Vax on? Vax off?

Personally, I'm convinced that vaccinations are no good. And they DEFINITELY shouldn't be mandatory. That is a clear violation of human rights.

 

 

Welcome back, vinnie!

 

the only reason you're still alive is quite likely due to childhood vaccinations.  hopefully that's not why you think they're no good, lol.   :D

I found this Australian documentary very informative and I believe it will refute your assertion Saladin my old mate. I really hope people take the time to watch it right through. There are some very startling FACTS in this presentation.:-

 

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U[/youtube]

90 minutes?

 

What are you nuts?

90 minutes?

 

What are you nuts?

randle_patrick_mcmurphy_picture.jpg

VD sucks though

I caught Chicken Pox when I was 27.

 

Let me assure you it wasn't pleasant.

Got the Pox at 20. Knocked me around like nothing I've ever had before or since. 

 

Wish I'd been taken to a Pox Party as a kid. 

I found this Australian documentary very informative and I believe it will refute your assertion Saladin my old mate. I really hope people take the time to watch it right through. There are some very startling FACTS in this presentation.:-

 

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U[/youtube]

VD - I like your contributions, and I'm glad you're back.

 

Having said that, here's the thing about conspiracy theories.

 

The fact that something exists on the internet to support your theory does not mean that your theory has any credence. Far from it.

 

There's people on the internet, with qualifications, who write credible looking articles in the year 20 and farking 14 stating that the earth is flat and the holocaust never happened and that Kennedy was actually an alien from a distant planet who was about to be exposed.

 

Nobody in this thread is a scientist or a doctor (I'm assuming). Therefore NONE of us come from a background where we have any specific knowledge on the subject. Consequently, the only thing we can do to inform ourselves is read the work and the views of others. The ONLY rational thing that a person can do in this circumstance is adopt the view of the vast majority of experts, as none of us have any specific knowledge that would refute that view.

 

The view of the overwhelming majority of medical experts, of course, is that there is no proof, NONE, that vaccines cause autism or any other learning difficulties.

 

If you wish to disagree with this view, then go to medical school, become an expert, and write a paper from a position of knowledge. Don't just regurgitate the (discredited) views of a tiny minority and call it 'proof'. 

 

Or - watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

I am actually a scientist! Although I don’t work in the vaccine field… (although I could potentially do a PhD. in that field, the uni I’m at does research into vaccines and I was the star microbiology student in my course)

I am actually a scientist! Although I don't work in the vaccine field...... (although I could potentially do a PhD. in that field, the uni I'm at does research into vaccines and I was the star microbiology student in my course)

more like micro anatomy

 

I found this Australian documentary very informative and I believe it will refute your assertion Saladin my old mate. I really hope people take the time to watch it right through. There are some very startling FACTS in this presentation.:-

 

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U[/youtube]

VD - I like your contributions, and I'm glad you're back.

 

Having said that, here's the thing about conspiracy theories.

 

The fact that something exists on the internet to support your theory does not mean that your theory has any credence. Far from it.

 

There's people on the internet, with qualifications, who write credible looking articles in the year 20 and farking 14 stating that the earth is flat and the holocaust never happened and that Kennedy was actually an alien from a distant planet who was about to be exposed.

 

Nobody in this thread is a scientist or a doctor (I'm assuming). Therefore NONE of us come from a background where we have any specific knowledge on the subject. Consequently, the only thing we can do to inform ourselves is read the work and the views of others. The ONLY rational thing that a person can do in this circumstance is adopt the view of the vast majority of experts, as none of us have any specific knowledge that would refute that view.

 

The view of the overwhelming majority of medical experts, of course, is that there is no proof, NONE, that vaccines cause autism or any other learning difficulties.

 

If you wish to disagree with this view, then go to medical school, become an expert, and write a paper from a position of knowledge. Don't just regurgitate the (discredited) views of a tiny minority and call it 'proof'. 

 

Or - watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

 

Apart from silly generalisations and straw man examples (shown in red), which are ALWAYS a sure sign that someone is resorting to cheap tricks to make their point, here is the weakness with your method of assessing things:-

 

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” 
― Mark Twain

 

“Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.” 
― Leo Tolstoy

 

“I don't imagine you will dispute the fact that at present the stupid people are in an absolutely overwhelming majority all the world over.” 
― Henrik Ibsen

 

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” 
― Bertrand Russell

 

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.” 
― Michael Crichton

 

“In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.” 
― Mahatma Gandhi

 

“Of course, the aim of a constitutional democracy is to safeguard the rights of the minority and avoid the tyranny of the majority.” 
― Cornel West

 

There's a million more but I think you get the point.

 

Oh, and to put that 90 second Penn & Teller rubbish up against a 90 minute intelligent presentation is, well, frankly insulting. It's clear you'll just go along with the mob. And, mate, if that's your bent, that's fine go right ahead. But, PLEASE, don't try and drag me along. I'll stay with those who oppose. Thanks.

 

Oh, PS if you wish to disagree with the view that the Catholic Church has the right to preach to you and tell you what to do (they are the majority remember) then go to priest school and become ordained into the priesthood. Otherwise you're not entitled to have a view. Get it?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Understand what you're trying to say VD, and I agree with your viewpoints about the tyranny of the majority (very much so!) but I think you've missed the point of my post mate.

 

1. I wasn't using straw man arguments (I.e, if you believe a, you must believe b,c and d). I was using them as examples of batshit crazy theories for which you can find credible looking evidence online.

 

2. I'm not saying that majority rules, or that I blindly follow the mob, or that there's no room for dissenting opinions in any circumstance.

 

Here's what I am saying. If you want to take a contrary view on a matter of policy, or politics, or social issues, or even historical issues, then go crazy, that's totally fine. What's not logical, IMO, is taking a dissenting opinion on a matter of science when you have no special qualifications that would allow you to substantiate that opinion. I have no farking idea whether or not vaccinations cause autism. None. I'm not a doctor or a specialist. But if the vast vast vast vast majority of educated specialists on the subject tell me it doesn't, and I have no qualifications or special understanding to indicate that they are wrong, then I have no logical choice but to believe them.

 

I'm not saying you can't take the contrary view. Of course you can. Its just not logical to do so.

 

And the Penn and Teller video was clearly supposed to be humorous, it wasn't intended as a rebuttal to your video. If I wanted to post a rebuttal to your video, I could have referred to any of the comprehensive, peer reviewed, credible material produced by the overwhelming, 99.9% majority of doctors who say there is no evidence to support your theory.

 

I agree with those experts because there's no logical reason not to. If you want to agree with Jenny McCarthy and the other tin foil hat wearers then that's totally cool, and is your right. Just don't pretend that its logical or enlightened.

Understand what you're trying to say VD, and I agree with your viewpoints about the tyranny of the majority (very much so!) but I think you've missed the point of my post mate.

 

1. I wasn't using straw man arguments (I.e, if you believe a, you must believe b,c and d). I was using them as examples of batshit crazy theories for which you can find credible looking evidence online.

 

2. I'm not saying that majority rules, or that I blindly follow the mob, or that there's no room for dissenting opinions in any circumstance.

 

Here's what I am saying. If you want to take a contrary view on a matter of policy, or politics, or social issues, or even historical issues, then go crazy, that's totally fine. What's not logical, IMO, is taking a dissenting opinion on a matter of science when you have no special qualifications that would allow you to substantiate that opinion. I have no farking idea whether or not vaccinations cause autism. None. I'm not a doctor or a specialist. But if the vast vast vast vast majority of educated specialists on the subject tell me it doesn't, and I have no qualifications or special understanding to indicate that they are wrong, then I have no logical choice but to believe them.

 

I'm not saying you can't take the contrary view. Of course you can. Its just not logical to do so.

 

And the Penn and Teller video was clearly supposed to be humorous, it wasn't intended as a rebuttal to your video. If I wanted to post a rebuttal to your video, I could have referred to any of the comprehensive, peer reviewed, credible material produced by the overwhelming, 99.9% majority of doctors who say there is no evidence to support your theory.

 

I agree with those experts because there's no logical reason not to. If you want to agree with Jenny McCarthy and the other tin foil hat wearers then that's totally cool, and is your right. Just don't pretend that its logical or enlightened.

Actually, your understanding of a straw man argument is not quite correct. I think wiki has it pretty straight. Here:-

 

"A common type of argument.... based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical 'attacking a straw man' argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition.... and then to refute or defeat that false argument ....instead of the original proposition. This technique has been used throughout history.... particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining 'battle' and the defeat of an 'enemy' may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."

 

That is precisely what you did by bringing the flat earth believers, the holocaust deniers and the JFK was an Alien theory into a discussion about vaccination - more importantly a discussion about mandatory vaccination. And I guess you're not even aware of your use of that cheap trick because you even went and did it again in your latest response when you intimated my view puts me in the same camp as other tin foil hat wearers.

 

So by lumping vaccination opponents with all of the above, you are in fact using the straw man technique. The ploy is for people to dismiss your opponent's proposition by covertly including it with other propositions that readers would readily dismiss.

 

Anyway, putting your straw men to one side, I am going to shock you by saying that your logic of accepting the experts' views on a matter when you do not have the prerequisite qualifications yourself to make an assessment of something, in a perfect world would actually be completely sound. Regrettably, In the imperfect world in which we live it is flawed. Because the world in which we live is such that we cannot trust the experts. 

 

This is something I know about. So you see, my friend, our own personal different world views see us having differing opinions on this matter. You are comfortable trusting what the "authorities" and "experts" state on this matter. I am not. Because I do not trust the people running the world. It's that simple. I'm not insane. I don't wear a tin foil hat. I'm informed. My reasons for not trusting our "owners" is based on countless hours of research and educating myself.

 

So, would I trust the vaccines these crooks peddle? No. Do I think they should be mandatory!? Hell, to forcibly inject a human being with a substance against their will is an absolute crime against natural law.

Surely you don't need evidence to see that diseases such as polio, which once ran rampant, are now under control due to vaccination? 

Watch the video.

I found this Australian documentary very informative and I believe it will refute your assertion Saladin my old mate. I really hope people take the time to watch it right through. There are some very startling FACTS in this presentation.:-

 

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U[/youtube]

Mate, the first named "expert" is a Homeopath. Surely you can see the conflict of interest just in that one person's interview? I can only get 10 minutes into this thing. It's an amazing assault on the intelligence of the average person.

And why does everything have to be a conspiracy? If everything from government and the corporate world is a result of conspiracies, then isn't the meaning of the word diluted to such an extent that it is meaningless?

I believe adults should be able to do what they like with their own bodies, I struggle when adults put children at risk because of their beliefs.  Its not just about vaccinations, its about letting them swim at an un-patrolled beach, its about not allowing sick children to have blood transfusions, its about having your children (male and female) circumcised for non medical reasons, putting them in cars without seat belts, leaving them at home either on their own or with with a 15 year old babysitter (who is still a child themselves.)

I do think you have some right to make decisions about your own children however parents need to realise that they don't OWN their children, children are not property to be done with as you choose. They have their own rights. That's why I do like the fact that the courts have shown a willingness to get involved in children's rights when such medical cases have come before them.

Adults can do what they like, but children in a first world country such as ours are deserving of protection and have a right to be protected from the fringe beliefs of some of their parents.

I also think that children who can't be immunised should have protection too.

 

I found this Australian documentary very informative and I believe it will refute your assertion Saladin my old mate. I really hope people take the time to watch it right through. There are some very startling FACTS in this presentation.:-

 

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U[/youtube]

Mate, the first named "expert" is a Homeopath. Surely you can see the conflict of interest just in that one person's interview? I can only get 10 minutes into this thing. It's an amazing assault on the intelligence of the average person.

 

That's funny because someone who watches only 10 minutes of a 90 minute discussion is an amazing insult to my intelligence too. 

 

 

I found this Australian documentary very informative and I believe it will refute your assertion Saladin my old mate. I really hope people take the time to watch it right through. There are some very startling FACTS in this presentation.:-

 

 

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsT5EoIk8U[/youtube]

Mate, the first named "expert" is a Homeopath. Surely you can see the conflict of interest just in that one person's interview? I can only get 10 minutes into this thing. It's an amazing assault on the intelligence of the average person.

 

That's funny because someone who watches only 10 minutes of a 90 minute discussion is an amazing insult to my intelligence too. 

 

only if they were wrong to stop watching, otherwise it was a fair description of your intelligence.

I have a description of your intelligence.