Vaccination & epidemic

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

There were many more cases of vaccine related injury, increasing incidence of autism, digestive disorders, etc.

There were zero cases of vaccine causing of autism. Zero as in none - except where people were lying. Or using what is classic junk science reasoning. A benchmark of a liar was the poorly educated Jenny McCarthy. Many believed her only because she made claims that were contradicted by numbers and well proven facts. Her credibility came from the same thing that made Kim Kardasian famous.

Did you get actual facts with numbers? Or just read hearsay that must be true because it was on the internet? Your job is not to convince anyone. A contributor defines what facts are. Where are these numbers that were used to prove an MMR vaccine dangerous?

We know vaccines only increased autism because liars (including Dr Wakefield) were intentionally deceitful. Done because he could so easily manipulate many who know by ignoring numbers. Dr Wakefield fled the UK in 2004 when it was obvious he was going to be censured for treachery and intentionally counterfeit research. He moved to where he could set up a clinic to continue his lies: Texas. After 2010, his lies were so egregious that he was very publicly stripped of his UK license to practice medicine. In part, because he was using lies about vaccines and autism only to enrich himself.

And so again the question. It is not about you convincing anyone. It is a question – based in nothing but logic - about how you came to a conclusion that was otherwise only promoted by hearsay, lies, and myths. What numbers were used to make an informed decision? Hopefully not what is well proven to be a lie promoted by the obviously dumb Jenny McCarthy – about vaccines creating autism. Since we have no numbers to justify any such conclusions, then where did you find numbers that said something different?.

[lumberjim]

You're ignoring the timeline. McCarthy, Wakefield, etc.... all that was going on at the time this thread was created. I've linked the page that shows info from 1998. My kids were born in 98 and 00.

Where's the proof that more children were harmed by measles mumps or rubella than were harmed by vaccines?

[lumberjim]

It's very clear to me why clod avoids this thread. You fuckers don't listen. You're more interested in telling someone they are wrong than trying to relate to them.

I said I was not going to change anyone's mind, and wouldn't try to. I also said you won't change mine. I guess you took that as a challenge.

The goddamned fact of the Motherfucking matter is that we did what we did. We did it on purpose. Giving me shit about it at this point is asinine. Persisting after being asked over and over to stop it is fucking rude. Knock it the fuck off.

I've said repeatedly that if the situation changes, I'm not opposed to vaccines. If my kids had been injured by the vaccines, I would not be able to Un vaccinate them and make them back to the way they were.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Where's the proof that more children were harmed by measles mumps or rubella than were harmed by vaccines?

It was not my responsibility to obtain facts and numbers; to protect the kids. The question was whether you did. Your answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.

Medical research, confirmed by statistics, has repeatedly confirmed these diseases are far more destructive than any few adverse reactions. Every peer reviewed study that contradicted that fact was later proven bogus.

This research is repeated constantly. A vaccine in 2010 appears to be less effective than it was in the 2009 study. Same vaccine was even less effective in 2011. Why was that discovered? Because people who make decisions by doing numbers are analyzing this stuff constantly. Infant vaccines remain, by far, the best solution. That conclusion, based in numbers, has not changed.

No numbers in multiple replies confirms you made a decision without numbers. Question answered both by omission and with profanity. No numbers in multiple posts is a damning symptom. So you answered the question.

Previous vaccination scams were reported and then exposed. For example, a 1981 study in England claimed permanent brain damage in one out of every 310,000 kids. NBC aired those claims in 1982. Meanwhile, the study was exposed as false. But now many (who routinely know by ignoring numbers) automatically knew vaccines harmed kids. It was the first thing heard; so it must be true. Facts be damned.

Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning. No numbers makes that obvious. Same reasoning was used by a stripper named Jenny McCarthy to cause death and harm to so many kids. She also will not apologize for lying even though her only information source (Dr Wakefield) never provided honest numbers.

[DanaC]

This is getting way personal.

A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.

Jim and Jinx made their decisions according to the information and climate of a different time.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

A discussion on the pros and cons of vaccinating is one thing. Challenging a dwellar to justify parental decisions from a decade ago is not right. This is not the place. We do not have that right.

I made a distinction. Nothing challenged his decision. Asked was whether the decision was based in facts or numbers. Or based in subjective speculation. He has said (by omission and profanity) that the decision was based in subjective speculation.

Also provided were facts that show that others made the same mistake. Why (for example the 1981 England study). And that researchers do these numbers frequently. His was a very common mistake. To think a decision was based in numbers when, in reality, it was only based in subjective speculation.

A common joke that discusses this thought process is , "It must be true. It's on the internet."

Another and similar example. Is your computer plugged into a power strip protector? Why spend so much money for something that does not protect from typically destructive surges, and has a history of sometimes causing house fires? In this other example, did you read the numbers? Or use hearsay and subjective speculation to assume 'protector' and 'protection' sound same; so it must do protection? Similar question was asked about vaccines and now about safety.

Again his

answer was not to convince anyone. Just to state how you reached a decision.

and

Accusing MMR of being ineffective or dangerous has been classic junk science reasoning.

That does not challenge anyone. It demonstrates how easily people make decision without facts. A benchmark for identifying subjective and uninformed decisions is forming a conclusion without perspective (ie the numbers).

[DanaC]

When dealing in abstracts and the hypothetical that tenor of conversation is fine. But challenging Jim on how he reached his decisions and then judging those decisions in a combative manner is always going to provoke emotion, because this isn't hypothetical and abstract it's about his kids and how he's raised them.

And don't even think of bringing up the children thinking emotionally and adults thinking logically stuff, because that just doesn't fly in the world of actual human beings.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

But challenging Jim on how he reached his decisions and then judging those decisions in a combative manner is always going to provoke emotion, because this isn't hypothetical and abstract it's about his kids and how he's raised them.

You are reading into that post something that I never put into it. Read only what is posted. If you see emotion in my post, then ask yourself why you added your own biases to what you read. For that matter, cite specifically the personal attack.

Now please answer the question about surge protector. It is the point. Do you plug your computer into a surge protector? Or do you also find that to be combative?

[DanaC]

I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I didn't say you were being emotional. I am saying this is likely to be a subject which the other person will not approach without emotion.

Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.

One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.

[lumberjim]

I didn't ignore your request for numbers twice, tw. You ignored the numbers. I said jinx did tons of research. That means she did more than 2000 researches. Number.

Also, I linked a page that listed the number of deaths by measles and by vaccine injury. More numbers.

I'm not responsible for the whole herd. I'm responsible for my kids. If more than zero kids died or suffered lasting health issues from vaccine injury, and none died from the disease. .... Seemed like an obvious equation. These are the only numbers that actually have relevance. The risk was greater than the reward. We never said that we would never ever take a vaccine. We decided to wait until they knew more about the risk. Or until there was a real and present danger from a disease that could be averted by a vaccine.

My use of profanity indicates only that you are a fucking Martian. You are just using this topic as a spring board to rant about your favorite subject. Namely, that you are somehow superior because you are hyper logical and devoid of human feeling. Good luck with that.


I don't use a surge protector. I have some high tech thing Zippy sent me that actually works.

People make decisions emotionally all the time. I see them do it every day. This was not an emotional decision. We took our time, looked at all the information available at the time and decided to wait. I didn't keep the notes. Dana is right. You're way over the line here.

You can slander whoever you want about falsifying studies. Seems more likely to me that a business that has lots of money riding on the approval of their drug would lie about the numbers.

I suppose it's not possible that some of the vaccines people give their kids are not strictly needed. Not possible that there is some kernel of truth to the accusations that the mmr shot can cause encephalitis. I don't really give a fuck. I'm 100% sure that my kids are healthy and whole.

I put a lot more thought into this decision than 85% of upper management did.

Most people just do what the doctor tells them to. If shit goes wrong, they sue the doctor. They abdicate their responsibilities to their kids because they are either too busy providing for them, or because they are fully indoctrinated into the system, and that's just how people do this stuff.

I guess that's why people want to give us shit for *thinking for ourselves. Because they didn't. So they are actually defending their lack of effort by disparaging our decision. Glatt is the only one that I've seen be honest here. And Clod of course. Correct me if I'm wrong. .. did any of you that are reading this do more than 30 minutes of research about what chemicals the doctors were injecting into your children? Or did you simply do as directed? Right or wrong. Did it even occur to you to question it? Don't you love your children? (see how that feels? )

* to be honest. ..I have to give the credit to jinx. I was too busy working to give it more than a cursory look, and it probably wouldn't have even occurred to me to. Jinx had the time. She also is not afraid to question authority.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by tw

Which is really my point, is it not? But then many people confuse their emotional decisions with a belief that it is based in facts. Another point previously made - if a decision was not based in perspective (the numbers), then one has a benchmark to identify their mistake.

One cannot use emotion to make that vaccine decision. Such decisions require thinking from the adult brain because the adult has a responsibility to his kid and to all other kids.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't saying Jim and Jinx approached the decision emotionally. It's this thread and this conversation which will always provoke emotion. Because this is about questioning and casting judgement on someone's parenting.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

Glatt is the only one that I've seen be honest here.

Thanks for the compliment.

To be completely honest about how I don't know what the fuck I'm doing here, I signed up for a flu shot tomorrow. They're doing them at work for free again, like they do every year.

I think there's a risk associated with getting a flu shot. I didn't used to think that way years ago. I just trusted that they were completely safe. So now I'm taking it as given that there is a small risk of serious problems associated with the flu shot, but I also don't want to get the flu. I was riding on a Metro train last week, and there were a bunch of people in my car coughing. I realized we were coming up on the winter and the illnesses that get spread around then. And I just really wasn't so thrilled about that thought. So when I saw a reminder email about these free flu shots being given just down the hall, I decided to sign up for one.

I get sealed up in a train car with about 100 strangers twice a day. I think my immune system gets a good workout from that, but I also think it exposes me to more than most people. So this year, I'm shrugging my shoulders, and rolling up my sleeve.

I don't pretend to have any answers.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

I'm not responsible for the whole herd. I'm responsible for my kids.

I am a former big-L Libertarian. Why former? L'ism is sort of dependent on the notion that the "social contract" is bullshit. But to my surprise, over time, I found it was actually kind of valid. We are all dependent on each other. Our identities, survival, and success are completely bound to the culture and society we are in, WAY far more than we acknowledge.

You are not responsible for the whole herd. And yet the whole herd depends on you. You have always given back to the whole herd, in many ways. Raising a strong family with good values. Going to work and being productive. Paying taxes. Giving a shit about others. You have given more than you have received. You've done more than I have, and I thank you for it.

This is all kind of separate from the question of whether to vaccinate. It may be that your contribution to the herd, in this case, is challenging the status quo.

Correct me if I'm wrong. .. did any of you that are reading this do more than 30 minutes of research about what chemicals the doctors were injecting into your children?

I have about 30 hours in just for this thread. Of course I don't have kids. But right here in the thread we have someone who has spent probably 16 years studying medicine and who does have kids. You dismiss her beliefs as conspiracy theory.

Don't you love your children? (see how that feels? )

I believe the feels part is on you. You don't have to feels if you don't want to. I believe you want to. It's OK, we all do. We are defining ourselves by how others react to us. We all want to be loved and respected by others. It's part of the social contract.

On that basis, I am willing to stop discussing it and even offered to delete the thread and move on. But it's an important thing to discuss in this world, and I wish we could continue to do it here.

The minor pain of honestly discussing hard questions helps our society reach herd immunity against ignorance.

Also, going against conventional wisdom means people will challenge you. Maybe even be mean and sarcastic. (Not sarcasm!) I've been there, big time. Better fetch that helmet brother.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We make thousands of decisions every day. Some are more meaningful and require more thought and varying degrees of research. Of course tw's standard response is you have to have the facts and numbers.

Well duh, that would make life so much easier, but getting the right facts and right numbers isn't that easy. Pre-internet is was fucking near impossible unless you had connections in that field. The internet has been a help but still a minefield of misinformation and outright bullshit. Even with the ability to access the right information it might take days, weeks, even months to get it. Ain't nobody got time for that.

Yeah, yeah the children's health is worth investing the time, nobody will argue that, but that's what people like Jinx did. Whether you agree with her conclusion or not, you can not justifiably claim she didn't try to do the best for her kids.

Hindsight is usually 20-20, but even then it's not always possible.