" who makes money every time he sticks a needle into your healthy kid.

Vaccines were and are an idea with its heart in the right place, but like everything we have perverted it and now it is totally out of control.

1. I'm not sure how not vaccinating anyone, i.e., "DON'T do it," is a rational response unless you simply don't believe in the efficacy of vaccinations for whatever reason.

2. There are, of course, many people that get vaccinations because that's what's recommended with nary a thought to risk. But everyone who gets vaccinated assumes a risk, and people that don't get vaccinated benefit from that whether they want to or not. And I'm sorry, but putting doctor in scare quotes and suggesting that people getting vaccinated are being led to the slaughter is ridiculous.

I think we can at least agree that we'd all be better off if people took a vested interest in their health and researched treatments recommended (or not) by caregivers.

sputnik767
10-10-2012, 15:40
There has been for quite some time now evidence pointing to autism being induced by vaccinations. Many articles can be found on this, here is just one http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html

Also what better way to keep the populace needing the drugs the major pharmaceutical companies cash in on than to infect the very people who will be needing them? They load up our children with all sorts of bad stuff via forced vaccinations and all. I'm not saying all of it is bad, but how do you know that they aren't sneaking things into the vaccine that they won't tell you about?

Haha, naturalnews.com. Your credibility goes down the drain when you try to pass off these sorts of websites as your research. Worse, you actually form an opinion based on these sorts of websites. Point is, I have never seen a peer reviewed study in a scientific journal that showed a link (that wasn't retracted). You post is full of irrational paranoia, as evidence by your last paragraph. Its always easier to believe in a conspiracy theory than to do actual research.

Edit: I also did not see any sources sited in your link. Just because some jackwagon writes something on the internet, does not mean that you should blindly accept it. Some measure of common sense is always required.

Hrsuhd
10-10-2012, 15:59
Im not saying all of them are bad but the last time I took one of my kids in for a shot the nurse gave me a flyer to read about the vaccine no I dont remember which one it was but there was enough of a problem that there was already hotline and lawyers set up to deal with problems with adverse reactions including death. The nurse didnt let me read all of it before she gave the shot and it among other things made me very leary of medical "professionals"

We vacinate our kids but not on thier schedual putting that many toxins I thier little bodies all at one time and hoping they dont have a reaction and hoping the medical community can figure out which suspension or vaccine a kid is having a reaction to is assinine
Our job as parents is to protect our kids so if I piss off the holy m.d. or a nurse by making them try to find a one vaccine shot or not letting them pump ten different toxins in my kids at one time oh well.

muscogee
10-10-2012, 16:54
Achieving great strength always comes at a risk...I doubt those stats are from places where households proper nutrition and a healthy lifestyle are practiced.

None of what you are saying even compares to illnesses that there IS no real vaccination for sir.

Drug-resistant tuberculosis increasing among U.S. immigrant populations. (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/03/23/47191.aspx)

Should we require people to get vaccinated against tuberculosis?

Bow Commander
10-10-2012, 17:07
I'm a doctor...and my kids all got their flu shots this morning. When you've seen people die from preventable things like the flu, you make sure to get vaccinated. I realize that they're not a panacea, but I've NEVER seen a case of measles, mumps, rubella, polio or smallpox. So that should say somethings. We are seeing some of these diseases resurface because of the large numbers of unvaccinated illegal immigrants here, and I guarantee you that it makes me nervous to see these diseases again (I've havent seen them yet, but I've gotten some emails from colleagues that are seeing them in the southeast). Vaccinate your kids..

PS- autism is largely (not solely) kids that just need their butts kicked...there I said it.

Quoted as to not get missed.

sputnik767
10-10-2012, 21:21
Drug-resistant tuberculosis increasing among U.S. immigrant populations. (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/03/23/47191.aspx)

Should we require people to get vaccinated against tuberculosis?

There isn't a truly effective vaccine against TB. BCG is not very effective, and most if not all immigrants from 3rd world countries already have the vaccine. I was vaccinated when I was very young in Ukraine. There is no use of BCG in the US as far as I know, and I believe it's due to it's lack of efficacy.

sputnik767
10-10-2012, 23:12
Im not saying all of them are bad but the last time I took one of my kids in for a shot the nurse gave me a flyer to read about the vaccine no I dont remember which one it was but there was enough of a problem that there was already hotline and lawyers set up to deal with problems with adverse reactions including death. The nurse didnt let me read all of it before she gave the shot and it among other things made me very leary of medical "professionals"

We vacinate our kids but not on thier schedual putting that many toxins I thier little bodies all at one time and hoping they dont have a reaction and hoping the medical community can figure out which suspension or vaccine a kid is having a reaction to is assinine
Our job as parents is to protect our kids so if I piss off the holy m.d. or a nurse by making them try to find a one vaccine shot or not letting them pump ten different toxins in my kids at one time oh well.

The problem is that there is no "one vaccine shot" that covers everything. Many vaccines are a combination, such as MMR, and many are single vaccines. Or did you perhaps think that vaccines are cooked up in the doctor's office? The schedule is designed in such a way to ensure a proper immune response, and has been ascertained from probably decades of research. And it also clearly works, with an extremely low risk. It's cute that you think that you know better than the medical community, but by trying to flex your "knowledge" in front of your doc or nurse, all you are doing is making yourself look dumb. It's obviously appropriate for you to do what's best for your kids, but the problem lies in the fact that you are not doing what's best for your kids, rather you are doing what you think is best. That's a huge distinction, especially when you happen to be wrong. There is nothing wrong with following the advice of someone who actually knows something better than you do, and actually has a stake in your kids' well-being. It's interesting how people will come to this forum to ask advice on irrelevant things such as when to change the oil in your car, but at the same time will eschew the advice of a physician regarding the health of their loved ones, who spent the better part of a decade in medical school/residency, and is backed up by decades of peer-reviewed research. And they do it based on a 5 min google search article, written by some jackwagon without a medical or research degree, and backed up by no peer-reviewed sources. I read the natural news article someone linked to previously. It listed no sources, but would say "a study found this," "some scientists found this," or "a doctor said that." Clearly credible :upeyes: . This kind of stupidity is mind-boggling to say the least.

certifiedfunds
10-10-2012, 23:46
my answers to your points:

1. Exactly, then DON'T do it or modify the schedule to allow the body to recover between shots.

2. People getting the vaccines accept nothing. They are sheep being led to the abbatoir, listening to some stupid half retarded "doctor" who makes money every time he sticks a needle into your healthy kid.

Vaccines were and are an idea with its heart in the right place, but like everything we have perverted it and now it is totally out of control.

Please elaborate on #1. Exactly what recovery are you speaking about that is needed "between shots"? How long is this recovery and what biochemical processes need to occur? Which vx require how much "recovery"?

certifiedfunds
10-10-2012, 23:48
Im not saying all of them are bad but the last time I took one of my kids in for a shot the nurse gave me a flyer to read about the vaccine no I dont remember which one it was but there was enough of a problem that there was already hotline and lawyers set up to deal with problems with adverse reactions including death. The nurse didnt let me read all of it before she gave the shot and it among other things made me very leary of medical "professionals"

We vacinate our kids but not on thier schedual putting that many toxins I thier little bodies all at one time and hoping they dont have a reaction and hoping the medical community can figure out which suspension or vaccine a kid is having a reaction to is assinine
Our job as parents is to protect our kids so if I piss off the holy m.d. or a nurse by making them try to find a one vaccine shot or not letting them pump ten different toxins in my kids at one time oh well.

You really haven't got the slightest flipping idea what you are talking about. You have formulated your own opinions based on nothing.

JuneyBooney
10-11-2012, 00:38
That is not a "study" that is a sales pitch.

Pure BS.

I fully agree.

sputnik767
10-11-2012, 00:39
Please elaborate on #1. Exactly what recovery are you speaking about that is needed "between shots"? How long is this recovery and what biochemical processes need to occur? Which vx require how much "recovery"?

Would be interesting to see if he actually takes you up on any of these questions. I would offer a few questions of my own that would require some research to answer, but I think it would be a waste of my time. You can't teach someone who refuses to be taught.

As to his second point, it seems that people think that once we graduate med school, the sun is always shining and money rains out of the sky. I haven't looked at the typical office visit reimbursement in a while, but I think a basic office visit is reimbursed at a level of around $80, and I think it almost doubles for a very complex visit. So needless to say the "stupid half retarded doctor" is making very little for the time it takes to stick a needle into a squirming, screaming kid, do an exam, and answer his mother's questions/concerns. I guess he thinks the pediatrician wipes his ass with $100 bills. There is a reason why no student right now wants to go into primary care. It simply does not pay, and some government programs are actually paying off the loans of people who agree to practice medicine in underserved areas for X number of years. That's how bad it has gotten. Luckily for me, I never have to even remotely consider the primary care specialties. Therefore hopefully I will be less exposed to the kind of weapons-grade stupidity that we see in this thread.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 01:15
Would be interesting to see if he actually takes you up on any of these questions. I would offer a few questions of my own that would require some research to answer, but I think it would be a waste of my time. You can't teach someone who refuses to be taught.



My point being, his notions are based on nothing. He just made it up. You don't have to research it because the research has been done by others and the protocols set accordingly. He, on the other hand, just believes something based on nothing and without regard to fact of any kind.

sputnik767
10-11-2012, 01:24
My point being, his notions are based on nothing. He just made it up. You don't have to research it because the research has been done by others and the protocols set accordingly. He, on the other hand, just believes something based on nothing and without regard to fact of any kind.

Right. That's why I am hoping if people are forced to research the right things, they may actually learn something useful in the process. You and I are able to discern valid sources from BS. It seems that most here can not.

Peace Warrior
10-11-2012, 03:36
That's because a much more compelling argument for the apparent increase in autism is simple over-diagnosis. Thirty years ago, a child would not be diagnosed as autistic unless he was sitting in the corner rocking back and forth while being largely unresponsive to normal stimuli. Today, if little Timmy daydreams to much in class he gets diagnosed as mildly autistic (or ADHD) and handed a prescription.
With precursors still in play, or doubt if one is on your side of the fence, it appears that genetics is still a MAJOR factor in a child's susceptibility to autism per being vaccinated.

The jury is still out, but if hereditary dispositions are shown to be a factor in autism rates after receiving the vaccinations, wouldn't that still make autism rates directly attributable to the vaccines themselves?

Simply put, and this is just to pick one as it has not been determined yet, but let's say for the purpose and reason of argument, we somehow find that babies/children with Irish descent and or ancestry are the most susceptible to the onset of autism after receiving a vaccine (i.e., not true, but for the sake of argument). The rest of the world's population may not have a problem, but genes are the primary suspect at this point for some studies.

Irrefutably there is a direct link between vaccines and autism, but the factor for the link is what is puzzling scientists at this point. We may find it ultimately comes down to the factor of "who's your daddy?!?"
Thanks Geko, exactly what I was about to post in response to PW.

SMASH gng ignorance!!! :supergrin:
:rofl: That is so rich coming from you in particular. *giggles* :whistling:
Most likely be a lot less liberals running around screwing things up.
Oh no you didunt! :supergrin:

Peace Warrior
10-11-2012, 03:44
Interesting thread.

In almost every other thread that touches on government intervention and "mandating" things, everyone here, including many in this thread rises up, thumps their chests, and shouts about tyranny and the gov't screwing up perfectly good programs, they should keep their nose out of the business of private citizens, etc. But when it comes to vaccines, suddenly it's a good thing.

Just did a 30-second google search, and came up with two parents that tried to refuse vaccinating their kids, and were told to appear in court and either subject their children to on-the-spot, state-mandated vaccines of up to 17 doses, or face imprisonment. Also, if they ignored the court's demand, they would also be subject to a $50 fine for each day their child was “out of compliance” or up to 10 days in jail.

So, which is it? Is government intervention a good thing or not? :dunno:
AG,

This is the internet dammit! Stop trying to make sense of it all! :whistling:







































But seriously, you're unequivocally SPOT ON Sir! :wavey:

Peace Warrior
10-11-2012, 03:59
Alright, how about this. Should a truly autistic child be able to 'outgrow' the condition? It was my understanding that autism was incurable. The study below (2012) looked at children that were orignally given a diagnosis on the autism spectrum, but later no longer met the critieria for ASD. The study identified other factors that may have contributed to the change in diagnosis.
Have you read this book yet?


Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism - jenny mccarthy

Part of her "sabbatical," in Ponte Vedra, Fla., was putting forth the time to write this book. I personally never met jenny when she was in Ponte Vedra, Fla., but one particular parent from that area comes to mind. I've have met parent's of autistic children, but this particular parent also lives in the Ponte Vedra area. She and her husband had ZERO problems in their multi-child family until their youngest, IIRC, received mandatory vaccination. Then the autism started...

These particular parents comes to mind as they are awesome people that 110% support each other and their autistic daughter, which is not unlike the battle that jenny went through with her child (i.e., son). These parents also live in Ponte Vedra, and they also met jenny during her tenure in the area. The person I met is a woman, a wife, and a mother whose entire family has been devastated by these vaccines being forced on her child. Her daughter was PERFECT until after receiving the vaccines.

Anyway, read the book jenny mccarthy wrote before you personally decide what is going on with vaccines versus autism.

airmotive
10-11-2012, 04:57
If I'm your insurance provider, and you ask me to pay for your kid's polio treatment, my first response would be..."please hold while I review your child's vaccination record....No. This cost is on you."

My home insurance won't pay if I blow up my house running a math lab. My car insurance won't pay if I'm running it on the local dirt track on weekends. Why should my health insurance pay for an otherwise preventable disease? You're not being denied healthcare...you're just being denied having someone else pay for it.

sputnik767
10-11-2012, 06:51
Have you read this book yet?


Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism - jenny mccarthy

Part of her "sabbatical," in Ponte Vedra, Fla., was putting forth the time to write this book. I personally never met jenny when she was in Ponte Vedra, Fla., but one particular parent from that area comes to mind. I've have met parent's of autistic children, but this particular parent also lives in the Ponte Vedra area. She and her husband had ZERO problems in their multi-child family until their youngest, IIRC, received mandatory vaccination. Then the autism started...

