PDA

View Full Version : Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day




DamianTV
11-19-2013, 02:18 PM
http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/

Another Vaccine Tragedy.

Zippyjuan
11-19-2013, 02:47 PM
Some facts included in the story.


Stacy and Lesly were born one month premature by Caesarean section and spent the next four days in an incubator. Stacy needed resuscitation at birth. Following medical advice parents Sirjacobs and Dupont decided to have the twins vaccinated. Stacy was slightly unwell with a cold on the day of her vaccinations but doctors assured her parents that it was safe to give her the vaccinations.

(It is worth noting that there is a history of Sudden Infant Death and allergies in the family. The twins were being prescribed a milk supplement due to a milk allergy at the time Stacy became ill)

Was it her existing illness or the vaccines which caused death? If the vaccines caused death, why didn't both twins die? They both got the same shots. No report of the other one even getting sick.

Yes, it is still a sad story.

angelatc
11-19-2013, 04:06 PM
Some facts included in the story.



Was it her existing illness or the vaccines which caused death? If the vaccines caused death, why didn't both twins die? They both got the same shots. No report of the other one even getting sick.

Yes, it is still a sad story.

Funny how websites with the word "Truth" in them are usually just the opposite. The link posted is from VaccineTruth, where fortunes are made spreading lies while trying to make children sick.


Wow - talk about a deceptive headline! What kind of a horrible person do you have to be to playing loose with the facts to promote an agenda designed to kill mlliions of children.

The baby didn't even begin to get sick until a week after she got her vaccines, and the entire medical profession has denied the vaccines played any role at all.


Vaccines aren't a tragedy. People still clinging to the notion that they're somehow bad for humanity is the real tragedy. Too bad there's not a cure for willful ignorance.

Even if it was some extremely rare combination of vaccines and all her medical problems, it is still ludicrous to assert that in general, vaccines cause more problems that they solve. The best we can hope from situations like this is that science gains a better understanding of the genetic exceptions that make all of us slightly different.

We'd all like to see no children die, but 1 death compared to thousands every year...nobody sane picks the latter as the preferable solution.

Funny how these people insist that big pharma has a secret cure for cancer that they won't ever release at the same time insisting that the drugs that prevent dieases are actually ineffective or designed to kill people. Which explains their hysterical aversion to the cervical cancer vaccine, i guess.

Zippyjuan
11-19-2013, 04:19 PM
Actually the baby was sick BEFORE she got her vaccines.


Stacy was slightly unwell with a cold on the day of her vaccinations

angelatc
11-19-2013, 04:29 PM
Actually the baby was sick BEFORE she got her vaccines.


A week after her vaccinations Stacy became unwell with a fever of 39.9 degrees C. Her parents decided to administer Perdolan to lower her fever. As their daughter was still very poorly they called the hospital who advised them to bring their daughter in.
The medical staff diagnosed Stacy with a slight chest infection and infection in her blood and told her parents not to worry as this was “not serious”. Stacy was then given medication and put on a drip feed and kept in for observation.
- See more at:


According to that source, all childhood death is vaccine related. Seriously - why are't they insisting that Perdolan caused the babies death? Oh, because the name of the site isn't "PerdolanTruth."

This is how con men work though - they don't need everybody to believe their bullshit because just 2% of the population is a huge number to feed off of.

acptulsa
11-19-2013, 05:34 PM
A part of the story Zippy didn't put in bold:


...but doctors assured her parents that it was safe to give her the vaccinations.

Zippyjuan
11-19-2013, 05:56 PM
Can you show that it was untrue? Two twins both given the same vaccines at the same time. One was already ill and unfortunately died. The other got the same vaccines, wasn't already ill and didn't die or even get sick. Obviously vaccines didn't harm her sister. Same shots- same dose, same day. Same DNA. This seems to indicate it was the illness (which was the only difference between the two children)- not the vaccines which both got- which caused the tragic death.

In experiments, you don't get a better control than twins getting the same treatment at the same time. If the outcome is different between the two twins you must look at what was different between the two and that was not the vaccinations. If the vaccines caused the harm, both girls should have been harmed.

James Madison
11-19-2013, 06:08 PM
A part of the story Zippy didn't put in bold:

You first have to demonstrate how the vaccine was responsible for the child's death.

acptulsa
11-19-2013, 08:27 PM
You first have to demonstrate how the vaccine was responsible for the child's death.

Yeah, because a child dying because he's 'slightly unwell' from a common cold is perfectly normal. Happens every time.

Ender
11-19-2013, 08:32 PM
Can you show that it was untrue? Two twins both given the same vaccines at the same time. One was already ill and unfortunately died. The other got the same vaccines, wasn't already ill and didn't die or even get sick. Obviously vaccines didn't harm her sister. Same shots- same dose, same day. Same DNA. This seems to indicate it was the illness (which was the only difference between the two children)- not the vaccines which both got- which caused the tragic death.

In experiments, you don't get a better control than twins getting the same treatment at the same time. If the outcome is different between the two twins you must look at what was different between the two and that was not the vaccinations. If the vaccines caused the harm, both girls should have been harmed.

Wrong.

They may be twins but they are not conjoined. We are all different- especially after leaving the womb and it is entirely possible that one twin was born healthier and able to withstand a vaccination while the other could not.

I have seen too many deaths or handicaps come from vaccines to be anything but jaded about the belief in them. I have seen children die, go stone deaf, etc. etc. etc.

I will NEVER vaccinate any children of mine.

eduardo89
11-19-2013, 08:33 PM
Yeah, because a child dying because he's 'slightly unwell' from a common cold is perfectly normal. Happens every time.

The child had other problems apart from the just the cold, but a common cold in a newborn can be very dangerous:


If your baby is younger than 2 to 3 months of age, call the doctor early in the illness. For newborns, a common cold can quickly develop into croup, pneumonia or another serious illness. Even without such complications, a stuffy nose can make it difficult for your baby to nurse or drink from a bottle. This can lead to dehydration. As your baby gets older, your doctor can guide you on when your baby needs to be seen by a doctor and when you can treat his or her cold at home.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/common-cold-in-babies/ds01106/method=print&flushcache=0&updateapp=false

The baby was born a month premature, had a milk allergy, and had the cold. Who knows what other illnesses/allergies she might have had.


It's a very sad case, and disgusting that the anti-vaccine crowd is using it as a political tool to further their agenda.

amy31416
11-19-2013, 08:39 PM
In the case of sick/weak preemies, I do think it'd be wiser to hold off on vaccinations until later unless there's an immediate threat.

CaseyJones
11-19-2013, 09:11 PM
are 9 vaccinations on one day common? that seems like a bad idea

eduardo89
11-19-2013, 09:20 PM
are 9 vaccinations on one day common? that seems like a bad idea

There's no evidence that it has any adverse effects. The babies actually only received 3 vaccines, the Infanrix Hexa protects against 6 different illnesses.

ClydeCoulter
11-19-2013, 09:24 PM
The child had other problems apart from the just the cold, but a common cold in a newborn can be very dangerous:



The baby was born a month premature, had a milk allergy, and had the cold. Who knows what other illnesses/allergies she might have had.


It's a very sad case, and disgusting that the anti-vaccine crowd is using it as a political tool to further their agenda.

It's a sad case that they vaccinated a baby in that condition. The only ones affected now are still alive, and can bitch, argue, complain and obfuscate.

acptulsa
11-19-2013, 09:29 PM
The baby was born a month premature, had a milk allergy, and had the cold. Who knows what other illnesses/allergies she might.

Yeah, because it's always safe to assume one twin was premature and the other one wasn't. Happens all the time.

And as for the terrible deadliness of the common cold, don't tell me. Tell the doctor. He or she is the one who poo-pooed the parents' concerns and reassured them that the child could fight that off and semi-inactive strains of three quarters of a dozen other, deadlier viruses too.

