You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The dangerous growing divide between those who vaccinate and those who don't
You were lucky.
Vaccines were originally invented to fight smallpox, which has since been eradicated.
That wouldn't have been the case if everyone decided simply to let smallpox "be" and not get vaccinated.
Its sad when science takes a back seat to feelings, especially when the person you are deciding for has no say in the prospect of potentially getting ill and suffering because of your decision.
Its very trendy right now to flaunt an anti-science philosophy, but I think that is misguided. However, you could say that this is Nature's way of thinning the population -- where those that refuse to embrace protection from disease will ultimately succumb to it.
Ironic, isn't it.
It's one long diatribe, without substance, if you could stop attacking the person for a change and spouting off common knowledge that has no intrepid place in this conversation begging people to research, it's sad that you missed the point of this whole post, to question everything.
The smallpox narrative aside, did you research to see how much of the population has received the smallpox vaccine and how good the immunity is, and how unlikely it is that vaccination did anything especially considering that during vaccinations numerous epidemics happened in different place where vaccination was mandatory, and it lead to far worse problems than without vaccination. Also smallpox like other disease was in vast decline in incidence of morbidity and mortality prior to vaccinations and graphs show those disease (measles/mumps, smallpox) being hardly affected by vaccines which were introduced when the rates of morbidity and mortality were so negligible that if people were, as they were, injured by the vaccines or the vaccine caused the disease it was made to stop, then it effectively negated any and all benefits. Again natural immunity is far more formidable than the artificial immunity that loses it's effectiveness after a couple years and requires booster shots, which means that at no time could there have been a full immunity to eradicate anything since the population was hardly vaccinated in such intensity. When these efforts were concentrated and manifested such as forced vaccinations, this has led to thinning of the population, like in the Philippines.
Interesting, you say I "attack", but I'm just stating an opinion without name-calling or any kind of emotional bluster.
You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward.
If you don't "believe" vaccines work, that's just fine with me - nature has a way of sorting out who has a good immune system. I don't need to lift a finger.
The paragraph is straightforward, and comprehensible to me. It says everything it needs to. Parsing it shouldn't be difficult to a practiced reader. Did you simply not want to attempt to refute the arguments?
"You've replied with a dense paragraph that is difficult to parse, so I'll wait until you clarify with something a bit less bulky and awkward."
I'm not sure where to put this logical fallacy, is it an appeal to stone, or perhaps an appeal to personal incredulity? Facts are sometimes 'bulky and awkward' to those who do not recognize them as such.
Trying to scare people into believing what you believe by saying 'nature will sort you out' is a transparent appeal to emotion, and appeal to threat.
Walls of text aren't conducive to parsing.
Its a pretty simple request. But seeing how emotionally invested you are, I suppose there's no point in pursuing it.
Believe what you want.
"But seeing how emotionally invested you are" You seem to keep repeating this after every cold, calculated, logical statement that I make.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
I parse walls of text all the time. It's only not conducive to parsing if the knowledge of reason isn't present to do it.
Then, finally, there is the difference between yourself and those who choose reason. You see, I don't 'believe', I think and know by using reason.
You have no way of knowing that or validating that, that's why they aren't lucky, in a post that is begging you to research, you instead tell us that "you were lucky, it was vaccines".
Again, this isn't validated or can be validated, this is another masked attack on the person that wrote the article, and their "luck" and "not so luck".
Another character attack.
I'm pointing out the irony in the opinion of the original poster.
If you think that counter-arguments are "attacks", then I suppose you are too emotionally invested to have a logical conversation about the material.
As to your point about "luck", you can invoke any mystery force you'd like. The point is that survivorship bias is very real, and by only focusing on positive outcomes ignores all the potentially bad ones.
If I've never used a seatbelt while in a car, and never have been harmed, it doesn't mean that I'll never be injured. It means that for those cumulative trips I was lucky that there wasn't an accident.
But again, it seems this whole topic is just a tempest in a teacup, so if you can't see my point -- that's fine. Reality will intrude eventually with or without my input.
You're making character attacks, there is no counter argument in "You're lucky".
There is no point in You're lucky. It's simply stating that it was in spite of their belief they survived. Can you back this up, do you have a way to demonstrate that? No, if it was an argument it's a moot point.
You're comparing seat belt use with mandatory vaccinations. That's a false analogy, because you have yet to demonstrate any efficiency of vaccines and implying it won't change things.
That's a counter argument. You called this person Anti-Science, can you demonstrate that, can you even make it an argument? There's about 3 false narratives going on in here:
What is trendy right now, what is trendy right now is flaunting anti-science philosophy, and refusing to embrace protection. You couldn't demonstrate any of those, period, especially how you come to talk about anti-science philosophy, what it means and why and how it is so. It's one attack after another, I can break it down all, but it's not necessary.
I see the event horizon of the emotionally-fueled black hole has consumed you.
Believe whatever you want.
Character attacks yet again, which you cannot demonstrate.
If you want to insult me do it to my face, you could have as easily bit your tongue and let me be a fool, but instead you're predicting my future and speaking of my person, you don't get to dismiss the numerous character attacks with another jab at my character. Come again.
Hello, my name is Gloria and I am Baah's caretaker this weekend.
I think it's great that my little prince of baahrain has taken an interest in this topic, it's one that should be very close to his heart. It's one he takes VERY personally.
Baah has been injured with autism due to a bad batch of the varicella vaccine and as such struggles with a few things like interacting with other people.
Please remember this when speaking with him, after all he is my rambunctious little fellow.
Awww look a little troll that used to be @queenelenor is tagging along and following me. How cute, .
It is unfortunate when science takes a back seat to dogma. I would encourage you to take a more in depth look at what happened to 'smallpox' and it's supposed eradication. Repeating something often does not make it a fact.
The scientific method is about questioning, not dogma. Calling something anti-science, because you don't believe it, does not make it so.
"Its sad when science takes a back seat to feelings" -talltim
Yeah, I see the irony.
I don't know anyone who has had smallpox.
I don't see reports from independent news media about smallpox outbreaks and the consequences.
I don't see people in a panic, wearing face masks and rubber gloves because they are terrified of contracting smallpox.
I'd say that smallpox is eradicated just by empirical observation alone.
You can believe what you want, it doesn't affect my logic or my critical analysis of flawed arguments.
Also, there's Polio.
I don't see any crippled children from polio in the news, or in iron lungs.
That was also vaccinated to extinction.
But there I go again, citing logical arguments :)
Ok, tell us about Acute Flaccid Paralysis Syndrome. It's not a critical logical argument by a long shot, first iron lungs have long been outdated and replaced with smaller breathing devices, and the polio symptoms are exactly the same for AFPS, which is what it was reclassified as.
The smallpox vaccine didn't eradicate anything, in populations where it was forced vaccinations like the Philippines there was major outbreaks, and people developed other disease because of vaccination. You're spouting off nonsense in a thread begging you to research and calling your vomited "where's polio" strawmen critical logical arguments.
You were lucky is not a critical logical argument.
It's Sad, is not a critical logical argument.
Also there's Polio, I don't see any kids in iron lungs or the news, where's polio, that's not critical, logical or an argument, its nonsense.
I just did a google search for "smallpox cases 2017". The only "hit" that resulted in a direct case was a researcher who accidentally got infected studying it. That was in 1978.
You'd think in this always-connected world of smartphones and internet connections there would be an immediate alarm and flow of news stories if it were on the loose again.
I did the same search for polio, and only turned up a few cases in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in Africa, Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not particularly countries that have effective resources to combat such a disease.
But it seems you're emotionally invested in your position, so I won't bother going forward. I don't have unlimited time at my disposal. Believe what you want, reality has a way of intruding anyway.
'I just did a google search' is the most repeated cop out that I see these days. Scanning the first three results on the first page is not research.
I realize this is a difficult and many faceted subject, but dismissing this information because 'muh google' is not an argument, it's an appeal to google, so is that appeal to popularity, appeal from authority, perhaps genetic fallacy?
What does that prove? That vaccines work? Does that prove that it's efficacious, or that it eradicated the disease?
Have you searched for what I pointed out? That polio was reclassified? There's numerous resources, that are still coming out on this, polio was reclassified, smallpox was eradicated by sanitation and improvements in living conditions, vaccines cause outbreaks of disease and the population was never vaccinated in such a way that vaccines could ever take credit for eliminating it. The same for mumps. Vaccines have caused more disease and death than the supposed things that they were fighting, and this is going on today with mumps still causing more deaths than the disease would. There has never been one safety study done on a specific vaccine, there have been statistical studies but not one study exemplifying why and how the vaccine is safe. There have never been any efficacy studies done on vaccines either. There have been libraries of research on vaccines, guess how many anti-vaccines ever went pro vaccine? There have been numerous virologists and people that were working actively to develop vaccines that had and continue to switch sides. For that matter of fact there have been hundreds of murders of microbiologists since 2001, while data like this still exemplifies why and how vaccines cannot work:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4160575/
It's apt as you're putting up strawmen of my "emotionally invested" self, when this study is "Not for the faint hearted".
It's got nothing to do with believing.
There is much that the blind cannot see.
Polio has not been eradicated. It is unfortunate that you do not know this. It is unfortunate that you are so intransigent to knowledge which you do not have.
Iron lungs have been replaced by other technology.