These particular parents comes to mind as they are awesome people that 110% support each other and their autistic daughter, which is not unlike the battle that jenny went through with her child (i.e., son). These parents also live in Ponte Vedra, and they also met jenny during her tenure in the area. The person I met is a woman, a wife, and a mother whose entire family has been devastated by these vaccines being forced on her child. Her daughter was PERFECT until after receiving the vaccines.

Anyway, read the book jenny mccarthy wrote before you personally decide what is going on with vaccines versus autism.

Yes, we should all form our opinion based on a book written by somebody who started off doing Playboy, has no medical or research background, nor is backed up by any legitimate research. In fact, goes against all research. Because she is a celebrity and clearly knows what she is talking about. The stupidity here is reaching epic proportions. And since you are presenting anecdotal evidence of one person who claims to have autism from vaccines, I will provide anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I have probably had more vaccines than most people here, including vaccines from a 3rd world country that are not used here, and I am not autistic nor do I have any health issues.

But I'll play along for a bit: what vaccines did the daughter receive, when did she receive them, and at what age was she diagnosed with autism? Also, please tell me the typical age at which autism is diagnosed, and correlate it to the vaccines that she received which supposedly caused her autism. Somehow I doubt that I'll get a response from you.

BulldawgGlock
10-11-2012, 07:49
Vaccinate your children, don't listen to morons without medical training.

scccdoc
10-11-2012, 07:57
The OP trusts people without proper training? Hope you never need heart surgery. I've never had mumps, measles, polio, diphtheria, or tetanus. Not to mention the major flu epidemics and I'm immune suppressed. I'd say the vaccinations worked well for me and my children........ DOC

F14Scott
10-11-2012, 08:37
Have you read this book yet?


Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism - jenny mccarthy

Part of her "sabbatical," in Ponte Vedra, Fla., was putting forth the time to write this book. I personally never met jenny when she was in Ponte Vedra, Fla., but one particular parent from that area comes to mind. I've have met parent's of autistic children, but this particular parent also lives in the Ponte Vedra area. She and her husband had ZERO problems in their multi-child family until their youngest, IIRC, received mandatory vaccination. Then the autism started...

These particular parents comes to mind as they are awesome people that 110% support each other and their autistic daughter, which is not unlike the battle that jenny went through with her child (i.e., son). These parents also live in Ponte Vedra, and they also met jenny during her tenure in the area. The person I met is a woman, a wife, and a mother whose entire family has been devastated by these vaccines being forced on her child. Her daughter was PERFECT until after receiving the vaccines.

Anyway, read the book jenny mccarthy wrote before you personally decide what is going on with vaccines versus autism.

To further what Sputnik767 said:

Anyone who bases medical decisions on the self-serving moonbat ramblings of a woman whose principle accomplishments are picking her nose, taking her clothes off, and f---ing Jim Carey (although not, necessarily, all at once) needs to take a hard look at what is missing from his own life.

Jenny McCarthy has done more to harm children than any single person I can think of in recent history. In her search for a cause of her own child's autism, she, and her freak-show accomplices on the ladies' talk show circuit (Oprah et al) convinced an entire generation of average intelligence women that worrying about baseless assertions and statistically insignificant side-effects in life-saving vaccines was more important than following the advice of millions of doctors with hundreds of millions of hours of peer-reviewed study, evidence, and results behind them.

Peace Warrior, with your promotion of Jenny McCarthy, you discredit both your cause and yourself.

Link to the Jenny McCarthy Body Count (http://www.jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReMcV6UYBWL8p5mWMxqrmmvSo8jsMQoLgvIwxo1sE_lSjfhvcGng

LSUAdman
10-11-2012, 10:09
I've been in and out of reading this thread since day one, and just had a thought today. I have a nephew who is autistic - he wasnt diagnosed until he was maybe three or four. I also have a good friend who's oldest child, nearly four, is showing symptoms of autism (true autism) but their doctor has been reluctant to diagnose her as such.

That said, having been around two young autistics for years, having a young child myself and having worked for a Texas Children's Medicaid provider for years, has anyone thought about the corelation of when a child is diagnosed to when vaccinations are administered?

In one report I read last year some time, a family said that their young (under 12 month) child showed symtpoms of austism right after a vacination. Well, considering the periodicity of vacinations for a young, under 12 month child can be anywhere from one month appart to two months appart, wouldn't any month technically be "immediately after a vacination" ?

I dont have the chart in front of me, but you basically get one series at birth, one about a month out, and then one set every month or two months up until age 18 months. After that it's about once a year if you consider Flu shots.

In short - when are these children getting diagnosed as autistic? Is it during the phase when a child gets a shot frequently, or is it later on in life? If it's during the first 12 months, couldn't "displaying symptoms after a vacine" be a coincidence since vacinations at that young age are close together?

vrex
10-11-2012, 11:06
1. I'm not sure how not vaccinating anyone, i.e., "DON'T do it," is a rational response unless you simply don't believe in the efficacy of vaccinations for whatever reason.

2. There are, of course, many people that get vaccinations because that's what's recommended with nary a thought to risk. But everyone who gets vaccinated assumes a risk, and people that don't get vaccinated benefit from that whether they want to or not. And I'm sorry, but putting doctor in scare quotes and suggesting that people getting vaccinated are being led to the slaughter is ridiculous.

I think we can at least agree that we'd all be better off if people took a vested interest in their health and researched treatments recommended (or not) by caregivers.


Vaccines are not bad, our perversion of them is, don't be a cheerleader for corporate medicine.

mace85
10-11-2012, 11:21
They interviewed Jenny McCarthy's ped's doc and he said that he personally witnessed a child "turn autistic" within minutes after administering a vaccine. My question is this. How does this dildo still have a license to practice medicine?

The Lancet (The journal that first published the article linking vaccines to autism) freely admits that they were scammed and the research failed any attempts at peer review. So much so that a medical journal actually printed a retraction.

And what hidden agenda would the government have for putting undisclosed additives in a vaccine? The paranoia surrounding this stuff is almost comical. It would be funny if people were not gambling with the health of their kids and the surrounding populations due to some government bogeyman complex. For the love of all that is logical, this is the same government that can't manage to agree on any one single issue, yet they are crafty enough to taint the nations vaccine supply?

vrex
10-11-2012, 11:52
They interviewed Jenny McCarthy's ped's doc and he said that he personally witnessed a child "turn autistic" within minutes after administering a vaccine. My question is this. How does this dildo still have a license to practice medicine?

The Lancet (The journal that first published the article linking vaccines to autism) freely admits that they were scammed and the research failed any attempts at peer review. So much so that a medical journal actually printed a retraction.

And what hidden agenda would the government have for putting undisclosed additives in a vaccine? The paranoia surrounding this stuff is almost comical. It would be funny if people were not gambling with the health of their kids and the surrounding populations due to some government bogeyman complex. For the love of all that is logical, this is the same government that can't manage to agree on any one single issue, yet they are crafty enough to taint the nations vaccine supply?

.....vaccines aren't tainted, they are just unhealthy, and many, extraneous and unecessary. You really think Salk envisioned this madness? I don't.

mace85
10-11-2012, 12:09
I am not so sure they are not necessary.

HPV: Cervical Cancer is bad mmm'kay.
Smallpox: Like bigpox, but worse.
Polio: No one wants to compete in the crutch olympics.
Varicella (chicken pox): Not a real high fatality rate for kids, but horrible for adults, or the recurrent shingles outbreaks as discussed earlier.
Hep A/B: Horrible diseases, usually bloodborne, but horrible none the less.
Rubella: Can be fatal to kids and carried by adults.
Pertussis: I have personally witnessed a kid lose an airway due to this disease in the ER I work in. Suffocation for children, I wouldn't vote for it. Again can be carried by adults who are not vaccinated.
Tetanus: Another bad one, lockjaw is the least of your worries.
Influenza: The common flu kills people, yes, it may be hard to believe but kids and older people will die from the flu every single season.
Any diseases that cause swelling of the upper airway, such as those covered in the MMR vaccine has the distinct possibility to kill a kid. Their airways are much smaller in relation to their bodies than those of an adult. Minor uncomfortable swelling for an adult might require heavy medication doses to reduce swelling, or in really extreme cases a surgical airway such a a trach. This is not theoretical. These infections happen, and they are starting to increase due to parents believing they are better educated than their physicians and opting not to vaccinate.

The awesome thing about these newer cases of preventable infections, is that those of a bacterial nature are now showing signs of antibiotic resistance. Much like how the once common STD's are now not responding to ABX therapy.

And in regards to the vaccines being tainted, that was in response to a poster a few pages back.

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 12:21
The problem is that there is no "one vaccine shot" that covers everything. Many vaccines are a combination, such as MMR, and many are single vaccines. Or did you perhaps think that vaccines are cooked up in the doctor's office? The schedule is designed in such a way to ensure a proper immune response, and has been ascertained from probably decades of research. And it also clearly works, with an extremely low risk. It's cute that you think that you know better than the medical community, but by trying to flex your "knowledge" in front of your doc or nurse, all you are doing is making yourself look dumb. It's obviously appropriate for you to do what's best for your kids, but the problem lies in the fact that you are not doing what's best for your kids, rather you are doing what you think is best. That's a huge distinction, especially when you happen to be wrong. There is nothing wrong with following the advice of someone who actually knows something better than you do, and actually has a stake in your kids' well-being. It's interesting how people will come to this forum to ask advice on irrelevant things such as when to change the oil in your car, but at the same time will eschew the advice of a physician regarding the health of their loved ones, who spent the better part of a decade in medical school/residency, and is backed up by decades of peer-reviewed research. And they do it based on a 5 min google search article, written by some jackwagon without a medical or research degree, and backed up by no peer-reviewed sources. I read the natural news article someone linked to previously. It listed no sources, but would say "a study found this," "some scientists found this," or "a doctor said that." Clearly credible :upeyes: . This kind of stupidity is mind-boggling to say the least.

Its cute that that you did not read my post and replied any way I was asking about a shot containing a single vaccine vrs a mutiple vaccine shot .
I dont recall nor is it in my post anywhere that I think they make up the shots in the office.
Why do you say the doctors are vested in my kids. They are not, they are vested in thier wallets and the wallets of pharmaceutical companies(again not all but a percentage).
You may want to reread or read my post i never read the artical and dont care to.
Are you a doctor, is that why your offended?
Probably decades of research? Now thats a great fact to latch onto.
And name calling really? How sophmoric.

mace85
10-11-2012, 12:26
He has a point though. A good percentage of the vaccines are made as multi strain shots due to it being more affordable. In addition you only pay for one office visit versus three. A doctor wouldn't do that if they were trying to leach every last cent from you.

It's cute how you think you have a handle on immunology.

Decades of research are more valid in my mind than the conspiracy theories of a parent who has an axe to grind with her local MD, but doesn't care to even devote the energy to read the article containing the information in question.

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 12:29
You really haven't got the slightest flipping idea what you are talking about. You have formulated your own opinions based on nothing.

Did you miss the part about the flyer/phamplet concerning posssible death .

mace85
10-11-2012, 12:40
Find me one one commercial medication that does not have a death associated with it in clinical trials. Tylenol; Liver toxicity. Alleve: GI Bleeds. Multivitamins: Iron and vitamin A toxicity in large doses. All drugs carry that risk.

Part of interpreting the data is understanding how clinical trials are done. If Pfizer is testing a new drug to cure anal leakage, and a participant in a trial dies by committing suicide, even if it is in no way related to the drug, the death gets listed in the trial. Therefore the new miracle drug that stops anal leakage will have one death by suicide associated with it. That may make it the little pamphlet in the box with the drug.

The drug companies however do not take effort to explain this to the end consumer. But in the whole scheme of things drug companies have only been reaching out to the end user for the last 10 years or so.

LSUAdman
10-11-2012, 12:46
Did you miss the part about the flyer/phamplet concerning posssible death .


No offense, but you dont even remember what the shot was per your original post.

I'm a parent, and I've been to every one of my child's doctor visits. My wife and I also read each pamplet we receive before moving forward on a vaccine on the schedule. One of the reasons I do this is because while I worked in Medicaid and Medicare I helped draft several of those documents.

Good on you for being a concerned mother - there is nothing wrong with that. But you need to have a little bit of rational thought in with your worry.

Do you know how small the incidence of any drug reaction is? And of all those reactions, do you know how small the incidence of death is?

Or did you just skim the pamplet and see the word "death" and decide to post on a message board? You know, for that shot that you can't remember what it was for.

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 12:52
He has a point though. A good percentage of the vaccines are made as multi strain shots due to it being more affordable. In addition you only pay for one office visit versus three. A doctor wouldn't do that if they were trying to leach every last cent from you.

It's cute how you think you have a handle on immunology.

Decades of research are more valid in my mind than the conspiracy theories of a parent who has an axe to grind with her local MD, but doesn't care to even devote the energy to read the article containing the information in question.

My first line in my original post is we vacinate our kidsI just try do it in a way that puts minimal toxins in them at a givin time reducing the chance for adverse reactions and increasing the chance for a proper response if there is an adverse reaction.

LSUAdman
10-11-2012, 12:55
My first line in my original post is we vacinate our kidsI just try do it in a way that puts minimal toxins in them at a givin time reducing the chance for adverse reactions and increasing the chance for a proper response if there is an adverse reaction.


I'm curious - what Toxins are you afraid of?

People use that term all the time. I'd love to know what toxins you think are being put into your vaccines, food, etc.

Please educate us. :wavey:

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 12:55
Its cute that that you did not read my post and replied any way I was asking about a shot containing a single vaccine vrs a mutiple vaccine shot .
I dont recall nor is it in my post anywhere that I think they make up the shots in the office.
Why do you say the doctors are vested in my kids. They are not, they are vested in thier wallets and the wallets of pharmaceutical companies(again not all but a percentage).
You may want to reread or read my post i never read the artical and dont care to.
Are you a doctor, is that why your offended?
Probably decades of research? Now thats a great fact to latch onto.
And name calling really? How sophmoric.

The more you try to defend your posts the more ignorant you look.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 12:57
My first line in my original post is we vacinate our kidsI just try do it in a way that puts minimal toxins in them at a givin time reducing the chance for adverse reactions and increasing the chance for a proper response if there is an adverse reaction.

Show your data that what you FEEL is correct.

NeverMore1701
10-11-2012, 12:58
I'm curious - what Toxins are you afraid of?

People use that term all the time. I'd love to know what toxins you think are being put into your vaccines, food, etc.

Please educate us. :wavey:

The bad ones that cause autism, obviously. From some of the posts here, you'd think they got a triple dose....

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 13:04
I'm curious - what Toxins are you afraid of?

People use that term all the time. I'd love to know what toxins you think are being put into your vaccines, food, etc.

Please educate us. :wavey:

You are correct toxin may not have been the right word live virus dead virus carrier liquid the fewer of those things in a kids body if they have a reaction the easier it is to find and fix the problem.

LSUAdman
10-11-2012, 13:04
The bad ones that cause autism, obviously. From some of the posts here, you'd think they got a triple dose....


Crap...that explains that big vial labeled "Autism" that comes standard in each Doctor's office. I always wondered what those were for...

Surprised that BIG PHARMA doesnt put one of those vials and a sharp on each clipboard they drop off.

LSUAdman
10-11-2012, 13:05
You are correct toxin may not have been the right word live virus dead virus carrier liquid the fewer of those things in a kids body if they have a reaction the easier it is to find and fix the problem.


Yes, very easy to find. They'd be called Polio.

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 13:05
Show your data that what you FEEL is correct.

Your the one arguing the point show me how its wrong.

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 13:06
Yes, very easy to find. They'd be called Polio.

???????

NeverMore1701
10-11-2012, 13:07
Crap...that explains that big vial labeled "Autism" that comes standard in each Doctor's office. I always wondered what those were for...

Surprised that BIG PHARMA doesnt put one of those vials and a sharp on each clipboard they drop off.

They ran out trying to supply GT members.






:whistling:

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 13:19
The bad ones that cause autism, obviously. From some of the posts here, you'd think they got a triple dose....

None of my posts were about autism never mentioned it never brought it up .

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 13:27
Find me one one commercial medication that does not have a death associated with it in clinical trials. Tylenol; Liver toxicity. Alleve: GI Bleeds. Multivitamins: Iron and vitamin A toxicity in large doses. All drugs carry that risk.

Part of interpreting the data is understanding how clinical trials are done. If Pfizer is testing a new drug to cure anal leakage, and a participant in a trial dies by committing suicide, even if it is in no way related to the drug, the death gets listed in the trial. Therefore the new miracle drug that stops anal leakage will have one death by suicide associated with it. That may make it the little pamphlet in the box with the drug.

The drug companies however do not take effort to explain this to the end consumer. But in the whole scheme of things drug companies have only been reaching out to the end user for the last 10 years or so.

The part that concerned me was that there was an 800 number set up for complaints that tells me it wasnt an uber rare occurance.

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 13:41
He has a point though. A good percentage of the vaccines are made as multi strain shots due to it being more affordable. In addition you only pay for one office visit versus three. A doctor wouldn't do that if they were trying to leach every last cent from you.

It's cute how you think you have a handle on immunology.

Decades of research are more valid in my mind than the conspiracy theories of a parent who has an axe to grind with her local MD, but doesn't care to even devote the energy to read the article containing the information in question.

I notice you say more affordable not safer. I dont think DR.s are trying to leach every dime my point was that my child is just a number to them in out get the insuance billed.
I dont agree with the premis of the artical vacines help stuffing a kid full of 5 or 6 vaccines and there carriers in one go and hoping there is not an allergic reaction or other adverse effect and then trying to guess at which one caused it just dosent seem the best way to do it .

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 13:48
You are correct toxin may not have been the right word live virus dead virus carrier liquid the fewer of those things in a kids body if they have a reaction the easier it is to find and fix the problem.

1. Viri aren't alive
2. Show the medical evidence that the above bold is correct. Please also explain what problems arise and how they are "fixed". Please explain how having fewer helps anything.

Again, you THINK something, based on nothing factual, and you want to believe its true. That's your prerogative but its the very definition of ignorant.

scccdoc
10-11-2012, 13:48
Mother's milk transfers immunity to their babies, let's put a stop to that nonsense too!

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 13:49
I notice you say more affordable not safer. I dont think DR.s are trying to leach every dime my point was that my child is just a number to them in out get the insuance billed.
I dont agree with the premis of the artical vacines help stuffing a kid full of 5 or 6 vaccines and there carriers in one go and hoping there is not an allergic reaction or other adverse effect and then trying to guess at which one caused it just dosent seem the best way to do it .

The human immune system is very complex. It isn't some simple one dimensional machine like you seem to want to envision it to be.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 13:50
The part that concerned me was that there was an 800 number set up for complaints that tells me it wasnt an uber rare occurance.

That isn't what it tells you at all. Again, you're wrong.

FDA regulations require that any and all complaints be self-reported by the manufacturer. They have to have the number.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 13:54
Your the one arguing the point show me how its wrong.

:rofl:You can't be for real.

You made the assertion. Back it up. I think it goes something like this: "multiple vxs on kids is bad. They need to be spaced out. The medical standard which is based established science and upon millions upon millions of data points is wrong. I know better."

:rofl:


Also, you asserted that your doctor or other doctors are in "the pocket of big pharma". Please explain how this is so. Please ask your pedo which pharma companies he receives payment from.......oh, better yet, check for yourself:

http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

LSUAdman
10-11-2012, 14:08
The part that concerned me was that there was an 800 number set up for complaints that tells me it wasnt an uber rare occurance.


Or, maybe, lawsuits and complaints aren't uber rare. Maybe, just maybe, the complaints by uneducated people who base their logic on what ever blog they read that day has made it virtually impossible to NOT have that number on the form.

When we produced literature we made damn sure we gave people the ability to contact us and the State incase of an issue. Believe it or not, but it's not in a company's best interest to have it's clients getting sick - the quicker we can stop unhealthy processes the better for everyone.

It's not a conspiracy...you're just wrong. I mean...seriously. You know how you'd feel if your child insisted the sky was plaid? That's how you sound.

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 14:30
Some people need to learn the difference between scientific proof and lawyers cooking up business.

mace85
10-11-2012, 14:31
I notice you say more affordable not safer. I dont think DR.s are trying to leach every dime my point was that my child is just a number to them in out get the insuance billed.
I dont agree with the premis of the artical vacines help stuffing a kid full of 5 or 6 vaccines and there carriers in one go and hoping there is not an allergic reaction or other adverse effect and then trying to guess at which one caused it just dosent seem the best way to do it .


Alright....

Multivaccine shots have one carrier. They only need one, it is the mechanism by which the attenuated virus or virus shell (essentially) is introduced into the body. Quite frankly there is no need to space out the shots to determine the root cause of a rxn. First off, the kid will have an immune reaction, that is the point of the vaccine. If he received multiple shots, the injection site would most likely be a give away as to what one caused an allergic reaction. And in the whole scheme of things, it doesn't matter which one caused it because the treatment is the same. Steroids, block histamines (pepcid, benadryl) reduce inflammation, protect airway.

I am not sure what point your trying to prove here. And I am not sure some of the words in your post are even words at all.

Please, please, please, oh pretty pretty please with a cherry on top explain to me what factual basis there is for your line of reasoning. And if you can't then please put down the parenting magazines, and step away from the hand sanitizer.

This is what happens when people would rather trust celebrities than those ruthless penny pinching idiots who wasted 10 years of their life with stupid **** like higher education.

djf
10-11-2012, 14:53
Yes, vaccinations should not be mandatory because not every child is meant to survive to adulthood. Darwin's theory should not be interfered with.

Does it sound cold and heartless? Yes. Do I believe it? Yes.

I'm guessing that you don't have kids.

scccdoc
10-11-2012, 15:04
I notice you say more affordable not safer. I dont think DR.s are trying to leach every dime my point was that my child is just a number to them in out get the insuance billed.
I dont agree with the premis of the artical vacines help stuffing a kid full of 5 or 6 vaccines and there carriers in one go and hoping there is not an allergic reaction or other adverse effect and then trying to guess at which one caused it just dosent seem the best way to do it .

1)Find a caring physician, there are some around, that's on you.

2)"hoping"....................there's a ton of research that went into these time proven methods of prevention. I assume there are some with adverse reactions, but peanuts cause anaphylaxis too, from good ole Mother Earth. You don't know until you eat one (sorry for the simplistic example).

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 16:15
:rofl:You can't be for real.

You made the assertion. Back it up. I think it goes something like this: "multiple vxs on kids is bad. They need to be spaced out. The medical standard which is based established science and upon millions upon millions of data points is wrong. I know better."

:rofl:


Also, you asserted that your doctor or other doctors are in "the pocket of big pharma". Please explain how this is so. Please ask your pedo which pharma companies he receives payment from.......oh, better yet, check for yourself:

http://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

Im willing to learn show me.

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 16:19
1)Find a caring physician, there are some around, that's on you.

2)"hoping"....................there's a ton of research that went into these time proven methods of prevention. I assume there are some with adverse reactions, but peanuts cause anaphylaxis too, from good ole Mother Earth. You don't know until you eat one (sorry for the simplistic example).

I have.My Dr. is great!!!
And my kids did not have peanuts until they could tell me if there was a problem and I didnt force feed them a handfull

certifiedfunds
10-11-2012, 16:21
Im willing to learn show me.

Masters level immunology in a forum post? Sure. Wanna learn organic chem today too?

Hrsuhd
10-11-2012, 16:24
1. Viri aren't alive
2. Show the medical evidence that the above bold is correct. Please also explain what problems arise and how they are "fixed". Please explain how having fewer helps anything.

Again, you THINK something, based on nothing factual, and you want to believe its true. That's your prerogative but its the very definition of ignorant.

Kind of speaks for its self if you have one choice thats it if you have five you have to take time to figure out which one it is.