Mandatory vaccinations vs. right to choose
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Thursday, December 7, 2006 07:56
VIEWED: 21145
PAGE 15 of 21
Quote:No I think you just don't get it.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Somehow you just ain't gettin it, Cit.
Quote:So what your saying is that I didn't say the things you implied I did but you're not man enough to admit it. How does the title of the thread change what I said.
Read the title of this thread, and the first (patronizing, sarcastic) sentence of your initial post.
Quote:Same thing, semantics. Other people are expressing their opinions, you don't care what those opinions are so you don't care about what they're saying. Nice try at a backpeddle though.
Never said I didn't much care what you, or anyone, had to say - I said I had little interest in what your opinions are, as they're yer own bizness.
Quote:No it's exactly what both you and CTS have said.
Quit handing out strawmen.
Quote:Something about strawmen?
We questioned the integrity of the system, something that SHOULD be done - and you went on to make blanket, all-inclusory statements that were in essence NOT true because your own countries laws and regs are somewhat different from ours.
Quote:It's 100% obvious from CTS comments that she believes that vaccines are unsafe.
The strawman argument that either me, or CTS is 100% anti-vacc, or (in my case) even thinks a majority of vaccines are dangerous and unsafe is complete bunk.
Quote:No I addressed the idea that you can make a choice and expect other people to pay for it with scorn and mockery. If that's not your position one wonders why you take it so personally.
- something you addressed with scorn and mockery in your initial post.
Quote:Nope, but I did respond to you in the exact same language with which you directed at me and you spat the dummy and told me I was a 'wanker' and a 'bloody pillock' and being nasty because you upset 'my' 'teakettle'. I guess you don't like it when people use your tone on you.
You were then addressed in kind.
Quote:Nice double standards, since your attacking me because I'm talking in reference to my country.
Yeah, but I LIVE here, that means I gotta deal with the realities in front of me.
One of those is that particular collusion, which directly impacts the safety and quality of medicine in THIS country, and thus affects my decisions and choices.
Quote:No backpeddle at all, you can't be bothered to read my posts and merely decide what you want my position to be then think you can tell me what it is. That's a joke.
Nice backpedal btw, but take your own posts and read them sequentially, and have a look at how you're coming across, why don't you ?
And as for "and have a look at how you're coming across, why don't you ?" Why don't you?
Quote:Actually I'm not in favour of uniformed choices. If you make up your mind about something then go looking for evidence to support your decision and only that decision that's an uniformed choice. But beyond that since you neither no nor want to no what my actual position is, you just want to create a strawman you can tear down, nothing you've pointed to or said makes MY position particularly clear.
You're not exactly supportive of an informed, responsible choice, and in fact hostile, patronizing and sarcastic towards the idea, which makes your position pretty clear, doesn't it.
Quote:What like paying for your own treatment? What would be fair, everyone else paying for your treatment I suppose? Or perhaps the tracking of people you may of infected as a consequence of your choice? I suppose it's fair for me to pay for that because of your choice.
You also expressed a desire for other, ridiculous levels of consequence other than personal responsibility for those who dare to actually make an informed choice.
Quote:
And you might wanna go back and re-read some of the stuff you dismissed without a glance (as I stated would happen when I dug it up) before you go accusing folk of the same flaw, and/or not having evidence to support a conclusion.[/QNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Again, you talk to me as if I haven't already checked it out. I am willing to bet I've read more original research papers published in medical journals than you have.
Originally posted by freeradical42:
You did have to go back to the 1950s to find a study that bad. And I'll agree it was pretty bad.
Check out some of the modern research
My point was that MODERN vaccine vs. vaccine controls is just as bad as gamma globulin vs. gelatin control. They are using substances that can affect outcomes as controls. It is what scientists call "confounding" and renders the study useless
MODERN medical research is what gives us the "eat fish"-type studies.
Incidentally, a lot of mudfuds (MDPhD's) get both degrees in a joint degree medical research program at medical schools. Just my impression, but from the research I've read, it appears medical schools don't put out quality PhD's. Their research is just as flawed as those of MD's.
Just so you know, my husband has a PhD in a science, and I have a masters (almost got a PhD but didn't finish) in a science. We have both taken years of graduate courses in research methodology, statistics, and the like. We didn't just memorize what science is; we were trained as scientists for years so we could conduct scientific research ourselves.
We never read medical journals until I got sick, when we started doing some research. We were both shocked. Just for a reality check, we started showing medical articles to our colleagues. They were all also shocked. But oh well.
To close with an anecdote, I meet a lot of parents who do not vaccinate in the course of my activism. I remember asking a couple I knew who were both professional chemists (one had a PhD, the other a Masters) why they didn't vaccinate. The mother's response was, "Oh, it's because we're scientists."
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
People don't start wars, governments do.
--Ronald Reagan
There is a difference between good research and bad research, and you're right about that. However, it's clear to me that you're reading a bunch of studies that are statistically BS and then ignoring others that aren't because some studies are bad. This is a bad attitude. Part of the system being broken doesn't make the whole system broken.
As for controls- nowadays you use saline or glucose controls. These are things we know don't hurt people. Either way, though, the control really just has to be something you might encounter in everyday life. It could be a shot of cholesterol on the order of the amount an egg gives you; what you look for in that case is for the ill effects of the control to be less than the ill effects of the vaccine. If the vaccine is less dangerous than sea water or milk, you can be fairly sure it's safe. Smart scientists pick controls that cause problems similar to expected ill effects of their vaccines, so they can compare incidence rates.
I suggest you use PubMed. A lot. There's good stuff out there. Also, use NIH and CDC resources. Government research is often actually good in this respect.
Now, one problem I have is that the decision on what drug to bring to market is often made not on the basis of which works best but rather on the basis of political alliances. I make sure to have doctors who screen for that kind of crap.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's just it...is dyslexia a result? Is depression one? Who can tell? Best not let questionable crap into babies at the wrong time.
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
[B]@chrisisall:
"""
The damage is not always obvious.
"""
Then how do you know that it has happened?
Quote:They wanted to give my son (then five) a bunch of shots at the SAME VISIT!!! I made 'em spread it out over a year.
"""
Most vaccines are fine if given at the right time, and avoided when contra-indicated.
Some are useless.
And some can be dangerous when given to sensitive, allergic or sick peeps.
"""
Where I am (Canada) we get our vaccinations over time in several shots. Then later, boosters. Do you guys get them ALL at once? B/c that'd be retarded.
He also didn't get a Hep shot just after he was born- we waited a couple years on that one.
He rarely gets sick, whereas I got ear infections and sore throats all through my childhood; see, I got ALL my shots EARLY
.*ducks the "anecdotal comparison rhetoric" coming his way*
Shot down in his babyhood Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not ignoring them. I can't find them! I look up study after study, and they are all junk. Since you are sure there are good vaccine studies out there, why don't you recommend one? That study I'm going to the library to get, have you read it? I'd rather you recommend one you've read, that you think is a "good" study. Prove me wrong. I would actually welcome it.
Originally posted by freeradical42:
However, it's clear to me that you're reading a bunch of studies that are statistically BS and then ignoring others that aren't
Quote:That's right. But they aren't using saline or glucose controls in studies of childhood vaccines. ALL efficacy studies I've seen to date for childhood vaccines do not use saline or never-vaccinated controls. That automatically makes these studies confounded and, well, bad. If you know of one that uses saline, pass it my way please.
As for controls- nowadays you use saline or glucose controls.
Quote:Huh? They want controls that CAUSE problems? You lost me.
Smart scientists pick controls that cause problems similar to expected ill effects of their vaccines, so they can compare incidence rates.
Quote:I HAVE used PubMed, a LOT. I've been using PubMed a lot for the last 6 years, looking up vaccine studies. Where's the good stuff? Show me just ONE. Thanks.
I suggest you use PubMed. A lot. There's good stuff out there.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
]----------
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.
--Ernest Benn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
[quote="can'ttakesky"]Huh? They want controls that CAUSE problems? You lost me.
What I mean is that a control is more useful if some small incidence of a side effect seen in the experimental group is also seen in the control so you can compare. This provides the ability to say, "It's safer than sugar!" and whatnot, which kinda makes a solid indication for how safe the drug is.
"See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS -
I have some questions for you.
1) Do you believe smallpox still exists in people on the planet? (as opposed to 'in secure labs')
If yes, why?
If no, how to do explain its disappearance?
2) If there are no studies at all on vaccine safety and effectiveness, what is holding up an HIV vaccine from the market?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, now I have the mental image of two folk hammering at a wall from different angles... and hitting each other.
Cit, no matter how you meant to come across, you *did* come across as heaping scorn and derision upon the concept of making an informed choice, resulting in equal amounts therof sent in the other direction.
And semantics, shemantics - apparently you do not understand my viewpoint, someone elses personal opinion to me is of little consequence, and something, as an anarchist, I do not feel it's my right to mess with or force upon them, my interest is HOW they arrived at that conclusion and WHY, because that information is of value to me in making my own decisions on a subject.
I just don't see the need to invest large amounts of time and effort to try to force other people to change their opinion, it's ridiculous, when I have no intent to do so, and even more so to defend one's own personal choices.
Regardless of what CTS personally believes (and has every right to) he/she stated and holds a position of informed choice - something that has been stated repeatedly here, and instead people take issue with how he/she arrived at that conclusion.
I could care less if someone thought vaccines were the work of martian invaders designed to break down our immune systems for their biowarfare, if that's what they wanna believe, and they've no intent to force those beliefs on me... more power to em.
It's when someone wishes to take those personal beliefs and impose them on others, with the full weight of law behind it... that impacts me, personally, and I do see it as a threat.
You say you expressed the idea that one can make a choice and expect others to pay for it (something no one said here, that I saw) with scorn and mockery - and I expressed the idea that forcing someones choice and then expecting them to foot the bill was worse, with even more scorn and mockery.
As for the tone of conversation, given my employment you think I don't hear far worse directed at me on any given day ? by all means if you think it'll add to the discussion (even for sheer entertainment value) feel perfectly free to call me a Bloody Yank Lout or what have you.
You also did, in fact, make blanket statements, and only after the fact, when it was pointed out that they're not applicable here, then said they applied to your country, which, if they do, more power to ya, but again, I live here.
I did read your posts, that's how you come across to me, as for how I come across ?
Probably like some foamingly rabid anarchist who's pyschotic about having an untrustworthy government try to run their life and make their choices for them, with a side order of general hostility.
As for informed/uninformed choice - there's no such thing, regardless of what YOU think of the quality of the information, it is NOT your decision, it is that of the person who's choice it is, to decide what information to base their own, personal decision on... so in essence, you only agree with informed choice if you, personally, agree with all the information the other person uses to make that choice ?
I reject that, categorically - it's not YOUR decision, nor should it be, that being mostly the point of this little thread, at least in theory.
As for responsibility, turn that one on it's head - do you think it's fair for me to pay (cause some of it does indeed come out of my tax dollars here in the US) for the lifelong care of people harmed by vaccinations that are legally mandatory ?
*I* did not make the decision to vacc someone with pre-existing risk factors without seeking alternatives.
So why should I then be stuck with the bill ?
Morally, it works in both directions, or neither.
I am perfectly willing to foot the bills for my own decisions, I am NOT, however, willing to foot the bills for decisions forced upon me by others.
My position is morally a bit more harsh in fact, because as a cab driver, I have a certain responsibility to my passengers, and the nature of my business brings me into significant contact with a substantial
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you misunderstand what a "control" is for.
Originally posted by freeradical42:
What I mean is that a control is more useful if some small incidence of a side effect seen in the experimental group is also seen in the control so you can compare.
A control group is there to isolate the variable you are manipulating (called the independent variable).
Let's say your independent variable is heroin. You want to see what it does to a person. So you get a group of people together that is as similar as you can get them. You feed them all the same thing, have them live at the same place, etc. Then you randomly assign the subjects into two groups. One group gets the heroin, and the other group gets a saline placebo. It is extremely important for the control injection to be INERT or unable to act on a subject. That way, whatever differences exist between the heroin group and the saline group must be due to the heroin and nothing else. The more the two groups are the same (down to even getting an injection), the more confidence you have in saying your independent variable caused your observations.
If you observe both groups throwing up, you can surmise that vomiting is not caused by heroin, because the second group vomited and they didn't get heroin, you see? They must be vomiting because of the cafeteria food or some other factor both groups share in common.
If you give the second group cocaine, you have lost your ability to sort out the effects of either heroin or cocaine. Now, if both groups vomit, you don't know why. Are they vomiting from the heroin, the cocaine, or the cafeteria food? Or all three? You don't know, because they have all been exposed to too many variables.
So a control has to be as inert as possible. You don't want it to CAUSE anything at all. Now you can have all three groups, a heroin group, a cocaine group, and a saline group. The saline group can serve as a control for both the heroin and the cocaine groups. But the heroin and cocaine groups can't serve as controls for each other.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
A conclusion is the place where you get tired of thinking.
-- Arthur Bloch
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey Frem, thanks! But more importantly, I'm a she! : )
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Regardless of what CTS personally believes (and has every right to) he/she stated and holds a position of informed choice - something that has been stated repeatedly here, and instead people take issue with how he/she arrived at that conclusion.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
-----------
The vote means nothing to women. We should be armed.
--Edna O'Brien
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rue,
Good question on smallpox, the Virgin Mother of Vaccination. It's my next segment coming.
Quote:Rue, I am noticing a pattern. You keep asking questions about things I have never said before. It's like you invent or pull phrases out of thin air and tell me I said them.
If there are no studies at all on vaccine safety and effectiveness, ...
Do me a favor please. If you want to ask me about something I said, please copy and paste. And copy and paste the entire sentence. (If possible, paste the sentence before and the sentence after as well.) If you don't copy and paste at least the entire sentence, I really cannot respond.
Thanks much!
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
----------
To do just the opposite is also a form of imitation.
--Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742 - 1799)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME