Anti-Vax Film Distributors Threaten Critic And Autistic Rights Advocate With Defamation
from the vexxing-anti-vaxxers dept
Any time we discuss the segment of our population that is still, despite all evidence to the contrary, pushing anti-vaccination conspiracy theories out into the ether, the comments section is inevitably invaded by these proponents. I know I can't stop it, so just go ahead and leave what I'm sure will be your well-reasoned, science-backed arguments as to why we shouldn't trust one of the most life-saving kinds of medicine ever invented.
That said, this is not a post about the plausibility that vaccinations are the reason for all the world's ills. It is instead a post about how the distributors of the upcoming sure-to-be smash hit film about the horror of vaccinations, creatively entitled Vaxxed, are also going around threatening people arguing against its message with defamation for pointing back at the filmmakers' own words.
Meet Fiona O'Leary of Ireland. Fiona is an advocate for autistic children, helping to run a group called ART (Autistic Rights Together) as well as a Tumblr page dedicated to dispelling the myths of autism and vaccines. On that Tumblr page and on social media, O'Leary has often set her sights on the makers and distributors of Vaxxed, including producers Polly Tommey and Del Bigtree. Included in her pushback, O'Leary points out some rather unfortunate comments both have made about autistic children, as well as interviews and videos in which Tommey in particular pushes religious faith to treat autism. Through it all are the calls for parents to not vaccinate their children.
The result of this work has been a letter sent threatening a defamation lawsuit.
Fiona O’Leary has posted the threats, from Cinema Libre Studio CEO Philippe Diaz, on her Facebook profile:
Wow you threaten to sue an Autistic Advocate and Mother to five children in West Cork! Why? Because I don’t want babies and children DYING from preventable diseases! Because I have had enough of your lies about Vaccines causing Autism! Because I am sick of how you exploit Autistic people! How dare you!
And the threat letter itself:
As always, a great rule of thumb applies here: if someone accuses another person of defamation without pointing out a single specific thing that is supposedly defamatory, it's a bullying attempt and should likely be ignored. This case appears to be no different. With all that O'Leary has said about the film and its producers, and with all that she's posted that includes responses to specific things Bigtree and Tommey have said and claimed, to fail to cite even one defamatory instance should tell you everything you need to know.
It seems that this video response in particular is what likely caused the threat to be sent. In it, O'Leary details how the two producers have compared autistic children to monkeys and dogs, threatened government officials, and even declared that firearms should be used to keep children from being vaccinated.
And now that the threat letter has been sent and then shared by O'Leary with her followers, and now that the press is picking it up, all of those comments are being shared even more widely than they would have been otherwise. It seems the Streisand Effect is taking the deplorable comments of these anti-vaxxers viral, because the universe does not lack a sense of irony.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, del bigtree, fiona o'leary, philippe diaz, polly tommey, threats, vaccinations, vaxxed
Companies: cinema libre studio
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Like a Warner Bros. cartoon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PR for idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR for idiots
There's 2 things at play here. One is ignorance, of course. The other thing is the thing that's harder to deal with, and the thing that these anti-vaxxers are deliberately altering for the worse - perception.
In my parents' era, it was easy to see the benefits of vaccines, and the dangers on not having them. Smallpox was real, measles was killing people and most knew people who had suffered and been disabled by polio (my uncle's right arm was useless from a young age from the disease). Meanwhile autism was a relatively new diagnosis and wasn't properly understood.
Fast forward to today - smallpox is dead, destroyed by vaccination. Nobody really knows anyone who's suffered with diseases like polio, while things like measles have been weakened so that it's often lumped in with less dangerous diseases. Measles is an inconvenience in the minds of parents who haven't been exposed to the scarring, blindness and death a strain can cause. However, they are well aware of autism and most likely know people who have been diagnosed somewhere on the spectrum.
This is why anti-vaxxer propaganda is so dangerous. It preys on the fears of parents who are scared their child might be autistic, but are ignorant of the very real dangers that come with lower levels of vaccination. The biggest problem is that even discredited frauds like Wakefield and outdated talking points like mercury in vaccines can somehow convince some people better than verifiable science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anaphylactic shock
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1913/richet-lecture.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anaphylactic shock
Please explain. Because I read a good portion of it and it seems like a complete non-sequitur.
Or are you implying you think that anaphylactic shock causes autism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anaphylactic shock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anaphylactic shock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anaphylactic shock
It's not vaccines cause anaphylaxis, it's vaccines cause autism.
Furthermore, just about anything can cause anaphylaxis from peanuts to eggs to latex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anaphylactic shock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anaphylactic shock
Magic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anaphylactic shock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not relevant to the case.
So you now take the next thing that is not even slightly tangible to your cause in a desperate attempt to blame vaccines for something that just happens. No one is to blame (not the parents, not the vaccines, not something else, it just happens).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anaphylactic shock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In 2016? Really?!
They need to have a focus for their anger or grief. "S**t Happens" just doesn't seem to make it into their heads.
Like the Red Rider comment, and agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In 2016? Really?!
I know everyone loves to bash the anti-vaxxers, but personally I avoid flu vaccinations annually, as I don't believe that they are much more than a money-making racket.
As for the pharmaceutical companies that have trained several generations of doctors to prescribe medication unnecessarily, and in some cases to the detriment of their patients, well I wish you well if you believe everything they say.
I know several medical professionals and med-school undergrads that hate what the industry has become and have second thoughts about whether they want to be part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
The people who won't vaccinate their kids because "someone said" are the ones that haven't performed any scrutiny of the science, vaccines or cause/effect of autism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
1) people in the general population not getting a flu shot and
2) not immunizing children.
OP has probably never seen pictures of the many many iron lungs in hospitals occupied by victims of polio.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Earlier I understood your post clearly enough, but your opening does have a tone a little like apologetics for anti-vaxxers. Which... OK fine, you clarified what you meant, but now you indicate there is some noticeable trend in calling people who decline flu shots "anti-vaxxers". That either an interesting claim or an interesting trend. (And if someone calls you an anti-vaxxer for declining flu shots but not spouting anti-vaxxer nonsense as your reasoning, then they are an idiot.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
As for my apologetic tone towards anti-vaxxers: While my family is immunized, I can definitely understand the growing distrust for medicine in general these days (not the scientific part of it, but the corruption that has grown between doctors and pharmaceutical companies). The healthcare industry as a whole is off the rails, and I really can't blame people for being skeptical and angry about that.
In addition, some people strongly feel they should be in control of their bodies and what goes into them - and I can certainly understand that sentiment as well. There's potential for slippery slope situations here. Perhaps sometimes safety and security shouldn't always come first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
medicine is NOT some higher calling to help/ heal people, but merely one more moneygrubbing opportunity to steal money from us...
bought and paid for 'research' (which never sees the light of day if they cant rig the results to their liking), bullshit repurposing of drugs to avoid patents running out, pill pushing to the exclusion of practicing preventative and holistic medical practices, ALL contribute to the CORRECT presumption that the medical-industrial komplex has fuckall to do with maintaining and restoring our health, and EVERYTHING to do with lying, mis representing, and conning us to steal our money...
REGARDLESS of the 'science' involved, Big Medicine is a machine to extract money, NOT preserve our health...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Wrong. They ARE stupid. There's a big difference between principled, careful scientific research into the efficacy and side-effects of medications and full-blown lunatic crank nonsense screamed by clueless morons.
There are NOT two sides to every story. Anti-vaxxers, along with intelligent designers and global warming deniers, as not equal, worthy opponents who deserve a fair hearing in an intellectual dispute. They're just loud assholes and they should be silenced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
"Stupidity does not consist in being without ideas. Such stupidity would be the sweet, blissful stupidity of animals, molluscs and the gods. Human stupidity consists in having lots of ideas, but stupid ones."
- Henry de Montherlant (1896-1972)
Personally I prescribe to the idea that anti-vaxxers are as dumb as molluscs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
As I've said elsewhere, vaccination has its usefulness, but it also has less positive effects since vaccinations are not universally effective. In addition, as I also pointed out, the manufacture of said vaccinations can be done wrong and so can be either ineffective or detrimental.
We do not yet have sufficient understanding of the full range of effects across the entire population as to the long term effects of vaccinations. It may have short term benefits but have long term problems. It may have short term benefits and long term benefits. It may have short term benefits and be useless in the long term. It may have disadvantages in the short term and varying beneficial or detrimental effects in the long term.
This is still under investigation (or at least I hope so).
Every theory has its proponents and its opponents. Whether it works out in the long term is up to the long term.
You make a comment about David Wolf. Never heard of him till now and still don't know what he has to say. But you mention him in the same breath as gravity. Something that we still don't know what it is or what causes it. It could be anything from a attribute of matter, an attribute of curved space-time, and attribute of the the diploic nature of electrical charged systems (atoms). It could be something else. We have a number of working models that give reasonable results for what we need. But everyone of these models could be and probably is wrong. Doesn't mean that they don't work, it just means that don't provide the actual understanding of what this thing we call gravity is.
It is still being heavily researched all around the world.
You are entitled to that opinion, but it may come back and haunt you sometime in the future. As long as you are willing to prescribe to the idea that you are just as dumb about various things, you at least will have some sort of justification for your opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
No, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that vaccinations cause autism. The 'study' that drew the link originally has been debunked multiple times and the author was shown to be a fraud.
However the many benefits to vaccinating children and protecting them against horrible diseases like Polio, TB, Measles, Meningitis, Mumps, Diphtheria, Rubella, ..... are easily evident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
...and barred from practising medicine in the UK before directing this movie. There is literally no corroborating evidence other than what he invented, in a study so poorly done that he was struck off the register and barred from practising medicine in the UK. Most of the objections to the study were due to its ethical failings and misrepresented results, not the ultimate conclusion.
There's no reason to suspect a link other than this man's study, and a few unfortunate correlations that lead to a causal assumption. But, the evidence shows that vaccines are still less dangerous than going without.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
This is a PERFECT example of somebody not understanding how scientific evidence and terminology is used. That vaccines do not cause autism is not a "theory". That they DO cause autism IS the theory. The lack of a scientific link is not the standard against which the evidence should be offered, it's the LINK that is measured by evidence. That's the entire point.
So, when we talk about whether two sides deserve equal looks or time, that's not how science works. The one making the claim (that autism and vaccines are linked) has a MUCH higher evidence mountain to climb than the side that makes no claim at all (that there is no link). That's why the calls for open debate on the topic miss the point, because unless there is HIGHLY credible evidence for the claim, the claim can and should be dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
There are many areas that are considered science but lack scientific rigour. In many areas, it is dogma not science and we lose as a society. You can have your opinion and many do, but we have seen over the years much fraud has occurred in scientific endeavours and there has been much ad hominem attack against those who disagree with the prevailing mood and ideas.
There are people out there who proffer ideas that are far less than reasonable. One of them is the idea that vaccines cause autism. But to categorically say they are wrong without the solid evidence required to refute that idea is the height of arrogance, simply because there may be a very small part of the population who will be so affected. We don't know. The research that should be done is to see what are the effects of vaccines across the entire range of the population. That is science. To dismiss out of hand the idea that it can cause any detrimental changes to any member of the population is the height of stupidity. This is the mindset of the vaxxers against the anti-vaxxers - for vaccines good - against vaccines bad.
A less controversial example is the dark matter/dark energy research. I have been watching this field of research for some number of years and we have seen a theory developed that says that the majority of universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy, premised on the idea that only gravity is effective as a force at macroscopic levels. The idea that both electric and magnetic fields have an effect on stellar movements is considered nonsense. There are predictions made by this dark matter/dark energy theory, of which none have been seen. No experiment has yet given any indications let alone actual evidence that either dark matter or dark energy exist. Yet, I'm sure that you will subscribe to the idea that dark matter and dark energy exist, even though no proof has come forth to support it.
At this point, the likelihood of vaccines causing autism is very low, but there may be other environmental factors that bring it about. At this point we do not know.
Autism is a name we give to a range of distinctions that arise in people. I use the word distinctions because I do not consider autism a disease. I have a grandson who is classified as a high functioning autistic. In his class at school, there are others like him.
He sees the world around in a very different light to what most people do. By observing him, I see that I am part way along the same scale he is, just nowhere near as far. He is one beautiful, wonderful child who does face difficulties dealing with people around because he just doesn't see social interactions the same way as most people do. By watching him, others have started to understand my some of my quirks.
Over the decades, I have worked with a variety of people who exhibit similar characteristics, you just take them as they are. Yet, autism is considered a disease by many instead of a part of the human spectrum.
Instead of alleviating the fear that vaccines can cause autism as well as have other detrimental effects, the opponents just go out of their way to treat that fear with contempt and just attack people (ad hominem) for subscribing to the belief. Until compassion is displayed, all that these attacks do is increase the belief that something is being hidden about vaccines and that there are consequences that are bad about using them. Unfortunately, many of the proponents of vaccines are just as fearful as those who are against using vaccines.
If you treat someone as a complete idiot, expect them to not like you or your message. The typical behaviour of people is to kill the messenger instead of dealing with the message.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Are you sure?
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/dm_evidence.htm
http://www.quantumdiarie s.org/2013/06/26/does-dark-matter-really-exist/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observation al_evidence
If you're correct then the WP article needs to be updated with your references, because it lists some predictions that have been confirmed by observation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Yeah, the molluscs may sue him for defamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Food has its usefulness, but it also has less positive effects since food is not universally beneficial. The manufacture of said food can be done wrong and so can be either ineffective or detrimental. Therefore, parents should be allowed to starve their children if they so desire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
So you're really going to claim that vaccines don't save lives? Wow. Just wow. If you really believe that then I can see how you'd be opposed to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
No, he claimed that life is possible without vaccines, which is clearly true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
If he wants to return to a Victorian standard or revert to a 3rd world standard, he's free to move somewhere he can get that, he's not free to drag the rest of us down with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
If you're an anti-vaxxer, you're a moron. Die.
If you're an intelligent designer, you're a moron. Die.
If you deny global warming, you're a moron. Die.
If you are any of these people, you are inferior. You are the debris of evolution -- you are worthless garbage, you are disposable, you are expendable, and you're taking up room on the planet that should be made available for those who are clearly superior to you. Get off it. Your life has no value, and you are utterly worthless. Die.
The same goes for racists, homophobes, misogynists, bigots, xenophobes, etc. If you're one of these: die.
We have progress to make as a species (on many fronts) and you're in the way. Die.
Harsh? Perhaps. But not nearly as harsh as what these people are doing every single day. They are directly and personally responsible for the deaths of millions and for the suffering of many more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
I doubt you even see the irony in your posts. What about bigots such as yourself who hate all those who are not like you and don't believe like you? The irony is so thick here is it would be funny except for your call for people to die. I noticed you left yourself out of that list of people. Of course genocidal people usually do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
There's a difference between despising someone for a belief and despising them for wilful ignorance. I don't wish harm upon anyone just because they think differently, but I do believe the world would be a far better place without those who refuse to learn and cause problems for the rest of civilisation for their refusal to adapt to reality.
Though, I can understand people getting that frustrated by the constant spouting of lies and the rejection of verifiable evidence at the expense of the rest of humanity (not hyperbole - for example, refusing vaccinations reduces herd immunity and is threatening to bring back deadly diseases that had almost been eradicated. People stand to die because of anti-vaxxer lies, and due to the lack of herd immunity, it could be innocent bystanders).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
En Francais: 2*2 = unety une, et aussi douzey une. 2*2*2 = deuxy deux avec deuxy onze, et voila, 2*2*2*2 = unety deuxy une et aussi unety unety deux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Wow. Ignored, sure. Punished when directly causing harm and endangering people's lives, yes.
I do agree anyone following Wakefield and any other completely discredited nonsense is an idiot - they are the ones who haven't actually looked at or thought out anything. But wow.
Oh, but i would agree that media and other social institutions that go out of their way to provide a platform for this idiocy are equally bad as anti-vaxxers, et al. "Silenced" seems pretty illegal and threatening though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Guess who directed the film in question here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
So how else would you classify a group of people whose only common trait is fear of and/or wilful ignorance of science on a specific subject?
Is there a name that you'd prefer to avoid "bigotry", or do you just want to ignore that group of people no matter the harm they cause?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
do you just want to ignore that group of people no matter the harm they cause?
You are calling for harm to others, should you be ignored?
I am just amazed at the call for murder in the comments here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
No.
"Is science your religion?"
No. I don't have a religion. However, when asked to choose sides, I choose the one based on facts rather than faith, and that tells me that vaccines have been hugely beneficial to mankind and have no verifiable links to autism.
"You are calling for harm to others, should you be ignored?"
Where in the fuck did I do that? Seriously, are you hallucinating or just losing track of what you're reading?
"I am just amazed at the call for murder in the comments here"
In a single anonymous comment, from what I can see. Why are you attacking everybody on the site for that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Where in the F did I do that? I addressed the original guy and you who appeared to defend his views. That isn't everyone. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
You need to learn to read, then. Also perhaps check out my other response to you where I specifically said I disagreed with him.
As for the other comments, there sure does seem to be a person with the same anonymous identity as you running round this thread accusing people to things and bleating about murder. Apologies if your lack of an identity hides the fact there's there's more than one of you doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
See simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
The point is that the smarter ones also tend to be more affluent then the average citizen. For an example just check a map of California with vaccine rates and overlay it with income.
The troubling thing with these people is that they've been taught that they are in control (and your kid having autism contradicts that). Combine with someone they consider an authority figure (think Jenny McCarthy) telling them it's true. Add in a dash of people in general not being able to accept that random shit happens. Then toss in an eye of newt figuratively speaking, might be joking but it isn't too far from reality with these people going natural is better then human made (upto idiocies as having infection parties to get their children deliberately infected with childhood diseases).
Makes for a nice witches brew in which they voluntary denounce vaccines. Or even must, can you admit you were wrong if you'd deliberately infected your child with chicken pox or measles because it's natural and therefor better?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
They also think they can, in case of some disobedient virus, afford protecting themselves and their families against it.
They are very clever and yet so humble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
You just said these are not stupid people, and then you say this. Which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Surely you understand the difference between vaccines for things like measles and polio and the flu shot? I would also hope you understand the difference between the lies the anti-vaccine movement is founded upon and the facts that can be used to choose not to take a flu shot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Please note that the utility of vaccines is under constant review for both safety and efficacy.
Your avoidance of flu vaccines is your personal opinion, but personal experience has nothing to do with epidemiology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Apologising for anti-vaxxers, idiotic.
The rest of your post I don't care about frankly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In 2016? Really?!
My friend (who doesn't have any children and at 66, probably never will) absolutely believes that vaccines can cause autism because he saw some special or "news" report where a mother claimed that her baby was perfectly normal until she had him vaccinated and then he suddenly became autistic.
He believes that the "risk" isn't worth it, because the chance of a kid getting a "serious" illness like Polio is almost nonexistent and the diseases that kids might actually contract, like measles, are no big deal. He had measles when he was little and he came through it fine, which is absolute proof that there's no need to vaccinate kids against such things.
Yes, he can be really dumb about certain things. He'll dismiss dozens of articles from reputable sources, but anything that comes out of the mouth of a TV celebrity is the absolute truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
The irony is that the reason the the chances of getting something like Polio is so low (even for the unvaccinated now) is because of vaccinations.
But Polio (and so on) still exist. If the vaccination rate falls low enough, the chances of getting those illnesses will dramatically increase.
We live in a world that has been incredibly improved through vaccinations. So improved that most people have no experience what it was like before they existed. But if the anti-vaxxers have their way, everyone will be reminded in a pretty harsh way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In 2016? Really?!
The worst those people can do is talk all day about aliens giving knowledge to early humans because some statues are too perfect or we don't know how they moved stones weighing 300 tons, or that everything had a creator because DNA is too complex, or.... ok flat-earthers... I really don't understand them, sorry.
But anti vaxxers might in the worst case kill someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In 2016? Really?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Hitler was a Christian wasn't he?
And he started his campaign more likely because of what the West did to Germany after the first war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
It amazes me how atheists think only religious people kill people. The most dangerous people in history have been the atheists of the last 100+ years who have killed many 10's of millions. Please education yourself before you call these people Christians. The lies you tell yourself may help you sleep at night but it makes you look ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Hitler was a Catholic. The Church claims anyone who was baptized through their lives. Hitler never repudiated his Catholicism.
"By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf"
Stalin studied for the Orthodox priesthood until his father could no longer pay the tuition. This likely had a significant impact on Stalin's later denial of religion.
Perhaps the previous writer needs to revisit his
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
"It amazes me how atheists think only religious people kill people."
It amazes me how some people toss out bullshit and expect others to not question their "facts".
Those damned atheists ... right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
In science, unlike religion, who says something matters a lot less than what was said, so the absurd notion that anyone who believes that evolution by natural selection is a 'Darwinist' is completely absurd, and a frankly laughable attempt at projection. Just because someone is a 'Christian' because they believe in Christ doesn't make someone who believes in evolution a 'Darwinist'.
As for Hitler? Yeah, absolutely religious, you don't get to shrug him off just because he happened to be religious and did stuff you don't like. The whole 'master race' thing had nothing to do with evolution, the idea was that only the 'pure' race(Aryans) were created in the image of god, meaning interracial mixing was a sin and creating abominations.
But hey, don't just take my word for it, take his:
"A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape."
"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator."
"That this is possible may not be denied in a world where hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?"
Sorry(no I'm not), but Hitler is and remains your baggage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
There is a huge difference between Darwinism (which is a scientific theory) and social Darwinism (which is not). Furthermore, none of the people you mentioned committed atrocities because they believed in Darwinism.
Also, perhaps ironically, Charles Richet (who anti-vaxxers like to misquote) presided over the French Eugenics Society from 1920 to 1926.
And putting it into perspective, the diseases that vaccinations have wiped out used to kill more people than all those mass murderers combined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
http://www.naturalselectionanddarwinism.com/communism.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
Also, the broken link doesn't let me see the "about the author" page but this appears to be him from the words at the bottom of the page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Oktar
"Adnan Oktar (born 2 February 1956), also known as Harun Yahya,[1] is a Turkish author as well as an Islamic creationist.[2]... His organization is commonly referred to as a cult,[7] and he has been described as the "most notorious cult leader in Turkey."[8] Oktar filed more than 5000 lawsuits against individuals for defamation in the last decade,[9] and led to blocking of a number of prominent websites in Turkey."
Something tells me someone's trying to rewrite history, alright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
"THIS SITE IS BASED ON THE WORKS OF HARUN YAHYA"
I thought that meant that this was the name of the guy who wrote it. But, it might mean one of Yahya's followers posted it based on his teachings.
Given that the man is described as a "notorious cult leader", I suspect that the site might be a little biased. Do you have any more reliable sources? Perhaps someone with credentials other than religious fanaticism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
But, my point is their vaccines couldn't help them. So, yes, we shouldn't take vaccines that aren't going to prevent some drunk driver from smashing into your brain presuming you have a brain. I used to have a brain.. I don't remember what I did with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In 2016? Really?!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In 2016? Really?!
Their word-salad manifestos and hatred of so-called neurotypicals (read: "suppressive persons") read like something out of Scientology. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it is. So we're dealing with two groups of people sticking their heads in the sand. One group thinks science is causing the problem. The other won't even acknowledge that it's a problem at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Screenings
They have a list of screenings on their web site.
There is one a couple of towns down the road from me.
I may take my pick-it sign and exercise my First Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Screenings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Screenings
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proves that there's no vaccine to prevent stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Springtime for Anti-Vaxers
Now we know what The Producers would look like if it were set in this decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its actually interesting
There are more studies that are going to be ran after this finding. There are papers written up regarding it, and the overall affected is unknown however they believe its going to only affect children whose diet leads to a unbalanced gut flora (processed foods).
For children who were truly born autistic, vaccinations won't matter one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its actually interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its actually interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its actually interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anti-vaccination conspiracy theories
Those antivaxers might be into something, maybe the government is injecting nanobots into our children to expand their spying powers and take control of our minds!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: anti-vaccination conspiracy theories
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
Big Pharma sucks. Insurance companies and a lot of the medical industry sucks. Naturopathy and denying actual evidence-based medicine sucks.
The last thing corporate executives should be sent to prison for is providing something life-saving and useful, or people for speaking facts.
But hey, I guess i must be on board with this whole "ignore the actual topic" thing given my last few comments. IIRC it was how some blowhards attempted to threaten a writer with nothing to back up their claims... Right! Silencing. The common thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Pharma $$$? Yeah right.
The 'profits' for caring for autistic people who can't live on their own do no go to 'Big Pharma'.
You want to see price gouging and profits for the pharmaceutical industry then look at what the margin for drugs people need to take daily (and still have a patent on them).
If you disregard that type of drug (the one with a patent still active) then vaccines still result in less profit them other drugs (95% of the profit of normal drugs).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
Which ones are the fake comments? My money's on the one by someone called Dale Evans, nobody's that dumb.
"Very God-less and immoral"
Meh, I'm not immoral but I'm happy to not be aligned with the God some people think deliberately created hideous things like smallpox. Thankfully, human scientists were there to invent vaccines to destroy that stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
Given how pervasive (say) the Russian online message-spreading machine is, I understand why you might take this position in re: the stance that anti-vaxxers are idiots of the shallowest water...
... but then you go and bring God into it, and poof, you display the lack of logic and critical thinking necessary to be allowed to participate in reasoned discussion. You may leave the internet, now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PR firm propaganda, paid for by Big Pharma $$$
This is pretty funny, seeing as it was post a day after I did a post exposing an actual PR front for Big Pharma: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160724/08181035052/mpaa-front-group-pretending-to-represent-cons umer-interests-slams-cloudflare-not-censoring-internet.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaccination Isn’t To Protect The Individual, It’s To Protect Society
This is how we managed to completely eradicate smallpox from the world. We are currently this close to doing the same with polio, except that pockets of fanatical anti-vaxxers in certain countries are stymieing our efforts, often rather violently.
Yes, there are sometimes risks from vaccines. That is the price we have to pay to keep society safe. Because the alternative is the return of epidemics that have plagued human societies through the centuries.
To look at it another way, those who don’t vaccinate are relying on those around them who have vaccinated to keep them safe from disease.
In short, they are freeloaders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccination Isn’t To Protect The Individual, It’s To Protect Society
Herd immunity also has an equally, if not more important function besides making it more difficult for disease to spread in that it makes it less likely for a disease to mutate, possibly into a form that the previous vaccinations don't work against.
If a disease never manages to get a foothold in a host then it has no time to mutate and spread as it's killed off too quick, whereas if it can then there's a chance for it mutate into a strain different enough that a previously protected person is now vulnerable.
This is one of the reasons anti-vaxxers are one of the few groups that I am honestly disgusted by and hold in contempt, because they're not just putting their lives and the lives of their children(if they have them) at risk, but everyone else as well by their actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Vaccination Isn’t To Protect The Individual, It’s To Protect Society
I could have sworn I read this about politicians as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Vaccination Isn’t To Protect The Individual, It’s To Protect Society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccination Isn’t To Protect The Individual, It’s To Protect Society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wars kill more than any disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wars kill more than any disease.
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/world-rankings-total-deaths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another link:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love Latin
Per Se: adverb, Latin for "because I think so".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love Latin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I love Latin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I love Latin
I like your joke and I got it, but it's a legal thing: "Thus, an act is illegal without extrinsic proof of any surrounding circumstances such as lack of scienter (knowledge) or other defenses." They're trying to make it sound like they don't need to prove anything like intent or knowledge, that the act is defamatory without regard to any extenuating circumstances. Which sounds like complete BS to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_per_se
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I love Latin
So THAT's why that lawyer charged me for his services.. I had hired a lawyer to represent me per-se and I thought I wasn't going to have to pay.. silly me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anti-vaxers, in my opinion, are just as dangerous as the neurodiversity SJWs. Both are anti-science and neither side supports medicine that has been and could be highly useful in preventing horrendous illnesses, disorders, defects or diseases. Sure, we can argue about the severity of polio being much worse than autism, because you die from polio, whereas autism just makes your life and that of those around you miserable. Which, for the sake of the opposing argument, would mean autism is worse because at least polio kills you, whereas autism is lifelong suffering and a fate worse than death.
I don't think necessarily that anti-vaxxers are pro-polio as much as they are anti-autism. They're just going about it in the wrong way, ironically with a single-minded, dare I say autistic, fixation on one sole "cause" of the disorder that leaves no room for any other possibility.
Neurodiversity proponents aren't pro-polio either, obviously. The problem is that they are pro-autism, and resort to all sorts of absurd fallacies about posthumous diagnoses of historical geniuses and success stories of oddball celebrities, to make their case. No one in their right mind would say they're pro-cancer, so why all of a sudden has it become fashionable for one debilitating defect to become "chic"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Autocorrection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Autocorrection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Autocorrection
Sadly, it's not as simple as "let them dig their own graves", even if you do accept them using their children as gambling chips.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Autocorrection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modern medicine and its usefulness to society at large
However, we have also seen the downside of these things as well. Antibiotic resistance bacteria, long term organ failure, and deaths are part and parcel of modern medicine.
In terms of vaccinations, one massive problem is that human error in the manufacture of these products mean that these products are never guaranteed to be perfect. As a result, batches come out that do nothing or produce unintended harmful side effects. When incidents like these occur, the trust given to vaccines decreases. People will rightly consider taking advantage of such products as being detrimental to their health.
Even if the correctly formulated and prepared products are brought out, the trust is gone.
Human error can quite often be ignored if one is not going to be affected by that error. But if the likelihood of you being effected (by your estimation) is increased, many will be adverse to participating in programs that use said products.
It only takes stories like this to cause doubt about the competency of the medical profession.
Too many vaxxers forget that human error will destroy any trust that those they label as anti-vaxxers may have had, irrespective of the efficacy of vaccinations. In addition, no vaccination regime is perfect, not even the "herd immunity" effects. The range of protection varies from person to person and from population to population. Compare poultry disease spread in the USA to South east Asia as an example. One uses vaccines much more than the other and yet has a higher disease transfer. One uses culling more than the other as a means of stopping disease spread.
I am not advocating any particular regime for disease control. Our understanding of viruses, vaccines, etc is still in its infancy and we do not yet understand the long term effects of our treatment protocols. It may take centuries to get an understanding of the longer term effects. We currently see good effects in the short term, but there are (in many cases) long term effects that will come back to bite us.
I have a problem with those who want to force others to their way of thinking. This mindset, historically, has had more major detrimental side effects that has led to pogroms against various dissidents.
If you are all for vaccinating yourself and your family then go for it. If you are against vaccinating yourself and your family go for it. In the end, the individual is responsible for their actions and for the consequences thereof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the trust is gone.
It’s a triumph of style and pizzazz over substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modern medicine and its usefulness to society at large
If you're going to "go for it" in terms of not being vaccinated, go live in isolation so the risk you pose is to yourselves alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Modern medicine and its usefulness to society at large
I'd add a couple of things here. First, while that's likely, it's not guaranteed. Vaccines are not 100% effective, and the granted immunity can fade over time (hence booster shots for some vaccines). This is part of the reason why herd immunity is so important - you'll still be protected even if the vaccine fails or you have a genuine medical reason for not having it. Herd immunity is far less effective when you have people deliberately avoiding vaccines because some quack on TV said something.
Also, and this is where my medical knowledge fails me so I'm guessing, I'd wager that being vaccinated doesn't necessarily make you unable to be a carrier of the disease. It may prevent you from becoming ill yourself, but it might not stop you from passing on to others. Typhoid Mary was never sick herself.
I'm not saying that you personally are like that, the point is you never know.
"go live in isolation so the risk you pose is to yourselves alone."
...and, sadly, their children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Modern medicine and its usefulness to society at large
I'm far from a medical expert, but I was intrigued by this idea. My 15 minutes of Googling (i.e., take this with a block of salt) has led me to suspect that there is merit to this, but it isn't a universal thing.
It appears that for certain diseases, such as pertussis, a vaccinated person can still be a carrier. However, these are the exceptions, not the rule. Also, getting vaccinated doesn't seem to increase the chances of being a carrier.
Are there any actual experts here who can chime in about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Vaccines are not 100% effective
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Modern medicine and its usefulness to society at large
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Modern medicine and its usefulness to society at large
I really hate seeing smart people tricked by corporations into doing their corporate dirty work for free.
According to ACTUAL SCIENCE, the Vaccinated are in just as much danger of infection from other Vaccinated, as they are from the un-vaccinated.
And no, you are NOT immune to all of those diseases you had shots for. Innoculated Immunity is fleeting, and as soon as the virus mutates beyond a certain point, your immunity is lost forever against that strain.
This has been a very good learning expeditiion.
I have learned that Vaxxers, as a rule, know as little about the subject as they think Anti-Vaxxers do.
Vaxxers think they have Science on their side, so they don't have to actually understand the processes they are arguing, because they have the Vaccination Industry's talking points instead.
Amazingly, these normally intelligent people will just use these talking points as if they were gospel truth, without actually verifying that truth, simnply because they trust that the Pharmeco Industry would never lie to them and that theses truth were scientifically proven to be truths.
In just a couple days, in one of the most informed and intelligent forums I know of, Vaxxers turned out to be far less aware of the realities behind their chosen science than I was, and I actually admitted I was behind in my understanding of the process. I have done little to no study on viruses since the 80s, when I last caught a flu virus.
It was also apparent that Vaxxers seldom admit they are wrong, because they seldom discover that they are wrong.
Their faith in the science behind vaccination, makes them believers in the Industry's "veracity" and turns them - still truly unaware that they are being lied to - into volunteer storm troopers for the Industry.
Nothing stated by anyone not from the industry can be believed, so Vaxxers go through life "knowing they have all the answers", and thus learn nothing because they hear no arguments from anyone deemed an Anti-Vaxxer.
And anyone who does not agree with their faith based belief system and argues that vaccination might not be all its been drummed up to be, or that we should be wary of trusting any corporation that has had the law fixed to make it immune to prosecution should any of its products cause harm, must be an Anti-Vaxxer and can be safely ignored.
Seems I learned far more about Vaxxers than about Vaccinations from this discussion. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modern medicine and its usefulness to society at large
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Others unwittingly choose to become the tragic stuff of nightmares for emergency workers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The movie's "arguments" destryoed here:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-vax?
Pro-disease. Here you are - sounds much better now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-vax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti-vax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obligatory XKCD
http://xkcd.com/836/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is a false acusation of defemation defamitory?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
n Time Tested Vaccines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: n Time Tested Vaccines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: n Time Tested Vaccines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: n Time Tested Vaccines
The issue is that a county in Maryland passed a law requiring vaccinations of children, with the potential of up to 10 days in jail for failure to comply. This penalty has not been applied to anybody, and in fact the county itself has said that they haven't even figured out how they're going to enforce this law.
Pretty much everyone agrees that this law is a bad idea, and it seems likely that it won't ever really take effect as the county is revisiting the thing.
That appears to be the whole story. Nobody was being vaccinated "at gunpoint", and indeed nobody has (yet) even been forced to vaccinate under the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: n Time Tested Vaccines
I'm sure you have a link to documentation of all the gun waving, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: n Time Tested Vaccines
Not time tested? How much time do you need?
The idea of vaccinations has been around for a thousand years, dating as far back as AD 1000 in India . The smallpox vaccine was introduced around the late 1700's, the polio vaccine was licensed in 1955 and the MMR vaccine has been administrated in the US since the early 1960's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: n Time Tested Vaccines
Forever, apparently. Approximately the same period copyrights are headed for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the sky is falling
Jesus Christ on a hand cart, we are truly doomed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kind of like the flat-earthers vs the round-earthers. Neither side wants to concede to the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe they should compromise and declare the world to be a cube.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They've both been vaccinated since birth, and interestingly, one is autistic and the other not. The younger one is the one who isn't, and while he's only a year old, he's still hit all his milestones on time, which my other son didn't do at that age. So by my own admittedly unscientific observations, their being vaccinated has had no influence on whether they would have become autistic or not. So it seems to me that the cause of that condition likely lies elsewhere.
However, I don't think it's right to put anyone down for any reason, regardless of whatever disagreements you have. We should be better than that, I think. If they're demonstrably in the wrong, then it can be shown in a decent, civilized way rather than through insults, put-downs, and sometimes worse. Doing otherwise simply makes one no better than who they're opposing, they're simply coming at it from the other side.
And about this Hitler thing, I don't think he was either one. One isn't a Christian simply by saying so. It's defined by one's actions, just as Jesus said it would be - the whole you can tell a tree by its fruit bit. That's what that meant. And his actions went against everything that Jesus stands for. At the same time, though, I don't think he was an atheiest either, as by his own words he tended to believe more in nature or his own destiny or providence even when things were falling apart around him. Despite his Catholic upbringing, he abandoned it by the time he took power. His private statements record much of his true beliefs, as you can see here:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Bottom line, he was neither Christian nor atheist.
Moving on, to the poster who complained about God making dangerous microbes or something along those lines, I can understand where you're coming from. It's hard to reconcile the fact of a loving God with a world full of pain, and there are no easy answers.
But from God's perspective. all of our history, our entire existence as a species, is less than the snapping of a finger as far as how long it takes from an eternal point of view. And from that angle, he's already taken care of the problem of evil. Since he isn't bound by linear time like we are, he sees both the eternal view and every moment in time as it happens - all at the same time. From our point of view, we're still going through that problem of evil even though from an eternal perspective it's already been solved through the cross. We just haven't caught up to its final fulfillment yet.
Also, on a more basic level, it also has to do with free will. You can't know what love is unless you also know what it isn't, and you can't love unless you also have the ability to choose not to love. God will not ever encroach upon our free will, though some who profess to speak in his name sometimes may.
But basically, in a world with free will, bad things will happen no matter what simply because not all of our choices are good ones, and each carries consequences either good or bad. God doesn't shield us from those consequences but we can either allow them to shape us and help us grow or be borne down by them.
Lastly, God doesn't ask us to check our brains at the door. The idea of blind faith isn't even supported in the Bible itself. For example:
"My dear friends, don’t believe everything you hear. Carefully weigh and examine what people tell you. Not everyone who talks about God comes from God." -1 John 1:1
Test and then verify? That sounds a bit like the scientific method to me. Anyway, faith in God is based in knowledge and experience, seeing where he's brought you in your life, getting up when you fall, and learning to be a little more like him every day.
Also, the idea that science and faith are incompatible is inaccurate. Assuming that God created the universe and everything in it, it's only logical that his Word and his world would speak the same message. Over 2 million scientists are Christians, and many prominent historical scientists like Copernicus, Galileo (being persecuted by other alleged Christians as he was does not negate one's own actual faith), Descartes, Pascal, and Isaac Newton. Even Albert Einstein rejected the idea of atheism and a non-created universe despite never coming into a personal relationship with God, and Stephen Hawking is a deist, also rejecting the idea of a universe formed from random chance despite not being a Christian himself.
"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Isaac Newton
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
Science in the Bible
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencebible.html
Famous Christian Scientists
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, your autistic son is just suffering the consequences of his bad choices. What did he do, choose the wrong parents? Yeah, I see how that works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An open query
ok. I'm obviously too thick to think this thing through by myself, so, could somebody out there, please take me through this thing slowly?
Please point out where I've left the track and fallen by the wayside:
Immunization via vaccination:
The process by which the human immune system is tricked into making the body immune to a specific disease, by injecting/ingesting the dead remains of the virus one hopes to eliminate, which triggers the production of antibodies that the body can use later against real infections of that particular virus.
This was apparent to researchers because once a person has caught, say; Flu Strain Zocha RT67-H99845445566-B, he or she is forever after immune to that particular strain of virus, because the body has produced an arsenal of weapons against that particular strain of virus.
Extremely sound science, which is why ProVaxxers are so sure they hold the winning hand, and why most of the smart people are pro vax leaning folks, as far as I can see.
All together, its a wonderful bit of reality; trick the body into thinking its been infected with a virus so it'll produce the needed ammunition to shoot that bug
on sight.
So according to the above, injecting the dead remains of a virus into one's body will trigger the immune system to create t cells and other neat shit that forever bears the name of the virus they were made to kill and prevents that particular strain of virus from ever again causing that body grief. Immunization.
Immunization: the natural or un-natural ability to be 100% immune to some or many forms of disease.
Vaccination: inducing bodily Immunization procedures, re above, by injecting dead viral bodies into the body's blood stream via hypodermic injection.
So, if I get a vaccination against Flu #748993HH-R0488322-f, I am immune to the virus #748993HH-R0488322-f and it can no longer affect me because my body has produced the anti-bodies necessary to kill off #748993HH-R0488322-f whenever it needs to.
Seems pretty much cut and dried.
So, how come, every unvaccinated child who is carrying good old virus #748993HH-R0488322-f, can magically undo all of that and prevent those antobodies I got from being injected with the Anti #748993HH-R0488322-f vaccination, from doing their job - effectively causing me to catch good old flu #748993HH-R0488322-f.
No matter how I run this scenario, there is absolutely no way I can make it work except magic.
Somehow, the vaccinated person's "immunity" from the vaccination is utterly ineffective against the virus they are immune to when it comes from an unvaccinated person.
The virus spawned by the bodies of the unvaccinated are able to force the vaccinated to catch that viral infection.
Simply by their mere presence among the vaccinated?
Are the virus bodies from an un-vaccinated person different from the same virus found in the wild, if such a thing can even be said to exist?
The only way I can see all this hysteria making any sense at all, is if the virus you catch from the recycled air in KMart, is different somehow, than the very same virus spawned by a non-vaccinated person's body.
According to provax theory, the unvaccinated cannot be vaccinated against.
The virus they carry ignores any immunization aquired through vaccination.
Thus the fear of mothers all over the country, that one single child who is not vaccinated, can somehow, magically, make all of their fully vaccinated children catch the disease they are otherwise fully immunized against.
My science understanding tells me this is false and more of a circular debate argument, than a scientific theory/reality/concept.
This is why I cannot promote the vaccination business today. If the immunization is utterly ineffective against the unvaccinated, then it is simply ineffective period, and the industry is using this "unvaccinated people magically circumvent immune system antibodies in others" story to explain how all of the vaccinated end up catching the infection anyways.
Just blame it on the unvaccinated.
They are after all, the enemy of the Pharmacuetical Vaccination Industry and they have no way to defend themseves against the Scientific sounding accusations that label them as the enemy of the Vaccinated.
This fear makes many of the vaccinated people become part of the Pharma Industry's civilian volunteer Anti-Vaxxer Army, who will brow-beat and threaten the unvaccinated with arrest and incarceration or - the final solution - involuntary innoculation, if they can force lawmakers to pretend the constitution no longer applies to Anti-Vaxxers and write up laws that let people attack the unvaccinated. We're only a couple years from that point now already and a Trump Presidency should escalate that process exponentially.
If I am so uttery wrong on this topic, please show me where my logic has faltered above.
Anyone?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An open query
An un-vaccinated host on the other hand gives the disease time to stick around and potentially mutate, to the point where there's a chance that a vaccination against a particular strain won't work against the 'new' strain, leaving everyone right back at square one.
There's also herd immunity and protecting those that legitimately can't be vaccinated for one reason or another, meaning their only defense is to have those around them act as a buffer. They don't get sick because those surrounding them can't get sick basically, a protection that goes away when those around them don't vaccinate, leaving holes in the buffer that a disease can slip through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An open query
False conslusion. Neither vaccines nor immune systems are 100% effective. Therefore, there is still a chance that a vaccinated person can be infected. Some people are also immuno-compromised.
Your "utterly ineffective" remark shows either a complete lack of understanding of this or deliberate subterfuge. I'm not sure which.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: An open query
The Vaxxers demand unvaccinaterd children be removed from where their vaccinated children are because they believe that the unvaccinated will infect their vaccinated children. This is their false conclusion.
However, what you just posted above states that it is just as likely that a vaccinated child will catch the flu from another vaccinated child because neither the human immune system, nor the pharma vax are 100% effective.
This is the very first time I have read such a statement from any source on this topic and its very interesting.
While ignoring your implied insult, I have to agree fully with those 2 simple facts, but I have the feeling the vaxxers are not going to like your remark at all.
They have been happily doing Big Pharmas damage control job, blaming the failed vaccinations on the unvaccinated, and its not going to be easy for them to lose such a perfect scapegoat.
Yeah I know you meant this post to be a simple kick in the ass to some stupid anti-vaxxer, but thanks anyway.
Thats a chain-link I had not considered. :)
===
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
I'm sorry.... what??
What the hell is herd immunity??
You just made that up, right.
Last time I looked, no animals were lined up outside the drugstore to get their flu shots.
You wouldn't happen to be aware of the methods animals use to remain immune so that the herd can remain immune, would you.
I'd love to read about that.
Got a link??
---
"The problem comes about because diseases, like any other organism have the capacity to mutate/evolve..."
Ya see, this is the sort of argument I keep getting in response. Its a circular debate argument.
Now, I've always respected your opinions in the forum, but here you are telling me that the unavaccinated are petri dishes and that the viruses they spawn are mutated versions of the virus that originally infected them and that the vaccinated do not have protection against these new strains, of course.
You pose this response because you know that Viruses Do Indeed Mutate.
Every year like clockwork, a brand new virus appears.
It is a simple step to then assume that this is the reason the unvaccinated can infect the vaccinated - that the vaccinated are actually cathing a mutated version of the virus.
Except that if this were the case, then the people who catch the flu after getting the flu shot would be catching a brand new flu - a mutated flu from any passing anti-vaxxer - and that is NOT the situation in the real world.
So all you have done is reword the magical power of the unvaccinated to infect the vaccinated by claiming erroneously, that viruses mutate into new viruses in the unvaccinated and that those they infect have actually caught a brand new strain of the flu.
However, this is not the case in practice. The Flu that the vaccinated catch after being vaccinated is always the same strain that happens to be floating around that year that everyone is catching.
If the scenario you propose was real, then each year we would produce hundreds of thousands of viral strains as each unvaccinated body spawned its own particular strain of the virus. It is patently absurd to try and convince me that every unvaccinated person spawns the exact same mutation.
I was rather hoping for some science in the reply, especially from you sir, but since this response lists a number of things that do not actually happens in the world outside, perhaps you'd like to try again.
====
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
It was discovered in the 1930s, when it was noticed that if a sufficient number of people got immunized for smallpox, the number of new infections decreased in the unimmunized population as well.
This is important because not everyone can get immunized against important diseases, making it more important (from a public health perspective) for people who can get immunized to do so.
For example, you can't immunize infants against pertussis, but pertussis is most catastrophic to infants. But vaccinating a sufficient number of adults against pertussis also provides protection for the infants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
Thasnks so much Mister T. :)
==============================================
‘Herd Immunity’: the misplaced driver of universal vaccination
The term, ‘herd immunity’, was coined by researcher, A W Hedrich, after he’d studied the epidemiology of measles in USA between 1900-1931. His study published in the May, 1933 American Journal of Epidemiology concluded that when 68% of children younger than 15 yrs old had become immune to measles via infection, measles epidemics ceased. For several reasons, this natural, pre-vaccine herd immunity differed greatly from today’s vaccine ‘herd immunity’.1,2
When immunity was derived from natural infection, a much smaller proportion of the population needed to become immune to show the herd effect; compare the 68% measles immunity required for natural herd immunity to the very high percentages of vaccine uptake deemed necessary for measles vaccine ‘herd immunity’. In his ‘Vaccine Safety Manual’, Neil Z Miller cites research which concluded increasing vaccine uptake necessary for ‘herd immunity’ ranging from “70 to 80 percent of two year olds in inner cities” in 1991 to “‘close to 100 percent coverage’…with a vaccine that is 90 to 98 percent effective.” in 1997.
Miller notes that, “When the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963, officials were confident that they could eradicate the disease by 1967.”
Subsequently, new dates for eradication were pronounced as 1982, 2000 and 2010. Meanwhile, “In 1990, after examining 320 scientific works from around the world, 180 European medical doctors concluded that ‘the eradication of measles…would today appear to be an unrealistic goal.’” And in 1984, Professor D. Levy of Johns Hopkins University had already “concluded that if current practices [of suppressing natural immunity] continue, by the year 2050 a large part of the population will be at risk and ‘there could in theory be over 25,000 fatal cases of measles in the U.S.A.'”
Disease-conferred immunity usually lasted a lifetime. As each new generation of children contracted the infection, the immunity of those previously infected was renewed due to their continual cyclical re-exposure to the disease; except for newly-infected children and the few individuals who’d never had the disease or been exposed to it, the ‘herd immunity’ of the entire population was maintained at all times.
Vaccine ‘herd immunity’ is hit-and-miss; outbreaks of disease sometimes erupt in those who follow recommended vaccine schedules. If they do actually “immunize”, vaccines provide only short-term immunity so, in an attempt to maintain ‘herd immunity’, health authorities hold ‘cattle drives’ to round up older members of the ‘herd’ for administration of booster shots. And on it goes, to the point that, now, it’s recommended we accept cradle-to-grave shots of vaccine against pertussis, a disease which still persists after more than sixty years of widespread use of the vaccine.
Russell Blaylock, MD remarks, “One of the grand lies of the vaccine program is the concept of “herd immunity”. In fact, vaccines for most Americans declined to non-protective levels within 5 to 10 years of the vaccines. This means that for the vast majority of Americans, as well as others in the developed world, herd immunity doesn’t exist and hasn’t for over 60 years.”3
In the pre-vaccine era, newborns could receive antibodies against infectious diseases from their mothers who had themselves been infected as children and re-exposed to the diseases later in life. Today’s babies born to mothers who were vaccinated and never exposed to these diseases do not receive these antibodies. In direct contrast to fear mongering disease “facts” and ‘herd immunity’ theories related by Public Health, most of today’s babies are more vulnerable than babies of the pre-vaccine era.
References:
1. “Monthly estimates of the child population ‘susceptible’ to measles, 1900-1931, Baltimore, Maryland”; A W Hedrich; American Journal of Epidemiology; May 1933 – Oxford University Press.
2. ‘Vaccine Safety Manual’ by Neil Z Miller; New Atlantean Press; 2008, 2009; pg 152.
============
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
A (not so)little light reading might be illuminating. In particular pay attention to the first (pre-vaccine)numbers listed compared to the (post-vaccine)numbers towards the end.
TL:DR version: The numbers pre-vaccination are all sorts of nasty, so you'll excuse me if I'm not buying the 'vaccines are just a plot/don't work' arguments. Society has seen what happens without vaccinations and it's not pretty, yet that's what the anti-vaccination people seem to be pushing for, hence why they can get a rather hostile/dismissive reception at times.
Secular Trends in the United States
Before 1963, approximately 500,000 cases and 500 deaths were reported annually, with epidemic cycles every 2–3 years. However, the actual number of cases was estimated at 3–4 million annually. More than 50% of persons had measles by age 6, and more than 90% had measles by age 15. The highest incidence was among 5–9-year-olds, who generally accounted for more than 50% of reported cases.
In the years following licensure of vaccine in 1963, the incidence of measles decreased by more than 95%, and 2–3-year epidemic cycles no longer occurred. Because of this success, a 1978 Measles Elimination Program set a goal to eliminate indigenous measles by October 1, 1982 (26,871 cases were reported in 1978). The 1982 elimination goal was not met, but in 1983, only 1,497 cases were reported (0.6 cases per 100,000 population), the lowest annual total ever reported up to that time.
Measles Resurgence in 1989–1991
From 1989 through 1991, a dramatic increase in reported measles cases occurred. During these 3 years a total of 55,622 cases were reported (18,193 in 1989; 27,786 in 1990; 9,643 in 1991). In addition to the increased number of cases, a change occurred in their age distribution. Prior to the resurgence, school-aged children had accounted for the largest proportion of reported cases. During the resurgence, 45% of all reported cases were in children younger than 5 years of age. In 1990, 48% of patients were in this age group, the first time that the proportion of cases in children younger than 5 years of age exceeded the proportion of cases in 5–19-year-olds (35%).
Overall incidence rates were highest for Hispanics and blacks and lowest for non-Hispanic whites. Among children younger than 5 years of age, the incidence of measles among blacks and Hispanics was four to seven times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.
A total of 123 measles-associated deaths were reported during this period (death-to-case ratio of 2.2 per 1,000 cases). Forty-nine percent of deaths were among children younger than 5 years of age. Ninety percent of fatal cases occurred among persons with no history of vaccination. Sixty-four deaths were reported in 1990, the largest annual number of deaths from measles since 1971.
The most important cause of the measles resurgence of 1989–1991 was low vaccination coverage. Measles vaccine coverage was low in many cities, including some that experienced large outbreaks among preschool-aged children throughout the early to mid-1980s. Surveys in areas experiencing outbreaks among preschool-aged children indicated that as few as 50% of children had been vaccinated against measles by their second birthday, and that black and Hispanic children were less likely to be age-appropriately vaccinated than were white children.
In addition, measles susceptibility of infants younger than 1 year of age may have increased. During the 1989–1991 measles resurgence, incidence rates for infants were more than twice as high as those in any other age group. The mothers of many infants who developed measles were young, and their measles immunity was most often due to vaccination rather than infection with wild virus. As a result, a smaller amount of antibody was transferred across the placenta to the fetus, compared with antibody transfer from mothers who had higher antibody titers resulting from wild-virus infection. The lower quantity of antibody resulted in immunity that waned more rapidly, making infants susceptible at a younger age than in the past.
Measles Since 1993
Reported cases of measles declined rapidly after the 1989–1991 resurgence. This decline was due primarily to intensive efforts to vaccinate preschool-aged children. Measles vaccination levels among 2-year-old children increased from 70% in 1990 to 91% in 1997.
Since 1993, fewer than 500 cases have been reported annually, and fewer than 200 cases per year have been reported since 1997. A record low annual total of 37 cases was reported in 2004. Available epidemiologic and virologic data indicate that measles transmission in the United States has been interrupted. The majority of cases are now imported from other countries or linked to imported cases. Most imported cases originate in Asia and Europe and occur both among U.S. citizens traveling abroad and persons visiting the United States from other countries. An aggressive measles vaccination program by the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has resulted in record low measles incidence in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the interruption of indigenous measles transmission in the Americas. Measles elimination from the Americas was achieved in 2002 and has been sustained since then, with only imported and importation-related measles cases occuring in the region.
Source
On to the flu.
How the Flu Virus Can Change: “Drift” and “Shift”
Influenza viruses are constantly changing. They can change in two different ways.
One way they change is called “antigenic drift.” These are small changes in the genes of influenza viruses that happen continually over time as the virus replicates. These small genetic changes usually produce viruses that are pretty closely related to one another, which can be illustrated by their location close together on a phylogenetic tree. Viruses that are closely related to each other usually share the same antigenic properties and an immune system exposed to an similar virus will usually recognize it and respond. (This is sometimes called cross-protection.)
But these small genetic changes can accumulate over time and result in viruses that are antigenically different (further away on the phylogenetic tree). When this happens, the body’s immune system may not recognize those viruses.
This process works as follows: a person infected with a particular flu virus develops antibody against that virus. As antigenic changes accumulate, the antibodies created against the older viruses no longer recognize the “newer” virus, and the person can get sick again. Genetic changes that result in a virus with different antigenic properties is the main reason why people can get the flu more than one time. This is also why the flu vaccine composition must be reviewed each year, and updated as needed to keep up with evolving viruses.
The other type of change is called “antigenic shift.” Antigenic shift is an abrupt, major change in the influenza A viruses, resulting in new hemagglutinin and/or new hemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins in influenza viruses that infect humans. Shift results in a new influenza A subtype or a virus with a hemagglutinin or a hemagglutinin and neuraminidase combination that has emerged from an animal population that is so different from the same subtype in humans that most people do not have immunity to the new (e.g. novel) virus. Such a “shift” occurred in the spring of 2009, when an H1N1 virus with a new combination of genes emerged to infect people and quickly spread, causing a pandemic. When shift happens, most people have little or no protection against the new virus.
While influenza viruses are changing by antigenic drift all the time, antigenic shift happens only occasionally. Type A viruses undergo both kinds of changes; influenza type B viruses change only by the more gradual process of antigenic drift.
Source
'Since the late 19th century, five occurrences of antigenic shifts have led to pandemics (1889–1891, 1918–1920, 1957–1958, 1968–1969, and 2009-2010). A pandemic may start from a single focus and spread along routes of travel. Typically, there are high attack rates involving all age groups, and mortality is usually markedly increased. Severity is generally not greater in the individual patient (except for the 1918–1919 strain), but because large numbers of persons are infected, the number, if not the proportion, of severe and fatal cases will be large. Onset may occur in any season of the year. Secondary and tertiary waves may occur up to 2 years later, usually in the winter.
In April 2009, a novel influenza A(H1N1) virus appeared and quickly spread across North America. By May 2009 the virus had spread to many areas of the world. Influenza morbidity caused by 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus remained above seasonal baselines throughout spring and summer 2009 and was the cause of the first influenza pandemic since 1968.
In the United States, the 2009 pandemic was characterized by a substantial increase in influenza activity in Spring 2009 that was well beyond seasonal norms. Influenza activity peaked in late October 2009, and returned to the seasonal baseline by January 2010. During this time, more than 99 percent of viruses characterized were the 2009 pandemic influenza A(H1N1) virus.
In January 2011, CDC estimated that pandemic H1N1 influenza virus caused more than 60 million Americans to become ill, and led to more than 270,000 hospitalizations and 12,500 deaths. Ninety percent of hospitalizations and deaths occurred in persons younger than 65 years of age. With typical seasonal influenza approximately 90% of deaths occur in persons older than 65 years.
(Pretty nasty right? Yeah, comparatively that was a walk in the park.)
'The pandemic of “Spanish” influenza in 1918–1919 caused an estimated 21 million deaths worldwide. The first pandemic of the 21st century occurred in 2009–2010.'
**
For practical purposes, the duration of immunity following inactivated influenza vaccination is less than 1 year because of waning of vaccine-induced antibody and antigenic drift of circulating influenza viruses. Influenza vaccine efficacy varies by the similarity of the vaccine strain(s) to the circulating strain and the age and health status of the recipient. Vaccines are effective in protecting about 60% of healthy vaccinees younger than 65 years of age from illness when the vaccine strain is similar to the circulating strain. However, the vaccine is less effective in preventing illness among persons 65 years of age and older.
Although the vaccine is not highly effective in preventing clinical illness among the elderly, it is effective in preventing complications and death. Some studies show that, among elderly persons, the vaccine is 50%–60% effective in preventing hospitalization and 80% effective in preventing death. During a 1982–1983 influenza outbreak in Genesee County, Michigan, unvaccinated nursing home residents were four times more likely to die than were vaccinated residents.
Source
What is the evidence that influenza vaccines work?
(Ran out of comment space, use this link and click on the topic link to the right to see the numbers.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
Yes viruses mutate.
I have never said viruses do not mutate.
===============================================
This process works as follows: a person infected with a particular flu virus develops antibody against that virus. As antigenic changes accumulate, the antibodies created against the older viruses no longer recognize the “newer” virus, and the person can get sick again. Genetic changes that result in a virus with different antigenic properties is the main reason why people can get the flu more than one time. This is also why the flu vaccine composition must be reviewed each year, and updated as needed to keep up with evolving viruses."
===========================================
This explains nicely, how people can get the flu they are immunized against, through simple accumulation of tiny minute changes in the viral DNA.
It does not state that the unvaccinated produce them, only that once infected by the yearly flu strain, the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike, may have antibodies that are "out-of-date" so to speak and unable to cope with the slightly altered version of the yearly virus.
This is however, NOT a new strain of the virus, merely the old strain with a new pair of shoes.
Your comment originally laid the blame for the creation of new virus strains at the feet of the unvaccinated, when in fact this mutation is constant and ongoing and extremely small, such that mutiple mutations of this sort might still not produce a virus different enough to fool the current immunization, be it natural or innoculated.
This is in fact, what I was looking for. Thanks again.
As I said, were your scenario true - each year would see millions of new strains of the yearly virus as the unvaccinated caused them to mutate, because each person would produce a slightly different version of the yearly virus.
You accepted the notion that all the infected unvaccinated people would create the very same mutation however, and that seems absurd on the face of it and should have sent out a warning that something was not as it should be.
The second form of mutation is actually the accumulation of those small changes in the first form above, where enough small changes have occurred to create a new strain the following year. Its where the yearly virus come from.
Somehow, the flu virus manages to become new every year, even when it does not create enough genetic changes during the flu season to infect the immune or the innoculated. This will be my next area of inquiry.
The third form of mutation is a huge abrupt shift to a brand new configuration and it does not occur inside the body of the unvaccinated either. This is the pandemic change and no vaccination will save you from that either, until after the medical people analyse the new strain and create an innoculation specific to it.
And just to reiterate, in case you did not read the last post I made, I fully agree that vaccination, when done correctly, works exactly as advertised. I have no problem with innoculating people against disease, although I'm a little leary of doing so using needles, after reading that article about anaphylaxis.
What I'm worried about is the Pharmna Industry's corporate mandate to make more money every year than the year before, and their proven willingness to fuck over anyone to achieve that goal and their legal get-out-of-jail-card for all wrong-doing.
While I believe that vaccination works, I believe also that modern vaccinations are designed specifically to weaken the human immune system, so that EVERYONE gets sicker more often and needs more Pharma drugs and Pharma procedures, more and more as time goes on.
The perfect match for making more money next year than this year.
I suspect that modern vaccinations are little more than toxic cocktails, injected into a willing public, by companies that CANNOT BE PROSECUTED BY LAW for killing people via their concoctions.
When you remove the consequences, there is nothing left to prevent fraud and deception, by the Pharma Industry.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
Somehow, the flu virus manages to become new every year, even when it does not create enough genetic changes during the flu season to infect the immune or the innoculated. This will be my next area of inquiry.
As I understand from reading it's not that it becomes 'new', but that the vaccines need to be updated to take into account the minor shifts in the virus to keep it as effective as possible. Last year's vaccine may not be completely ineffective against this year's version of the virus, but it won't be as effective as an updated version basically. Also depending on how much the virus has shifted the current version of the vaccine may be 'close enough' to work, but the previous one might not be, leaving the person to take the full brunt of it as though they had no protections at all.
While I believe that vaccination works, I believe also that modern vaccinations are designed specifically to weaken the human immune system, so that EVERYONE gets sicker more often and needs more Pharma drugs and Pharma procedures, more and more as time goes on.
Possible but unlikely I'd say. Pharma execs might have no problem with an idea like that given how incredibly warped they tend to be, but there are any number of people involved in the process who would be willing to expose something like that, that it's not happened so far would seem to argue against the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conundrums
The very first thing that a Vaxxer thinks whenever confronted on this subject, is that their "opponent" is an Anti-Vaxxer, and thus, is a fool, stupid, uninformed and probably a conspiracy nut to boot.
Vaxxers tend to parrot pretty much exactly what the Pharma Industry propaganda claims, and apparently do not do a lot of logical thinking about the "facts" they repeat, because they believe these facts to be scientifically derived and thus personal verification through studious investigation is un-necessary.
The problem of course, is that this double standard makes it nearly impossible for Vaxxers to actually hear or read what their opponent is saying, because the Vaxxer has already decided that anyone who thinks Vaccination is not God's gift to humanity and that the Pharmeco Industry is not composed of only good honest scientists, is a total moron, and like Mister T, ignores anything they say, while claiming a personal victory for having "shot down" another Anti-Vaxxer Idiot in flames.
The reality starts to show up when these "claims" fall under logical scrutiny and begin to unravel.
It might do a world of good, if the Vaxxers were at least smart enough to realize they may NOT have all the answers yet. Because, as can be seen in just this small dialogue, Vaxxers do not have all the answers and can often be as superstitious and stubborn as they claim Anti-Vaxxers are.
One thing that can be said about the two sides in this argument, is that at least the Anti-Vaxxers are basing their dissent on their own experiences and their own investigations and conclusions. On the other hand, Vaxxers are nearly unanimously Pharmarmy Volunteers who repeat the "science" facts of the industry verbatim and act as Pharmaco Industry Brown Shirts, free of charge.
I'd love to see universal immunization, whether it be from vaccination or some other method not yet discovered.
However, because the current vaccination process is intrusive and includes the direct injection of substances into the human blood stream, every aspect of this process should be 100% public, and 150% transparent, to all.
The idea that this process - Universal Immunization - should be patented - kept secret - and thereafter belong to and be controlled by an entity whose ONLY PURPOSE is to make money by any means and who cannot be held accountable for any harm done by their products - even if the product is forcibly injected into an unwilling person by law - is truly one of the most naive and dangerous notions I've seen in decades and I'd personally like to help change that ASAP.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
Ah, the old Conspiracy Cannot Happen Because There Are; "any number of people involved in the process who would be willing to expose something like that."
Sounds good as long as you don't actually analyze the validity of the claim. After all, most employees are reasonably honest people who would naturally expose wrong doing they saw. Right.
With the current state of the Truth Free Press in America - TV, Radio and Newspaper - I think there has probably already been at least half a dozen such exposures of the Pharmaco Industry's crime spree pertaining to vaccinations specifically, that nobody here has ever heard about, unless they found it on the web, and definitely on one of the sites that no Vaxxer would be caught dead visiting. :)
There is also the simple fact that currently, exposing any of the Big Players, is social suicide and puts you in line for a court "contest" with a Multi-Billion Dollar Industry that has been perpetually protected at every turn by the Federal Government.
As can be surmised immediately, very few citizens have gone up against such monstrous opponents and returned from the now standard process of Shooting the Messenger, with anything resembling victory.
In fact, if you wanted to list all of them, it is very likely that you would have to look them up on the web, as they are - with perhaps the exception of Snowden - not exactly well known for their effort.
And even Snowden - arguably the best known of all the exposers of evil doers' machinations - who literally exposed the biggest crime spree in American History, could do nothing more than embarrass the perps slightly and momentarily, as they wrapped themselves in the law and retaliated massively, in search of vengence and in order to make an example so others don't repeat the mistake - a trick the USG members brought with them from their days in the MAFIA, no doubt.
Most Americans still think Snowden is a traitor, because they still believe their government is a government and not a fascist crime cartel.
This statement:
"...but there are any number of people involved in the process who would be willing to expose something like that..."
...should be followed by these statements:
"... but there are any number of people involved in the process, who would be willing to look the other way, for money, promotion, or to keep from losing their job."
...and;
"...but there are any number of people invilved in the process that fear for their lives if they should turncoat on their fellow conspirators."
Considering that most of these big scams include loss of life among the victims, its easy for fellow conspirators to realize their own life is also on the line, should they get caught or blow the whistle.
At least those who "go with flow" do actually get rewarded with cash, higher position, or by keeping their job, and perhaps their life, unlike those who blow the whistle, who have the fullest weight of law dropped on them by people who are backed by billions of dollars, and who are willing to go to any length to make the whistleblower appear to be the bad guy.
I would say that the split would be something like 9,999,999 people on the "flow" side, for every person who has considered becoming a whistle blower.
While whistle blowing might seem heroic to those who will never have to do such a thing, it means the utter end to one's "normal life", forever, and can indeed lead to official incarceration for crimes never committed, if the other perps don't kill you first.
I'm pretty sure the bad guys have this problem pretty well sewn up, but hey, all you Skeptics out there, if you want to retain your membership in the Conspiracy Nutter Hater Club, just ignore all of that.
Oh wait!
You already did!
Silly me. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
What counter argument??
I asked some questions and got a bunch of answers that either chose a single nit to pick on or simply dumped a small turd on the floor. Your own response was completely unreal and completely unexpected.
The Unvaccinated DO NOT produce new strains of the yearly virus in their bodies. Viruses are always changing - its their nature. Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated can be infected by a virus that differs significantly from the strain that their bodies are currently immune to.
I'm certain I'm not the only one who has noted that the part of my post about all those viral mutations in the unvaccinated being the cause of the vaccinated getting the flu they are immune to, not happening in the real world, has been thouroghly and studiously avoided.
However, I posted this particular article because it was the first one not by a government agency or the Pharma industry listed, that I could still copy and paste. The source sites of the other dissenting posts I tried, were no longer available.
I simply wanted to show that there is a "non-nutter" opinion out there that differs from the standard "Poke 'em all and let God sort 'em out" mentality of the Vaxxers, even on a site that a Vaxxer chooses to prove his point.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: heheheheheheheheheherd Immunity!!!
I'm sorry.... what??
What the hell is herd immunity??
You just made that up, right."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=herd+immunity
I'm sorry that basic scientific and medical terminology on the subject at hand is beyond you, but at least you've advertised how much the rest of your wall of text is worth looking at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh look, its all Bozos on this bus! Honk honk.
Nice bit of scientific procedure Paul.
Post TL;DR and then comment that its all shit anyway.
You must have a masters degree in Faith Learning.
And of course my comment remains unanswered, ignored in fact by both posters. As expected. :)
==============================================
I will get back to you on Herd Immunity as soon as I have read your citation, John Fenderson.
==============================================
To reiterate:
How is it that all those unvaccinated people who apparently produce new strains of the yearly flu virus inside their bodies, never actally produce any new strains of the yearly flu virus, and all those who get the flu, who were vaccinated against it, always catch the same yearly flu as everyone else, and NOT some newly minted anti-vaxxer bug.
If this was a serious scientific concept, then there would be millions of new strains every year as the unvaccinated mutated their copy of the yearly flu virus
into a million new unique strains.
Those of you still paying attention to the things that occur in the real world, might have noticed that this does not happen - in the real world. If it did, we would all be dead millenia ago.
If this is the only vector that the Vaxxers have to explain the apparent failure of the yearly vaccinations to prevent the vaccinated from getting the flu from the unvaccinated, its no wonder they just repeat the talking points rather than actually think about what they Believe to be true.
BTW - just so everyone is aware, I fully agree with the process of immunization by vaccination and I Believe that it works when done correctly.
However, I am also aware that today, corporate medical purpose does not include the curing elimination of diseases, because those are the money makers for the industry. To elimninate disease, is corporate suicide when disease is your income source.
Corporations, by their own rules, must alwasy make more money next year than this year ad infinitum, and they are willing to go to almost any lengths to see that desire realized.
I think the medical corporations have taken a successful method of eliminating disease and turned it instead into a better money maker by adultering the vaccination concoctions with things detrimental to health. In this way, they get the vaxxers to buy other drugs to fight the symptoms of the new maladies received from the vaccinations.
Easiest way to make big bux from this is to add shit that simply weakens the human immune system, so that Everyone can catch more diseases during the non-flu seasons and will need more pharma drugs to alleviate the symptoms from the other diseases they are no longer able to combat.
Only alleviate the symptoms because Pharma drugs never cure anything - they merely mask the symptoms, or turn off some body part to stop it from informing the body that something is wrong, like all your cold rememdies.
In fact, the science I know - I am 66 years old so my science facts may indeed be occassionally out of date somewhat - tells me that all a vaccination needs is dead viral bodies to trigger the immune system response.
My awareness of many facts surrounding this debate is weak because I have not caught the flu in over a quarter century so I never really had any inclination to study the process in detail until recently. So I ask questions.
To PaulT, asking questions is a sign of ignorance and weakness no doubt, an admittance that one does not know it all! Cest la vie eh.
What I do know is that Vaccinations today contain all sorts of unnecessaary and detrimental shit, much of it not listed on the single injection doses the customer sees, although it is listed on the package that those single does injectors come from, that the doctor reads.
I think you vaxxers are being royally screwed over annually and that you are pumping serious crap into your and your kids bodies and that its weakening your immune system, and even though most vaxxers act like incredibly arrogant assholes on this topic; in their sad belief that they already have all the answers - even though those answers were handed to them by those making money from the process - I would still not like to see them screwed over by the Pharma Industry just because they are too lazy to investigate and think things through themselves, like Mister T here.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(see Popehat.com)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faith in vaccination
uncertainty of reason - but one cannot have both.
Robert A. Heinlein
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Faith in vaccination
'Robert A. Heinlein'"
Aye. Vaccination today, is indeed a faith-based medicine, since, as I've just shown here, the Vaxxers never actually check out any "facts" offered by the Vaccination Industry's "scientists".
Whatever comes out of the mouth of the Vacc Industry, is to a Vaxxer, Gospel of the highest order, even if it is utterly illogical or even completely errorneous, such as the recent "terror program" the industry has sprerad among mothers, who now fear a single unvaccinated child can infect all their vaccinated children.
Somehow, all the supposedly intelligent Vaxxers accepted this Vaccination Industry spawned myth as gospel; instantly, without reservation, because it was "scientific". They repeated the Industry talking points with complete faith in the source.
This particular program is designed to gain popular support for the creation of laws that will double the Industry's profits over night - laws that will make it legal to arrest and incarcerate Anti-Vaxxers and eventually, allow the Industry to force innoculate the whole nation.
These laws will be based entirely on Vaccination Industry Gospel, unverified by any source other than the Vaccination Industry itself.
Because of Vaxxer indifference, soon it will be; Fuck The Constitution Time. Poke 'em all and let God Sort 'em out.
The Vaxxers never actually try to verify any of their "church's" claims pertaining to viral infection, Anti-Vaxxers or diseases, beyond simply checking the Sacred Industry's PR talking points bible to insure those lies in question are duly recorded therein as officially accepted "science facts", which the Vaxxers can use to browbeat the Anti-Vaxxer Infidels into submission.
When you add commerce to science, you end up with "for profit science", which even the slowest among you should realize, is not going to offer a whole lot of incentive to ending disease on earth, as disease is that industry's bread and butter.
For Profit Medical Science, would for example, never disclose any discovery that might lessen its own annual profitability, or threaten to cause its dissolution, such as; for example, discovering a cure for cancer, or even a discovery that shows cancer to be a simple fungus infection that could be treated using things that kill mushrooms...
...not when the Pharma Industry can earn the better portion of a half million tax-payer dollars per cancer victim before s/he dies within a decade of infection due to a chemo-therapy blasted immune system.
However, when it comes to Mister Heinlein., I prefer:
"One man's religion, is another man's belly laugh."
Robert Heinlein
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]