Tragic coincidence?

POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, February 25, 2011 09:34
VIEWED: 4098
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Another example of Darwin's Curse on stoopid sheeple.

I bet she thinks Arabs did 9/11, Lee Oswald shot JFK, the 16th Amendment was ratified, the Federal Reserve Bank is the federal govt, Buzzed Aldrin walked on the moon, and Operation Northwoods was by the Sierra Club.

They did, he did, it was, no, not really, he did, umm..no.

Quote:

Penn & Teller are obviously paid for their govt propaganda, perhaps laundered through their Mafiya employers in Sin City. PT also claims 9/11 was perped by Arabs in a cave, and Buzzed Aldrin walked on the "moon".

Unlikely, and it was , he did.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:42 PM

Slight correction: the kid died of medical complications from getting sick.

The vaccine may or may not have caused the sickness, but the time of onset of symptoms is curious. Complications from the vaccine (which does not imply the vaccine itself was unsafe for most people, but rather there was an individual reaction to the vaccine here) is not an unreasonable conclusion.

There's a few ways that could work, the kid might have had an undetected auto-immune disorder that caused his system to overreact to the presence of the vaccine, the kid might have already had the infection he was being vaccinated against (which causes the same reaction as previously mentioned), or he was allergic to one of the adjuvants they put into the vaccine, which then eventually resulted in anaphylactic or septic shock when it was administered intravenously.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
So to sum up, fake story and false conclusion, ....

Story's not fake. Whether the conclusion is fallacious is a legitimate debate.

Took doctor-prescribed meds. Symptoms disappeared. Meds must cause symptom disappearance.

My grandpa went to the hospital. He got better. Hospital cured him.

Vaccines were administered. Disease rates went down. Vaccines prevented disease.

Concluding causation because of a temporal association with a certain outcome is not always warranted.

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

HARDWARE

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:19 PM

Vaccines are supposed to make MOST people resistant or immune to a disease, not all. It is a shotgun approach, but since not all people react exactly the same to a vaccine, not a guarantee.

1% of kids getting sick and expiring from a vaccine, you bet we'd better take a closer look at the vaccine. Less than 1%? Sorry, the good outweighs the bad.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:36 PM

Exactly, Byte - what rooks me is how even when that *IS* the most obvious diagnosis most doctors ignore it in much the same fashion we train ourselves not to see homeless people.

Or worse, how a pre-loaded conclusion can bias effects of "knowledge" - how much you wanna bet those responsible for asbestos and the SV40 contamination laughed up their sleeve when *ALL* lung cancer cases were (by the decree of C Everett Koop) tossed at the feet of Big Tobacco, allowing the former two to all but completely dodge any responsibility ?

We really NEED to look at this without the hide-bound science-as-religion aspect, cause SCIENCE MARCHES ON.
Just because granddaddy and daddy did it that way doesn't mean it's the ONLY way, and rather than wearing down the immune system by provoking it, why not BOOST it - goddamn we can make immunosuppressants, surely we can go in the other direction with it, ya think ?

At the very goddamn least they could spread the damn things out instead of crushing a developing immune system under a tremendous barrage of contaminants before it even gets fully developed, I mean that's common sense - but that's the thing with most of todays docs and scientists, even some of the mad ones, what I call genius idiocy.

How that works ?

A scientist one day decides to take up a hobby to entertain himself, and buys a kit called teach a flea to jump! - which he manages to do in short order, but being a scientist and inclined to meddle, he then decides to experiment a little, so he removes the fleas back two legs.
The flea, of course, doesn't jump quite as high now, so in continuation of the experiment, he removes the front two legs, and of course, the flea only barely hops.
As final confirmation of his hypothesis, he removes the middle two legs, and of course the flea no longer jumps...

So he publishes a paper stating that fleas have ears in their legs, since as the legs are removed they become progressively deaf.

THAT, is genius idiocy, and those responsible for the screwed up state of immunization today have a seriously bad case of it - to discard for personal, political, or financial reasons, scientific evidence, to deliberately close off avenues of research to protect themselves from knowledge they WISH did not have evidentiary support, that ain't science.
In fact, I consider it a crime AGAINST science.

Hell, that's most of the reason I despised C Everett Koop, other than, yanno, the fact that he was clinically insane while in office.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

CANTTAKESKY

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Less than 1%? Sorry, the good outweighs the bad.

That is ok with me. As long as we get to choose whether we want to take the chance that we might be in that 1%, and if indeed it is only 1% and not higher.

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hardware:
Less than 1%? Sorry, the good outweighs the bad.
That is ok with me. As long as we get to choose whether we want to take the chance that we might be in that 1%, and if indeed it is only 1% and not higher.

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

I'm with CTS on this. I'll choose thank you. Do whatever you want, just don't tell me what to do for me and my family.

RIONAEIRE

Thursday, February 24, 2011 1:58 AM

I like Byte's approach, looking at variables. I agree that usually the good outweighs the bad on vaccines, but more research can be positive, we certainly want to minimize risk and increase safety of kids, both against all the diseases we vaccinate for and for any risks that may or may not relate to that vaccination process.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

CANTTAKESKY

Friday, February 25, 2011 1:04 AM

My concern now is the near complete legal immunity of vaccine manufacturers/administrators and the lack of legal recourse for vaccine injured kids.

Sotomayor wrote this brilliant dissent:

Quote:
"Vaccine manufacturers have long been subject to a legal duty, rooted in basic principles of products liability law, to improve the design of their vaccines in light of advances in science and technology. Until today, that duty was enforceable through a traditional state-law tort action for defective design. In holding that section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Vaccine Act or Act), 42 U.S.C. section 300aa-22(b)(1), preempts all design defect claims for injuries stemming from vaccines covered under the Act, the Court imposes its own bare policy preference over the considered judgment of Congress. In doing so, the Court excises 13 words from the statutory text, misconstrues the Act's legislative history, and disturbs the careful balance Congress struck between compensating vaccine-injured children and stabilizing the childhood vaccine market. Its decision leaves a regulatory vacum in which no one ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements when designing or distributing their products. Because nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history of the Vaccine Act remotely suggests that Congress intended such a result, (bold is mine) I dissent."

-------
"It is not my thorns that defend me. It is my perfume," says the rose. -- Paul Claudel

DREAMTROVE

Friday, February 25, 2011 9:24 AM

ATM I think it would be prudent to look into alternate treatments for childhood diseases, enumerate them, and then try to approach it from that angle, or wangle as the iPad says, whatever a wangle is.

Statistically, I think vaccines kill more than they save, globally, but locally to Australia, probably save more thwn they kill. Still, hero has a point. I'm skeptical of Ms. Messenger if no one has a credible source. I've seen these sorts of things before, and parents on missions tend to get on major news outlets somewhere because they cause a lot of trouble.

SV40 is a serious issue. And the industry needs to evolve. Also, the main disasters have come from a senseless centralized distribution system, or sometimes an intentionally ill intentioned one.

You could take specific examples like measles, worldwide childhood deaths from measles among the unvaccinated are still in the millionsl thats worth considering. Equally worth considering is how many people will be killed through eugenics or incompetence by any central planning committee.

It would be nice if some country would cut this loose and let parents have direct access to male their own decisions, etc. And if the science and safety could be improved. Frankly, i would have trouble trusting doctors with my kids.

Lots of practices bother me (okay. Yes, they probably bother Mel too) such as the use of monkey blood, which seems to continue *wafter* or even *after* the most infamous stories have been more or less confirmed, another one is this use of "multiple-vaccines" this cannot have any conceivable advantage other than saving money. Attacking the immune system with three diseases at once is asking for failure.

Even if its not malicious malpractice, you still have to be skeptical of a society that has openly stated that it wants you not to have kids and has used vaccination as an agent of biowarfare in Africa and Russia.

I'm not anti, but I'm becoming skeptical

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE