Er yes
err no.
Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
As apposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist.
wait what? Are you serious IT? Really?
Are you actually implying that evidence based conclusions can only be derived from corporate scientists?
Er yes
err no.
Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
As apposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist.
wait what? Are you serious IT? Really?
Are you actually implying that evidence based conclusions can only be derived from corporate scientists?
Did I use the word "only"? I am saying that it happens, has happened and will happen again. Corporate sponsorship has been a massive issue within the scientific community when studies are conducted on specific issues and sponsored by those who gain from positive (or negative) outcome. I am not saying it "always", or "only" has happened, but it has and honest people admit that.
Er yes
err no.
Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
As apposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist.
wait what? Are you serious IT? Really?
Are you actually implying that evidence based conclusions can only be derived from corporate scientists?
Did I use the word "only"? I am saying that it happens, has happened and will happen again. Corporate sponsorship has been a massive issue within the scientific community when studies are conducted on specific issues and sponsored by those who gain from positive (or negative) outcome. I am not saying it "always", or "only" has happened, but it has and honest people admit that.
Sorry did you just imply I was dishonest?
You said 'As opposed' and offered a single statement "As opposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist."
Evidence based thinking isn't talking single studies and running with them as truth. Of course you can get get 'corporatised' studies. I know that. I think we all know that. Big Tobacco and Big Oil have been doing it for years. If you are asserting that my opinions are based on them , then, I'd be interested to know how you reach that conclusion?
Evidence based thinking is basing opinion on numerous peer-reviewed studies.
In particular, what of these topics (vaccinations, chemtrails, fluoride poisoning conspiracy, deadly wi-fi signals in schools) do you think I got my opinion based on corporatised studies?
This is quite a remarkable thread. So much genuine discussion, and so much bullsh*t as well.
I didn’t have much to offer, as I’m not a 'sciencey ’ sort of guy. But my girlfriend is a nurse and is currently doing a vaccination course. I made her read the entire thread for research. Her thoughts :
I do have one (probably stupid) question though. If my kids are vaccinated, and I send them to school with kids who aren't, why is that an issue? Aren't my kids vaccinated and therefore protected anyway?
Most of the problem is that even though your kids are immune, they can still be carriers (at least in the time window until their vaccine-boosted immune system kicks in and knocks off the bug). So they can carry the diseases from their unvaccinated schoolmates and transmit them on to any immune-suppressed or too-young-to-vaccinate relatives or passers-by they might encounter, even though your kids - thanks to their vaccinations - might not ever suffer so much as a sniffle from the disease they're carrying.
And of course some people are just medically unable to be vaccinated (allergies) or have been vaccinated but are currently immune-compromised (people undergoing chemo) and if your kids are unfortunate enough to be one of these people, then going to school with unvaccinated types is a big risk.
I do have one (probably stupid) question though. If my kids are vaccinated, and I send them to school with kids who aren't, why is that an issue? Aren't my kids vaccinated and therefore protected anyway?
Most of the problem is that even though your kids are immune, they can still be carriers (at least in the time window until their vaccine-boosted immune system kicks in and knocks off the bug). So they can carry the diseases from their unvaccinated schoolmates and transmit them on to any immune-suppressed or too-young-to-vaccinate relatives or passers-by they might encounter, even though your kids - thanks to their vaccinations - might not ever suffer so much as a sniffle from the disease they're carrying.
And of course some people are just medically unable to be vaccinated (allergies) or have been vaccinated but are currently immune-compromised (people undergoing chemo) and if your kids are unfortunate enough to be one of these people, then going to school with unvaccinated types is a big risk.
I do have one (probably stupid) question though. If my kids are vaccinated, and I send them to school with kids who aren't, why is that an issue? Aren't my kids vaccinated and therefore protected anyway?
Most of the problem is that even though your kids are immune, they can still be carriers (at least in the time window until their vaccine-boosted immune system kicks in and knocks off the bug). So they can carry the diseases from their unvaccinated schoolmates and transmit them on to any immune-suppressed or too-young-to-vaccinate relatives or passers-by they might encounter, even though your kids - thanks to their vaccinations - might not ever suffer so much as a sniffle from the disease they're carrying.
And of course some people are just medically unable to be vaccinated (allergies) or have been vaccinated but are currently immune-compromised (people undergoing chemo) and if your kids are unfortunate enough to be one of these people, then going to school with unvaccinated types is a big risk.
Ah, of course. Cheers HM, good answer.
And some people just don't respond to the vaccine/require a few attempts to establish immunity.
And not all vaccines are to completely prevent an illness, some just reduce the severity/time course of the illness thus meaning these people are still susceptible and therefor their exposure risk is greatest when exposed to a child with the illness that isn't vaccinated compared to one who is.
Sorry did you just imply I was dishonest?
Oy Vey
I think you have been sparring with VD too much today and you are taking everything personally. Chill dude, wasn't calling you anything.
Thread has gone full autistic
Wow so much non-scientific and non-evidence based thinking right there. It's truly incredible.
As apposed to the scientific and evidence based thinking that changes it's mind depending on the latest readings brought to you by your favourite corporation sponsored scientist.
Strong competition for worst post of thread.
I reckon Hitler still has it pipped, though.
I think it’s one thing to believe that vaccines might be having unpleasant side effects. I think it’s on another level altogether to allege that they don’t even do what is claimed. Seriously.
Sorry did you just imply I was dishonest?
Oy Vey
I think you have been sparring with VD too much today and you are taking everything personally. Chill dude, wasn't calling you anything.
was just a question , was a odd thing to write so wanted to clarify.. thanks for answering .
I’ve been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
Why is this issue being discussed. Vaccination has eliminated so many diseases in this country. Go back 60 years and every eight child had polio. Now thanks to Sabin it is non existent in this country. Rubella, whooping cough, tB... the list goes on.
I am firmly of the belief that if you do not have your children vaccinated, you forfeit your children's right to attend school or have contact with other children.
I don't care what your religion is; I don't care what books you read. For your children to have a right to an education, you, as a parent have an obligation to have your children immunised.
I do not feel it necessary explain why. It is self explanatory.
I don't get the not go to school bit. If you are immunised against say TB and someone has TB only those who are NOT vaccinated need worry and if a child does get it because their parents didn't vaccinate their child it's as harsh a punishment as it gets.
chemtrails, autism from vaccines, fluoride in the water. i just won conspiracy theory bingo.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
I just don't get the 'I'm not gonna vaccinate my kids line' at all. What happens when your kid steps on a rusty nail, do they bother to have a tetanus shot then or wait until the kid gets lock-jaw?
Cmon man every knows tetanus vaccinations are part of a satanic plot to form a one world govt.
I completely understand what you are saying but I'm yet hear a reason why right to chose medication is justified or, even currently practised ubiquitously, where that freedom is at the cost of the health of others. I find the right to not be infected by a disease based on the choices of others to be of higher value than the right to refuse medication that will prevent you passing diseases on to others.I've been misrepresented by three people in this thread. Just to make myself perfectly clear, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I am pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated, as are my kids, and I have no doubts regarding the benefits of vaccination. My wife works as a researcher in therapeutic drug delivery, and is at the forefront of the science. She is adamant of the benefits, so that is good enough for me. No, she has not been got at by some corporation or government interested in a hidden agenda.
What I disagree with, which I would have thought was a perfectly reasonable position to take, is mandatory immunization. People have a right to choose whether or not they are to be medicated, even if the benefits are as obvious as modern immunization practices. To force an injecting regime on the population is the stuff of an extreme left or right tyrannical government in my opinion. To me, proposing mandatory vaccination is more extreme than any anti-vaccination position.*
* No, I am not supporting anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists you numpty.
Why protect the right of people not to have a vaccine enter their system over the right not to have a preventable disease enter your system?