And, no, I don't want to see you and Zippy trying to deny that they're only semi-inactive. If innoculations were completely inactive, they would do nothing at all. And then what would be the point? Of course they tie up the efforts of the immune system. That's how they freaking work. Did no one teach this arrogant doctor this?

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: A doctor's way of not saying I'm sorry.

TER
11-19-2013, 10:22 PM
Babies get viral-like 'cold' illnesses and then die suddenly and rapidly all of the time, usually from sepsis. This one happened to occur soon after the child received the vaccines (which does not cause such grave disease in many millions of other children who do get it). We cannot automatically assume causation to be from the vaccines. Not to say that vaccines have not killed children before, but rather this complete slant to the story may in fact be misleading. -my two cents

James Madison
11-19-2013, 11:06 PM
Yeah, because a child dying because he's 'slightly unwell' from a common cold is perfectly normal. Happens every time.

The adaptive immune system is undeveloped in children until around 6 months of age. In this case, T-cells are essential in clearing an infection; even a 'common cold' can be life-threatening for infants.

eduardo89
11-19-2013, 11:15 PM
Babies get viral-like 'cold' illnesses and then die suddenly and rapidly all of the time, usually from sepsis. This one happened to occur soon after the child received the vaccines (which does not cause such grave disease in many millions of other children who do get it). We cannot automatically assume causation to be from the vaccines. Not to say that vaccines have not killed children before, but rather this complete slant to the story may in fact be misleading. -my two cents

I'll take a doctor's opinion in this case. Thank you TER.

ClydeCoulter
11-19-2013, 11:28 PM
Do some people really think that vaccines don't stress a baby's body? And if a baby is already under stress that adding more stress is okay?

eduardo89
11-19-2013, 11:31 PM
Do some people really think that vaccines don't stress a baby's body? And if a baby is already under stress that adding more stress is okay?

There is no evidence of that.

ClydeCoulter
11-19-2013, 11:33 PM
You know what I think. That this world is one odd place.

Those that should die, live. And those that might live, die. Because man thinks he can plan. He helps the chicken from the egg.

He tries to plan the economy, and what you should and shouldn't do.

So, we keep the weak alive, and pay them to live, then bitch about it.

Instead of natural causes, it's man causes. Who lives and who dies is from a different nature, the nature of man.

TER
11-19-2013, 11:48 PM
Do some people really think that vaccines don't stress a baby's body? And if a baby is already under stress that adding more stress is okay?

They stress the body to a certain degree (hopefully a tested and proven small enough degree) in order to have the immune system respond and develop a resistance and immunity in the event a more virulent or larger dose is introduced into the organism sometime in the future. The idea is to prime the immune system so that it would less likely be overwhelmed in a natural contraction of the disease.

It is a risky thing to do statistically speaking (especially when you are talking about the human organisms and the often unpredictable and unique reactions it can have after being introduced to such antigens). There will always be the cases in which an unintended effect is obtained and more harm then good is done. This is the imperfection in medicine. The goal is to develop treatments which cause the most amount of good with only extremely rare occurrences of adverse, life-threatening reactions.

That being said, the science of immunology has greatly expanded mankind's armament against the various deadly and corrupting natural occurring pathogens which surround us. To benefit mankind and civilization as a whole, it must be armaments which are vigorously and honestly scientifically investigated, carefully and wisely offered, and voluntarily and knowledgably consented to by the patient or the parent.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 09:46 AM
TER - would you have given this infant the immunizations?

There seems to be info to suggest that ALL vaccines can wait until later years. Do you think waiting or giving single doses over time is prudent?

TER
11-20-2013, 10:11 AM
TER - would you have given this infant the immunizations?

There seems to be info to suggest that ALL vaccines can wait until later years. Do you think waiting or giving single doses over time is prudent?

It honestly has been years since I have ordered immunization shots for children so I don't know off hand what the current recommended regimine/dosing schedule is and whether this particular child was in a higher risk group or had any contraindications. With regards to my own children, I have followed the dosing schedule followed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. I do however refuse my children to get the yearly flu shot which is mandated by the state for all school children.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 10:21 AM
It honestly has been years since I have ordered immunization shots for children so I don't know off hand what the current recommended regimine/dosing schedule is and whether this particular child was in a higher risk group or had any contraindications. With regards to my own children, I have followed the dosing schedule followed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. I do however refuse my children to get the yearly flu shot which is mandated by the state for all school children.Given the possibility of sepsis from a "cold", in this case, would you have given this pre-term infant the shots?

thoughtomator
11-20-2013, 10:24 AM
I recently worked on a pediatrician's website, and the list of shots they give children is absolutely insane. They're loading up everything they can possibly justify.

It stands to reason that, given the newborn's frail health and the known toxic agents in vaccines, giving the newborn these shots was staggeringly irresponsible at best.

TER
11-20-2013, 10:28 AM
Given the possibility of sepsis from a "cold", in this case, would you have given this pre-term infant the shots?

What I meant to say earlier (I could have better explained it), it that often times, especially in young infants, what looks like a 'cold' or viral like syndrome is often an occult bacterial infection which can quickly lead to overwheming sepsis and multi-organ failure.

I don't know much about the specifics in the instance with this poor child, but if the child had a fever on the day of the visit, I would not have given them any immunizations shots. I believe most physicians practice this way but I am not sure.

TER
11-20-2013, 10:35 AM
Louise, this links (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm) to the CDC which lists certain contraindications in administering certain vaccines. All of them have as a precaution moderate to severe concomitant illness. In other words, a child with a fever and is sickly should not recieve a vaccine. Children who have a slight fever and do not appear ill can get one after consideration. The pediatricians who I do know do not administer any vaccines if the child has even a slight fever or looks like they are having an active infection.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 10:36 AM
What I meant to say earlier (I could have better explained it), it that often times, especially in young infants, what looks like a 'cold' or viral like syndrome is often an occult bacterial infection which can quickly lead to overwheming sepsis and multi-organ failure.

I don't know much about the specifics in the instance with this poor child, but if the child had a fever on the day of the visit, I would not have given them any immunizations shots. I believe most physicians practice this way but I am not sure.Okay, thank you for the clarification. I have even greater esteem for you with this answer, TER. I know our doctor would have waited as well.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 10:38 AM
Loiuse, this links (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm) to the CDC which lists certain contraindications in administering certain vaccines. All of them have as a strict contraindication moderate to severe concomitant illness. In other words, a child with a fever and is sickly should not recieve a vaccine. Children who have a slight fever and do not appear ill can get one after consideration. I know the pediatrics who I know do not administer any vaccines if the child has even a slight fever or looks like they are having an active infection.Thank you for this link. I will pass it on.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 10:49 AM
Do some people really think that vaccines don't stress a baby's body? And if a baby is already under stress that adding more stress is okay?

Please see posts by TER. I am grateful that he shed some much needed truth here.

donnay
11-20-2013, 10:54 AM
On a newborn baby there are many things that are underdeveloped, the brain for starters. Giving the child a vaccine immediately lowers the immune system. Many of the ingredients in these toxic vaccines cross the blood brain barrier. To give a child a regiment that they schedule is insane and the doctor should be charge with negligence in this case.

TER
11-20-2013, 11:00 AM
On a newborn baby there are many things that are underdeveloped, the brain for starters. Giving the child a vaccine immediately lowers the immune system. Many of the ingredients in these toxic vaccines cross the blood brain barrier. To give a child a regiment that they schedule is insane and the doctor should be charge with negligence in this case.

donnay, in general, contracting measles, mumps or rubella is much worse then any vaccine mediated effect is to an infant. There are risks and benefits to everything.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 12:28 PM
On a newborn baby there are many things that are underdeveloped, the brain for starters. Giving the child a vaccine immediately lowers the immune system. Many of the ingredients in these toxic vaccines cross the blood brain barrier.

Except that's not true. For example, the type of mercury found in vaccines is not the kind that has been shown to be an issue. The type that has been shown to cause problems is called Methyl mercury. This is NOT the type of mercury in vaccines which is called Ethyl mercury. Ethyl mercury in vaccines is a larger molecule that cannot cross the blood-brain barrier to enter the brain.


Mercury Again Ruled Out as Autism Cause
Previous studies have shown that the form of mercury, called ethylmercury, sometimes used in vaccines, cannot cross the blood-brain barrier. The form of mercury that has been linked to nervous system problems, called methymercury, can enter the brain from the blood.
http://www.livescience.com/18510-mercury-autism-linked.html



Next you're surely going to say that the BBB isn't developed in babies, that's also not true:

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) was studied in 76 neonates of different gestation age in health and disease by means of detecting specific alpha-1-globulin in blood serum with the aid of ELISA. It has been established that by week 28 of the intrauterine development the process of the structural and functional establishment of the BBB had been over as evidenced by the lack of specific alpha-1-globulin in umbilical blood of the neonates of the given gestation age. Severe chronic intrauterine hypoxia combined with acute hypoxia resulted in brain damage and BBB opening for antigen penetration in the direction brain-blood. The measurement of the concentration of alpha-1-globulin in the course of observing the neonates made it possible to predict the degree of the CNS damage.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2471140

donnay
11-20-2013, 12:52 PM
According to Dr. Palevsky:


"I think that if you ask most of my colleagues where they get their information, they will say that they read it from the American Academy of Pediatrics, from the AMA, from the CDC, and in their journals. But I would like to challenge most of my colleagues to look through the studies themselves to actually see if the proper scientific studies were done using a proper study group and a proper control group.
•Were the ingredients in vaccines properly studied?
•Is there a difference between being exposed to a virus, bacteria, heavy metal or toxin through the air, food, your intestines and your skin, versus when it's injected into your body?
•Have we really looked at what happens to vaccine materials once injected into a child? And is an antibody sufficient to provide protection for a child against disease?

More and more studies are coming out to show that:
•The proper studies haven't been done and antibodies are not the final way in which your body is protected
•There is a difference between how children process material through air and food versus through injection
•There are particles in vaccines that do accumulate in your body and cause impairments in your immune system
•There are particles in the vaccines that get into your brain and there are foreign DNA particles that get into your body

For many health professionals it is a shock to discover that there is such a lack of information on the safety and efficacy, and a mounting degree of information that actually raises suspicions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and whether or not they have been properly studied... [I]n my research of the vaccines, and of the basic microbiology and virology that we're trained to know in our medical training, I cannot understand how a vaccine with a virus can be safe."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/04/measles-vaccine-kills-infants.aspx

More Info:

Vaccines And Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccines-And-Sudden-Infant-Death-Syndrome

Postvaccinal Encephalitis
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/encephalitis.htm

Cot death (SIDS) and vaccination
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sids.html

Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6835859

The Only Credible Cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Is Vaccines
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-07-15/the-only-credible-cause-of-sudden-infant-death-syndrome-is-vaccines/

In Memoriam: Infant Deaths & Vaccination
http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/may-2011/in-memoriam--infant-deaths---vaccination.aspx

131 ways for an infant to die: Vaccines and sudden death
http://www.naturalnews.com/042727_infants_sudden_death_vaccines.html

VACCINATION
http://drlwilson.com/Articles/Vaccines.htm

angelatc
11-20-2013, 12:53 PM
So, we keep the weak alive, and pay them to live, then bitch about it.

.

I'm all for letting the intellectually weak die off - that's why I don't support mandatory vaccines.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 12:56 PM
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/09/04/measles-vaccine-kills-infants.aspx

More Info:

Vaccines And Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccines-And-Sudden-Infant-Death-Syndrome

Postvaccinal Encephalitis
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/encephalitis.htm

Cot death (SIDS) and vaccination
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sids.html

Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6835859

The Only Credible Cause of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Is Vaccines
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-07-15/the-only-credible-cause-of-sudden-infant-death-syndrome-is-vaccines/

In Memoriam: Infant Deaths & Vaccination
http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/may-2011/in-memoriam--infant-deaths---vaccination.aspx

131 ways for an infant to die: Vaccines and sudden death
http://www.naturalnews.com/042727_infants_sudden_death_vaccines.html

VACCINATION
http://drlwilson.com/Articles/Vaccines.htm


lol, Mercola, whale.to, 'vaccineriskawareness', Natural News, and some blog called Gaia Health. Great scientific sources there.

donnay
11-20-2013, 01:08 PM
lol, Mercola, whale.to, 'vaccineriskawareness', Natural News, and some blog called Gaia Health. Great scientific sources there.

LOL! Good way to duck, criticized the sources. :rolleyes: Whale is an information clearing house, but I already explained that to you, Zippy and angelatc in many other threads. You ought to check out "Rockefeller Men," at their site, they have it in it's entirety so you can get a glimmer of how allopathic medicine evolved (I even started a thread on it--but it got ignored). You want to talk about Quacks? When you do some research on how it all got started and controlled the dots are connected.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 01:29 PM
lol, Mercola, whale.to, 'vaccineriskawareness', Natural News, and some blog called Gaia Health. Great scientific sources there.

There is a legit study in there. From 1983, and its inclusion makes me shake my head. First, it has been 30 years. You'd think that the other researchers who tried to replicate the results would have published by now. Second, that's when parents were still being told to sleep their babies on the stomach. Third, the formula and schedule vaccines has changed. Fourth, the sample was limited to a single geographic region - one county on the West Coast.

And the best part is the actual abstract:


Because diphtheria and tetanus toxoids pertussis (DTP) vaccine is routinely given during the period of highest incidence of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), this study was undertaken to determine if there is a temporal association between DTP immunization and SIDS. Parents of 145 SIDS victims who died in Los Angeles County between January 1, 1979, and August 23, 1980, were contacted and interviewed regarding their child's recent immunization history. Fifty-three had received a DTP immunization. Of these 53, 27 had received a DTP immunization within 28 days of death. Six SIDS deaths occurred within 24 hours and 17 occurred within 1 week of DTP immunization. These SIDS deaths were significantly more than expected were there no association between DTP immunization and SIDS.

But wait - don't stop there:


An additional 46 infants had a physician/clinic visit without DTP immunization prior to death. Forty of these infants died within 28 days of this visit, seven on the third day and 22 within the first week following the visit. These deaths were also significantly more than expected. These data suggest a temporal association between DTP immunization, physician visits without DTP immunization and SIDS.

Temporal - related to time.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 01:31 PM
I'm all for letting the intellectually weak die off - that's why I don't support mandatory vaccines.

Wow, you are a terrible, murderous person. Associating the choice not to receive vaccines with "intellectually weak"? That's a new low. You claim you want to save lives, but the ONLY reason you don't support mandatory vaccination is so that the people who aren't smart enough to get them die off. Not only does this imply that those who don't agree with you about vaccines deserve to die, it also implies that you would support mandatory vaccination by force if you didn't think it was more important to kill these people off just for disagreeing with you.

You are just the most disgusting person on these boards. May God have mercy on your soul.

I admit I only came into this thread to see what violent, bloodthirsty, hate-filled vitriol you would be spewing today, but I could not anticipate the level of murderous rage you possess at innocent people. No doubt you will allege that they are not innocent because they weaken the human race by exercising their freedom of choice, but that just makes you worse.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 01:36 PM
Wow, you are a terrible, murderous person. Associating the choice not to receive vaccines with "intellectually weak"?


Since you have asserted that my position is murderous, I am left wondering if you support mandatory vaccine programs?

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 01:39 PM
Since you have asserted that my position is murderous, I am left wondering if you support mandatory vaccine programs?

Umm, no... If you had read the rest of my post, you would have gathered as much.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 01:40 PM
Umm, no...

Then maybe murderous isn't exactly the right word choice.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 01:43 PM
Then maybe murderous isn't exactly the right word choice.

No, I do not regret using that word. It suits your hateful attitude quite well. You want people to die for the good of the human race, not unlike Hitler. It doesn't matter if I think not getting vaccines would make people better and healthier than the opposite because you want people to die just for disagreeing with you.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 01:46 PM
Both of us think the other is advocating more death, but you are just so freaking sure of yourself that you are willing to assume intellectual superiority to the point where you wish death upon those lesser humans who disagree with you.

And not just that; you implied that, if you were not such an advocate of death for deniers, you would actually support mandatory vaccines.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 01:49 PM
Both of us think the other is advocating more death, but you are just so freaking sure of yourself that you are willing to assume intellectual superiority to the point where you wish death upon those lesser humans who disagree with you.

And not just that; you implied that, if you were not such an advocate of death for deniers, you would actually support mandatory vaccines.

She's not advocating death, she's advocating freedom of choice. She supports the intellectually weak having the choice not to vaccinate themselves and their children and suffer the consequences of their choices.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 01:54 PM
She's not advocating death, she's advocating freedom of choice. She supports the intellectually weak having the choice not to vaccinate themselves and their children and suffer the consequences of their choices.

No, she is advocating death. Allow me to quote:


I'm all for letting the intellectually weak die off...

She may not be advocating outright murder, but she is most definitely advocating death. Furthermore, my comment was actually referring to the fact that she thinks my policy of "no more vaccines" would cause more death in the world, and I believe the same about her policy. We both believe the other is an advocate of death, but she pretends like she's not one when she outright states that she wants people to die simply for not believing in the power of vaccines, which she claims makes them intellectually inferior to her, and thus, deserving of death because, well, it's for the good of the collective.

TER
11-20-2013, 01:56 PM
a general policy of "no more vaccines" would most surely cause more death.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 01:58 PM
a general policy of "no more vaccines" would most surely cause more death.

What makes you say that? Your belief in the power of vaccines? I would have to disagree and counter that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof.

The point is that we each believe the other is advocating a policy that would lead to more deaths, but at least in other issues, human beings have been able to debate such wide-ranging issues with some semblance of civility. She outright states that she wants people to die for not being of the same opinion. Her attitude is barbaric and completely void of humility or fallibility. She is so certain of the rightness of her opinion that she is willing to assume intellectual superiority and wish death on the opposing side.

Acting like a god whose rightness can't be questioned makes you more of a barbarian, not less of one.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 02:01 PM
No, she is advocating death. Allow me to quote:



She may not be advocating outright murder, but she is most definitely advocating death. Furthermore, my comment was actually referring to the fact that she thinks my policy of "no more vaccines" would cause more death in the world, and I believe the same about her policy. We both believe the other is an advocate of death, but she pretends like she's not one when she outright states that she wants people to die simply for not believing in the power of vaccines.

The difference, of course, is that there is almost 100 years of evidence that prove vaccines reduce disease and the deaths related to them. Years on the internet have led me to my own belief which is that people have to be a special kind of stunted to argue that vaccines don't actually save lives.

Since I believe in science it should come as no surprise that I'm perfectly fine with Darwinism's theory, believing that allowing the weak to perish will strengthen the species. I'm just including the intellectually weak in the equation, which was posted only in response to the assertion that the physically weak should be allowed to die off.

If I believed in a Mommy/Daddy state, I'd support mandatory vaccines. But I don't.

Seems you took that a little personally, since you're not yelling at the person who originally stated the position, albeit in a different context.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 02:02 PM
What makes you say that? Your belief in the power of vaccines? I would have to disagree and counter that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof.

lol are you serious? Please show some proof for that.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 02:03 PM
What makes you say that? Your belief in the power of vaccines? I would have to disagree and counter that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof.

500 million people died of smallpox, alone, in the 20th Century. That's before it was officially eradicated in the late 70s. Without vaccines, there would have been at least 500 million additional deaths since 1980. When you can come up with a number close to that, we'll talk.

amy31416
11-20-2013, 02:04 PM
What makes you say that? Your belief in the power of vaccines? I would have to disagree and counter that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof.

The point is that we each believe the other is advocating a policy that would lead to more deaths, but at least in other issues, human beings have been able to debate such wide-ranging issues with some semblance of civility. She outright states that she wants people to die for not being of the same opinion.

I guess you're not familiar with TER's qualifications and you didn't read his/her previous posts?

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 02:05 PM
500 million people died of smallpox, alone, in the 20th Century. That's before it was officially eradicated in the late 70s. Without vaccines, there would have been at least 500 million additional deaths since 1980. When you can come up with a number close to that, we'll talk.

The polio vaccine alone has saved thousands of lives in just the United States.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2783/4537278458_45dfdd1e3f.jpg

same with measles:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Measles_incidence-cdc.gif

donnay
11-20-2013, 02:08 PM
a general policy of "no more vaccines" would most surely cause more death.

I respectfully disagree. The medical tyranny is no different than any other form of tyranny.

The people who continues to repeat what the establish has repeatedly lie about , will be the cause of mandatory vaccines and no choice. I have friends well up into their 50's who have never had one vaccine and they are healthy. They also have children who have never been vaccinated, and they got some of the childhood diseases and lived through it.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 02:09 PM
The difference, of course, is that there is almost 100 years of evidence that prove vaccines reduce disease and the deaths related to them. Years on the internet have led me to my own belief which is that people have to be a special kind of stunted to argue that vaccines don't actually save lives.

Since I believe in science it should come as no surprise that I'm perfectly fine with Darwinism's theory, believing that allowing the weak to perish will strengthen the species. I'm just including the intellectually weak in the equation, which was posted only in response to the assertion that the physically weak should be allowed to die off.

Seems you took that a little personally, since you're not yelling at the person who originally stated the position.

I hear that word thrown around a lot: "There's all this evidence!" They don't ever bother to actually do the science to confirm their own opinions or much less, offer that evidence in concrete form. Instead, they just take the word of scientific authorities as unquestionable and use it to aggrandize themselves for believing it while the others are intellectually inferior and stupid because they can't simply believe what they are told.

When is the last time you've actually bothered to REALLY analyze these studies from a scientific perspective, or better yet, do your own experiments? If never, then why are you so sure of yourself?

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 02:09 PM
lol are you serious? Please show some proof for that.

The burden of proof is on you.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 02:10 PM
I respectfully disagree. The medical tyranny is no different than any other form tyranny.

The people who continues to repeat what the establish has repeatedly lie about , will be the cause of mandatory vaccines and no choice. I have friends well up into their 50's who have never had one vaccine and they are healthy. They also have children who have never been vaccinated, and they got some of the childhood diseases and lived through it.

Thanks to mass vaccination efforts they never got smallpox or polio. They'd be singing a different tune if they children had gotten one of those.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 02:11 PM
I guess you're not familiar with TER's qualifications and you didn't read his/her previous posts?

Willful denial.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 02:11 PM
The burden of proof is on you.

You are the one who made the claim that vaccines cause more deaths than they have prevented.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 02:11 PM
500 million people died of smallpox, alone, in the 20th Century. That's before it was officially eradicated in the late 70s. Without vaccines, there would have been at least 500 million additional deaths since 1980. When you can come up with a number close to that, we'll talk.

It amazes me how you can just take this for granted and assume no burden of proof.

TER
11-20-2013, 02:12 PM
I respectfully disagree. The medical tyranny is no different than any other form tyranny.

The people who continues to repeat what the establish has repeatedly lie about , will be the cause of mandatory vaccines and no choice. I have friends well up into their 50's who have never had one vaccine and they are healthy. They also have children who have never been vaccinated, and they got some of the childhood diseases and lived through it.

But donnay, we cannot use anectodal evidence and apply it to the vast majority. This would be poor science and often times does not hold up statistically.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 02:13 PM
I hear that word thrown around a lot: "There's all this evidence!" They don't ever bother to actually do the science to confirm their own opinions or much less, offer that evidence in concrete form. Instead, they just take the word of scientific authorities as unquestionable and use it to aggrandize themselves for believing it while the others are intellectually inferior and stupid because they can't simply believe what they are told.

When is the last time you've actually bothered to REALLY analyze these studies from a scientific perspective, or better yet, do your own experiments? If never, then why are you so sure of yourself?

Post. Of. The. Year.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 02:14 PM
It amazes me how you can just take this for granted and assume no burden of proof.

It killed with that efficiency before it was eradicated, so why would it kill with lesser efficiency today? Actually, that figure would be much higher because those of us in the Americas and Europe would have never been vaccinated.

Again, willful denial.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 02:16 PM
Let's also not forget about Rabies. Before the vaccine, if you were attacked by a rabid animal, you were dead. ~100% fatal.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 02:17 PM
I guess you're not familiar with TER's qualifications and you didn't read his/her previous posts?

I don't give a fuck about qualifications. Have we gone mad? We're now completely dependent on a superior class of knowledge-gatherers for all of our information and nobody's allowed to question them or they're intellectually inferior because it's just so easy to believe what you're told. Actually analyzing and gathering data, on the other hand, is something that the most vocal vaccine advocates have never actually done. TER is a special member, so let's all gather around and soak up what he has to say like a sponge. Scientists disagree on just about everything, and yet we are willing to take the consensus as the infallible word of God because no ulterior motives could possibly be influencing the level of power that comes with the position of being infallible in the eyes of the masses.

Evolution: proven by consensus
Global warming: proven by consensus
Vaccines: proven by consensus

Just keep waving that flag and asserting that 'the overwhelming abundance of evidence' that supposedly buttresses your unsubstantiated opinion is immune to weakness, flaw, or deception, thus raising your opinion to superior status and making those below you worthy of the fate they will inevitably suffer as a result of their unbelief. Poor, decrepit souls they are, but their death is NECESSARY because the needs of the collective outweigh those of the individual.

TER
11-20-2013, 02:20 PM
What makes you say that? Your belief in the power of vaccines? I would have to disagree and counter that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof.

Believe what you will my friend. I think you are wrong and that the weight of the scientific evidence refutes you, but you are free to believe whatever you will.

donnay
11-20-2013, 02:22 PM
But donnay, we cannot use anectodal evidence and apply it to the vast majority. This would be poor science and often times does not hold up statistically.

Big pHARMa uses it all the time--So many people accept it blindly. You know that old sayings; "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth."

My own GP admitted to not vaccinating his own child--that spoke volumes to me.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 02:23 PM
I don't give a fuck about qualifications. Have we gone mad? We're now completely dependent on a superior class of knowledge-gatherers for all of our information and nobody's allowed to question them or they're intellectually inferior because it's just so easy to believe what you're told. Actually analyzing and gathering data, on the other hand, is something that the most vocal vaccine advocates have never actually done. TER is a special member, so let's all gather around and soak up what he has to say like a sponge. Scientists disagree on just about everything, and yet we are willing to take the consensus as the infallible word of God because no ulterior motives could possibly be influencing the level of power that comes with the position of being infallible in the eyes of the masses.

And what data have you presented to back up your accusations that vaccines cause more deaths than they have prevented?

amy31416
11-20-2013, 02:23 PM
Semi-related:

Many of you know I had a preemie, thankfully no medical problems, but I'd like to discuss some of the unintended(?) effects of the actions of rabid anti-vax people.

While in the hospital, I had the normal battery of vaccinations, but wanted to wait on the hep (B/C?), since it's generally a sexually transmitted disease. The hospital vaccinated her for that anyways, without my permission. Fortunately no ill effects. Move on to the pediatrician visit at 1 month, and the doctor wanted her to have the 'flu shot, I refused. I was treated like the biggest idiot and grilled about my science background and why I didn't want her to have it. They marked something in the chart...so normal people can no longer have legit refusals without being treated like massive idiots. (I changed docs, of course.)

I guarantee you that this over-the-top attitude about this will lead to mandatory vaccines and more CPS involvement.

amy31416
11-20-2013, 02:23 PM
Semi-related:

Many of you know I had a preemie, thankfully no medical problems, but I'd like to discuss some of the unintended(?) effects of the actions of rabid anti-vax people.

While in the hospital, I had the normal battery of vaccinations, but wanted to wait on the hep (B/C?), since it's generally a sexually transmitted disease. The hospital vaccinated her for that anyways, without my permission. Fortunately no ill effects. Move on to the pediatrician visit at 1 month, and the doctor wanted her to have the 'flu shot, I refused. I was treated like the biggest idiot and grilled about my science background and why I didn't want her to have it. They marked something in the chart...so normal people can no longer have legit refusals without being treated like massive idiots. (I changed docs, of course.)

I guarantee you that this over-the-top attitude about this will lead to mandatory vaccines and more CPS involvement.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 02:23 PM
My own GP admitted to not vaccinating his own child--that spoke volumes to me.

Yeah, it should tell you to get a new GP.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 02:27 PM
Semi-related:

Many of you know I had a preemie, thankfully no medical problems, but I'd like to discuss some of the unintended(?) effects of the actions of rabid anti-vax people.

While in the hospital, I had the normal battery of vaccinations, but wanted to wait on the hep (B/C?), since it's generally a sexually transmitted disease. The hospital vaccinated her for that anyways, without my permission. Fortunately no ill effects. Move on to the pediatrician visit at 1 month, and the doctor wanted her to have the 'flu shot, I refused. I was treated like the biggest idiot and grilled about my science background and why I didn't want her to have it. They marked something in the chart...so normal people can no longer have legit refusals without being treated like massive idiots. (I changed docs, of course.)

I guarantee you that this over-the-top attitude about this will lead to mandatory vaccines and more CPS involvement.

Yep. One big outbreak and vaccines will be mandatory. SCOTUS has already paved the way.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 02:28 PM
Yep. One big outbreak and vaccines will be mandatory. SCOTUS has already paved the way.

And if it weren't for your hatred of vaccine deniers, you would be perfectly fine with that, despite the implications it has for liberty.

donnay
11-20-2013, 02:30 PM
Let's also not forget about Rabies. Before the vaccine, if you were attacked by a rabid animal, you were dead. ~100% fatal.

Uh huh...proves the point of tyranny. They are mandatory in most states for domestic dogs and cats.

THE BIG SCAM--RABIES VACCINATION
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/fudens.html

Rabies, Vaccine and Health Principles
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/rabies.htm

donnay
11-20-2013, 02:34 PM
Yeah, it should tell you to get a new GP.


His child is probably older than you now.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 02:34 PM
Uh huh...proves the point of tyranny. They are mandatory in most states for domestic dogs and cats.

THE BIG SCAM--RABIES VACCINATION
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/fudens.html

Rabies, Vaccine and Health Principles
http://www.vaclib.org/intro/rabies.htm

Animals don't have rights, and you don't have to keep animals.

None of this refutes my point that millions of people have perished from Rabies through the millennia. Every one of those deaths was preventable with prompt vaccination following exposure.

donnay
11-20-2013, 02:37 PM
Animals don't have rights, and you don't have to keep animals.

You're being treated like an animal by the medical tyranny that is well established in this country.

http://adask.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/man-or-other-animals-1/

amy31416
11-20-2013, 02:40 PM
And if it weren't for your hatred of vaccine deniers, you would be perfectly fine with that, despite the implications it has for liberty.

And you would probably have been 10x worse than my doc if I wanted my daughter vaccinated for measles, despite it being safe and reasonable. You guys practically accuse those who vaccinate of child abuse.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 02:54 PM
And if it weren't for your hatred of vaccine deniers, you would be perfectly fine with that, despite the implications it has for liberty.

Yes, if I believed that the proper role of government was to force people to get vaccines, then I'd certainly be fine with a government that forced people to get vaccines. I guess you've got me there.

donnay
11-20-2013, 02:55 PM
Animals don't have rights, and you don't have to keep animals.

None of this refutes my point that millions of people have perished from Rabies through the millennia. Every one of those deaths was preventable with prompt vaccination following exposure.

Millions of people perish from lots of things...with that type thinking we have a Nanny State to tell us what to do. Hence the tyranny that will be allowed. It's for your own good! Now shuddup and take your vaccine slave.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 03:19 PM
Millions of people perish from lots of things...

Which is why we develop ways to reduce the risk of dying from those things: vaccines, seat belts, medicine, child locks, etc.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 03:31 PM
We've gone round and round with this subject.

TER is my hero in that he WOULD NOT have vaccinated this precious, tiny, sick infant.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 03:34 PM
Millions of people perish from lots of things...with that type thinking we have a Nanny State to tell us what to do. Hence the tyranny that will be allowed. It's for your own good! Now shuddup and take your vaccine slave.We do know that many are tyrannized to take vaccines.

In TER's state, children must have even the flu shot to attend school.

We know that there are professions that demand vaccine compliance to secure employment.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 03:35 PM
We've gone round and round with this subject.

TER is my hero in that he WOULD NOT have vaccinated this precious, tiny, sick infant.

Lots of us wouldn't. And I believe the guidelines concur that the vaccines should have waited. But that does not mean that the vaccines caused her death a week later, which is what the drive-by, MIA OP was trying to imply.

donnay
11-20-2013, 03:38 PM
Which is why we develop ways to reduce the risk of dying from those things: vaccines, seat belts, medicine, child locks, etc.

Yes and people like you are promoting the tyranny.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 03:40 PM
You are the one who made the claim that vaccines cause more deaths than they have prevented.

Ah, yes, but the natural condition is not the presence of vaccines, it is the lack of vaccines. Therefore, if vaccines are introduced as a solution, they must be proven to be effective. I cannot prove them ineffective if you haven't offered any evidence that they are, indeed, effective.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 03:42 PM
It killed with that efficiency before it was eradicated, so why would it kill with lesser efficiency today? Actually, that figure would be much higher because those of us in the Americas and Europe would have never been vaccinated.

Again, willful denial.

So, you just assume that the reason for the statistical change is vaccines? We're supposed to just take that for granted? I think you're forgetting just how many variables can affect human health, especially in a large population.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 03:43 PM
And what data have you presented to back up your accusations that vaccines cause more deaths than they have prevented?

The burden of proof is not on me. I am asking people to question their own thought processes, that is all. I have also presented my opinion, but I have not yet made a claim of truth in this thread.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 03:48 PM
Yes and people like you are promoting the tyranny.

Right. Questioning the scientific accuracy of some of the contributions is promoting tyranny. Lies must go unchallenged so the truth can prevail. Or something.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 03:48 PM
And you would probably have been 10x worse than my doc if I wanted my daughter vaccinated for measles, despite it being safe and reasonable. You guys practically accuse those who vaccinate of child abuse.

I have made no such claim. I also don't get your accusation of me being "10x worse than [your] doc". I am not a doctor, so why are you comparing me to one? Also, how can I be "worse" at administering vaccines if I wouldn't do it in the first place... or did you mean something else? I ask because you're really not making yourself clear.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 03:51 PM
Lots of us wouldn't. And I believe the guidelines concur that the vaccines should have waited. But that does not mean that the vaccines caused her death a week later, which is what the drive-by, MIA OP was trying to imply.Right, most WOULD NOT have vaccinated this sick and vulnerable child. This is the only point in this discussion that matters. WHY WHY WHY would MOST NOT vaccinate this sick and vulnerable child?

angelatc
11-20-2013, 03:54 PM
Right, most WOULD NOT have vaccinated this sick and vulnerable child. This is the only point in this discussion that matters.



No, that's actually not relevant to me. What matters is that the OP tried to post deceptive headline, implying that vaccines killed a child which according to the medical professionals involved, is simply not true.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 03:55 PM
Yes and people like you are promoting the tyranny.

I'm promoting tyranny by defending science, taking precautionary steps in my own life, and not advocating government mandates? Wow, how tyrannical of me.

mad cow
11-20-2013, 03:57 PM
The burden of proof is not on me. I am asking people to question their own thought processes, that is all. I have also presented my opinion, but I have not yet made a claim of truth in this thread.


What makes you say that? Your belief in the power of vaccines? I would have to disagree and counter that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof.

Looks like a claim of truth to me.Or are you now saying that the bolded part from post #50 was untrue?

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 03:59 PM
No, that's actually not relevant to me. What matters is that the OP tried to post deceptive headline, implying that vaccines killed a child which according to the medical professionals involved, is simply not true.It is relevant to me. I'd like an answer to that question.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:00 PM
It is relevant to me. I'd like an answer to that question.

Then I would point out that the scientific community made their decision based on something - go find out what if it's important to you.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:02 PM
Looks like a claim of truth to me.Or are you now saying that the bolded part from post #50 was untrue?

In case you haven't noticed, he does not have any answers. He will only ask more and more questions until everybody goes away.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 04:04 PM
Looks like a claim of truth to me.Or are you now saying that the bolded part from post #50 was untrue?


In case you haven't noticed, he does not have any answers. He will only ask more and more questions until everybody goes away.

Yeah I already asked him for any evidence to substantiate his claim a page or so back. No answer.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 04:13 PM
Then I would point out that the scientific community made their decision based on something - go find out what if it's important to you.

Like I said, earlier, round and round we go. Thanks to all the docs out there who would not have vaccinated this baby.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:30 PM
Like I said, earlier, round and round we go. Thanks to all the docs out there who would not have vaccinated this baby.

I took my neighbor to the vet so she could get annual treatments for her cat. I do not remember what exactly she got, but she got two topical medications. They told her to apply them no closer than 9 days, because if the cat developed a reaction to one of them they wanted to know which one. Separating the two instances made it easier for them to know what was actually going on.

I Googled "Vaccinating sick babies can kill them!" and got no hits. So I am assuming that's not it, no matter how badly the OP wanted it to be. So I'm guessing that the reason they advise against vaccinating kids with fevers over 101 is not because it makes the babies sicker, but because in certain circumstances it makes it harder for the MD to know if the disease is getting worse or if the vaccine caused a reaction.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:32 PM
Looks like a claim of truth to me.Or are you now saying that the bolded part from post #50 was untrue?

I said I would have to disagree [with the opposing opinion] and counter [with my own opinion] that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof. I intentionally left out any logical argument in pursuant of the truth to that opinion because I was not stating it as a fact. I specifically told you that I stated my opinion and did not make a claim of truth in this thread because that's exactly what I did there.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:32 PM
I think you're forgetting just how many variables can affect human health, especially in a large population.

Yeah, researchers and scientists never think of the variables. You're one smart cookie. There's no fooling you.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:33 PM
Then I would point out that the scientific community made their decision based on something - go find out what if it's important to you.

And still you ignore the problems with forming an opinion based on the consensus of other people. Never mind all the power that comes with being believed by default. That won't invite corruption or anything. Never mind the government being involved because they certainly don't have an agenda...

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:35 PM
I said I would have to disagree [with the opposing opinion] and counter [with my own opinion] that vaccines cause more death than the lack thereof.

Please humor us just a bit, and explain the difference between fact and opinion.

Deborah K
11-20-2013, 04:37 PM
Why do infants need to be vaccinated, unless the parents plan on exposing them to said diseases?

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:38 PM
Yeah, researchers and scientists never think of the variables. You're one smart cookie. There's no fooling you.

Had you read my previous posts, you'd know my problems with just believing scientists and researchers by default instead of finding the truth for yourself.

Besides, the poster I was responding to didn't even cite your beloved scientific authorities to come up with that conclusion. He just pulled it out of his ass. But of course, context doesn't matter to you.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:39 PM
Please humor us just a bit, and explain the difference between fact and opinion.

It should be pretty self-evident...

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:39 PM
And still you ignore the problems with forming an opinion based on the consensus of other people. Never mind all the power that comes with being believed by default. That won't invite corruption or anything. Never mind the government being involved because they certainly don't have an agenda...

Thanks for the outstanding example of at least two logical fallacies.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:42 PM
Yeah I already asked him for any evidence to substantiate his claim a page or so back. No answer.

I have answered you. The burden of proof is on you. That is my answer. All I am doing is asking people to question their own thought processes when the just accept whatever they're told by the "scientific community" but nobody seems to care that the power of controlling knowledge can corrupt and that the government is involved in "the scientific community." How can you not see that there is an agenda? It doesn't matter where, but it should make you question your preconceived notion that everything that comes out of the scientific community is always true and factual.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 04:43 PM
Why do infants need to be vaccinated, unless the parents plan on exposing them to said diseases?

Nobody plans on getting exposed to the diseases, but viruses easily spread...

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:43 PM
Thanks for the outstanding example of at least two logical fallacies.

The examples don't mean much if you don't point them out. Which fallacies are you talking about?

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:46 PM
Had you read my previous posts, you'd know my problems with just believing scientists and researchers by default instead of finding the truth for yourself. .

My college degree isn't in science, so any research I produced would, in all likelihood be seriously flawed. I therefore depend on the decades of research by people devoted to perfecting the knowledge as well as the strict methodology.

I don't design my own home electrical system either, for much the same reason.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 04:47 PM
I have answered you. The burden of proof is on you. That is my answer.

That's hardly an answer. The burden of proof is on you, you made the claim that vaccines cause more deaths than they have prevented.

But if you want some evidence that vaccines have helped reduce deaths, here it is:

Measles vaccine introduced in 1963:
http://i.imgur.com/YpVkbio.png?1

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2783/4537278458_45dfdd1e3f.jpg

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:48 PM
Then I would point out that the scientific community made their decision based on something - go find out what if it's important to you.

This just exemplifies the height of ignorance. "The scientific community MADE THEIR DECISION based on something...

Are you freaking kidding me? It doesn't even matter to you what that something is because they made their decision and you have no choice but to believe it unquestioningly. It doesn't matter what they say, because they've "made their decision" and it automatically stands as the unquestionable truth. You act as if they are the sole arbiters of what is to be truth and what is to be non-truth. You should only go find out what if it's important to you, otherwise just believe them by default because they said and they are perfect in every single way, and not at all motivated by corruption or an agenda.

Deborah K
11-20-2013, 04:49 PM
Nobody plans on getting exposed to the diseases, but viruses easily spread...

Likewise, if you don't want your newborn to be exposed, don't risk exposure. Back in my day, Mothers didn't even go in public with their babies until months after they were born, and never let anyone handle them except close family members. And most of us nursed our babies as well.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2013, 04:51 PM
That's hardly an answer. The burden of proof is on you, you made the claim that vaccines cause more deaths than they have prevented.

But if you want some evidence that vaccines have helped reduce deaths, here it is:

Measles vaccine introduced in 1963:
http://i.imgur.com/YpVkbio.png?1

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2783/4537278458_45dfdd1e3f.jpg

This is getting tiresome. I've already answered your assertion that the burden of proof is on me.

It is not BECAUSE:

1)The natural state of being is the lack of vaccines, not the presence
therefore,
2)It is you who has made the claim that they are effective when added to the natural state of being, so
3)It is you who must prove that they are effective before anyone must prove to the contrary.

Burden of proof really isn't that hard. It's a logical construct that you really have to understand before applying it willy-nilly based who's making a "claim." You have to go just a little bit deeper than that, but it's really not that hard.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:51 PM
Why do infants need to be vaccinated, unless the parents plan on exposing them to said diseases?

Well, these babies specifically were in and out of the hospital, which would expose them to more diseases than the typical home environment.

In general nobody outside the health professionals ever plans to be exposed to diseases, but when they inevitably are, infants and old people are generally the two groups most likely to die or suffer permanent damage from those diseases.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:53 PM
Likewise, if you don't want your newborn to be exposed, don't risk exposure. Back in my day, Mothers didn't even go in public with their babies until months after they were born, and never let anyone handle them except close family members. And most of us nursed our babies as well.

And yet back in our day, more babies died from preventable childhood diseases than they do now.

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 04:53 PM
This just exemplifies the height of ignorance. "The scientific community MADE THEIR DECISION based on something...

Are you freaking kidding me? It doesn't even matter to you what that something is because they made their decision and you have no choice but to believe it unquestioningly. It doesn't matter what they say, because they've "made their decision" and it automatically stands as the unquestionable truth. You act as if they are the sole arbiters of what is to be truth and what is to be non-truth. You should only go find out what if it's important to you, otherwise just believe them by default because they said and they are perfect in every single way, and not at all motivated by corruption or an agenda.You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PaulConventionWV again.

amy31416
11-20-2013, 04:57 PM
I took my neighbor to the vet so she could get annual treatments for her cat. I do not remember what exactly she got, but she got two topical medications. They told her to apply them no closer than 9 days, because if the cat developed a reaction to one of them they wanted to know which one. Separating the two instances made it easier for them to know what was actually going on.

I Googled "Vaccinating sick babies can kill them!" and got no hits. So I am assuming that's not it, no matter how badly the OP wanted it to be. So I'm guessing that the reason they advise against vaccinating kids with fevers over 101 is not because it makes the babies sicker, but because in certain circumstances it makes it harder for the MD to know if the disease is getting worse or if the vaccine caused a reaction.

I'm going to guess that if a baby has a fever over 101 that the immune system is tied up in whatever's causing the fever and giving vaccines would divert the immune resources to "processing" the vaccines. TER would probably know better, but immunology is so complex that it's hard to say.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 04:58 PM
You're being treated like an animal by the medical tyranny that is well established in this country.


Don't romanticize the past -- life sucked for most people, if you were lucky enough to not perish from preventable illness. I don't see this 'medical tyranny', and quite frankly it is an insult to people who suffered under real tyranny.


Millions of people perish from lots of things...with that type thinking we have a Nanny State to tell us what to do. Hence the tyranny that will be allowed. It's for your own good! Now shuddup and take your vaccine slave.

You're a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. You have abandoned any pretense of rational discussion for the ideologies of a madman. You don't want discourse; you want to beat your chest. You're completely off the deep-end.

And since 'millions of people die', why does it matter if they die from vaccines (which they don't, but for the sake of argument)?

For the last part, all I can do is LOL. If taking vaccines is the worst tyranny you face, I'll trade lives with you on the spot. Real tyranny is being rounded-up and executed. Also LOL @ vaccination being 'slavery'. Spend a few days as a slave, and you'll see why that comparison is ludicrous.


So, you just assume that the reason for the statistical change is vaccines? We're supposed to just take that for granted? I think you're forgetting just how many variables can affect human health, especially in a large population.

Please, educate me. What could be responsible for such a rapid change in mortality rate?

angelatc
11-20-2013, 04:58 PM
This just exemplifies the height of ignorance. "The scientific community MADE THEIR DECISION based on something...

.

No, it actually exemplifies the height of laziness. We already established and agreed that medical guidelines in this country would have advised against giving a child with a fever a vaccine. I just thought that if she wanted to know WHY they gave that advice then she should feel free to go look it up instead of expecting us to do her homework.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 05:00 PM
And yet back in our day, more babies died from preventable childhood diseases than they do now.

But teh sanitashunz!!!

angelatc
11-20-2013, 05:02 PM
I'm going to guess that if a baby has a fever over 101 that the immune system is tied up in whatever's causing the fever and giving vaccines would divert the immune resources to "processing" the vaccines. TER would probably know better, but immunology is so complex that it's hard to say.

Oh - that makes sense. But I'm still going to give myself partial credit.

Deborah K
11-20-2013, 05:04 PM
And yet back in our day, more babies died from preventable childhood diseases than they do now.

My oldest is nearly 31. I don't recall that ever being the case.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 05:06 PM
I'm going to guess that if a baby has a fever over 101 that the immune system is tied up in whatever's causing the fever and giving vaccines would divert the immune resources to "processing" the vaccines. TER would probably know better, but immunology is so complex that it's hard to say.

That's not really how the immune system works. Lymphocytes are specific for one antigen, and the likelihood of any antigenic cross-reactivity in this case is 0. Normally it takes 3-5 days for an adaptive immune response, so that's enough time to clear the infection before specific B- or T-cells go into production.

donnay
11-20-2013, 05:08 PM
I'm promoting tyranny by defending science, taking precautionary steps in my own life, and not advocating government mandates? Wow, how tyrannical of me.


It's not bad when people take precautionary steps in their lives--when you insist that one side is a fact and nothing else, then you promote the tyranny. For the state to come in a force these same things on others.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 05:12 PM
My oldest is nearly 31. I don't recall that ever being the case.

You don't think that childhood mortality from communicable diseases has fallen in the past 50 years?

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 05:14 PM
It's not bad when people take precautionary steps in their lives--when you insist that one side is a fact and nothing else, then you promote the tyranny. For the state to come in a force these same things on others.

One side provides facts, the other side just fearmongers. You know which side you're on.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 05:14 PM
It's not bad when people take precautionary steps in their lives--when you insist that one side is a fact and nothing else, then you promote the tyranny. For the state to come in a force these same things on others.


The Earth is flat and nobody can prove otherwise.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 05:16 PM
It's not bad when people take precautionary steps in their lives--when you insist that one side is a fact and nothing else, then you promote the tyranny. For the state to come in a force these same things on others.

One side provides facts, the other side just fearmongers. You know which side you're on.

amy31416
11-20-2013, 05:22 PM
That's not really how the immune system works. Lymphocytes are specific for one antigen, and the likelihood of any antigenic cross-reactivity in this case is 0. Normally it takes 3-5 days for an adaptive immune response, so that's enough time to clear the infection before specific B- or T-cells go into production.

Like I said, it was a guess. And while all those words are familiar, put together--gibberish!

TER
11-20-2013, 05:28 PM
Like I said, it was a guess. And while all those words are familiar, put together--gibberish!

James Madison is correct about the normal process but he is making an assumption that 3-5 days is enough time to clear 'the infection' which may be going on. While it might be true that the vast majority of viral illnesses in children will only last a few days, if in fact the illness the child has is actually an occult bactermic infection mimiking as a viral illness, in 3-5 days that patient may indeed be extremely ill and probably not a good idea to add on to that the stress of a vaccine which could instead be given at another time.

Deborah K
11-20-2013, 05:30 PM
You don't think that childhood mortality from communicable diseases has fallen in the past 50 years?

Yes, in the past 50 years, it probably has. But in the past 30, I would venture a guess that in the U.S. it has not fallen significantly. I would also venture a guess that Autism has dramatically increased in the last 30 years. I know the controversy surrounding evidence of causation, but I haven't seen any explanation for the increase in cases of autism. Also, the number of vaccinations they give children these days has increased exponentially compared to the number of vaccinations my children had. Why?

ClydeCoulter
11-20-2013, 05:40 PM
One side provides facts, the other side just fearmongers. You know which side you're on.

That's a pretty bold statement. Are you a biological scientist? Have you done any research or are you depending on research of others, or have you done a peer review?

There are plenty of charts showing that, at times, vaccines are introduced on the downward slope of infection rates.

One thing is for sure, there is a lot more money pumped into "proving vaccines" than there is in disproving. Money wins.

Also, even if only 0.1% are adversely affected, is that part of the 0.1% that would have survived a good life without it? And, if so, who is deciding whose quality or existence of life. Hence the weak live.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 05:48 PM
James Madison is correct about the normal process but he is making an assumption that 3-5 days is enough time to clear 'the infection' which may be going on. While it might be true that the vast majority of viral illnesses in children will only last a few days, if in fact the illness the child has is actually an occult bactermic infection mimiking as a viral illness, in 3-5 days that patient may indeed be extremely ill and probably not a good idea to add on to that the stress of a vaccine which could instead be given at another time.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

angelatc
11-20-2013, 05:53 PM
Yes, in the past 50 years, it probably has. But in the past 30, I would venture a guess that in the U.S. it has not fallen significantly. I would also venture a guess that Autism has dramatically increased in the last 30 years. I know the controversy surrounding evidence of causation, but I haven't seen any explanation for the increase in cases of autism.

That's because they don't have one yet, i guess.




Also, the number of vaccinations they give children these days has increased exponentially compared to the number of vaccinations my children had. Why?

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-schedule/history-of-vaccine-schedule.html

Eagles' Wings
11-20-2013, 06:24 PM
James Madison is correct about the normal process but he is making an assumption that 3-5 days is enough time to clear 'the infection' which may be going on. While it might be true that the vast majority of viral illnesses in children will only last a few days, if in fact the illness the child has is actually an occult bactermic infection mimiking as a viral illness, in 3-5 days that patient may indeed be extremely ill and probably not a good idea to add on to that the stress of a vaccine which could instead be given at another time.Well said. Thank you.

donnay
11-20-2013, 07:47 PM
One side provides facts, the other side just fearmongers. You know which side you're on.

http://www.whale.to/a/486970_3999390024572_1569298727_n.jpg

James Madison
11-20-2013, 07:51 PM
http://www.whale.to/a/486970_3999390024572_1569298727_n.jpg

Once again, one side uses facts, the other fearmongers.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 07:52 PM
http://www.whale.to/a/486970_3999390024572_1569298727_n.jpg

Typical post by you, no facts just fear tactics.

Anyway, to show you how safe vaccines are, here is an example using the HPV vaccine:


In that time 57 million doses have been administered in the US, giving us an adverse reaction rate of 0.03%.

Given that the vaccine is given in 3 doses, that means 19 million have been vaccinated. Even then the adverse reaction rate would be 1 in 863 or 0.116%.

Given that 92% of the adverse reactions are not serious and have no lasting consequences it means that there were 1760 more serious adverse reactions equalling 0.0092% of people who took the vaccine (this is assuming no person had an adverse reaction to more than one of the three doses administered) or a 1 in 10,800 chance.

I'd call that pretty safe. An American woman's chances of developing ovarian cancer are 1 in 73 which is 148 times greater than the risk of a serious adverse effect from the HPV vaccine (again, assuming none of the recorded adverse effects happened from multiple doses in the same person, a likely scenario). The risk of an American woman developing cervical cancer is 1 in 152 which is 71 times greater than the risk of a serious adverse reaction to the HPV vaccine.

donnay
11-20-2013, 07:53 PM
Once again, one side uses facts, the other fearmongers.

Yeah your side does a lot of fearmongering no doubt. "Have you had your flu shot today?"

James Madison
11-20-2013, 07:59 PM
Yeah your side does a lot of fearmongering no doubt. "Have you had your flu shot today?"

They make a product, and they market it. Isn't that the definition of capitalism?

donnay
11-20-2013, 08:03 PM
They make a product, and they market it. Isn't that the definition of capitalism?

Everyone is not allow in the game, so it is crony capitalism. Not free market capitalism.

James Madison
11-20-2013, 08:03 PM
http://www.whale.to/a/486970_3999390024572_1569298727_n.jpg

This picture doesn't even make sense.

'Paid for by those receiving vaccines'

The people who got the vaccine paid themselves?

James Madison
11-20-2013, 08:04 PM
Everyone is not allow in the game, so it is crony capitalism. Not free market capitalism.

That has nothing to do with vaccine effectiveness. Keep trying.

eduardo89
11-20-2013, 08:05 PM
Donnay, care to respond to post #143 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?433712-Baby-Dies-After-9-Vaccines-in-One-Day&p=5316049&viewfull=1#post5316049)?

RJB
11-20-2013, 09:12 PM
In that time 57 million doses have been administered in the US, giving us an adverse reaction rate of 0.03%.
I no longer get vaccines because I have had bad reactions in the past, not based on brainwashing by the intellectual brilliance of Jenny McCarthy, Alex Jones, etc., but rather my own personal experience. Hearing these people just let me realize it's not just in my head.

It became really bad in the Marine Corps when I was shot up with a bunch of them, and had no choice. Towards the end of my enlistment, I started to complain and was told, "Do you think you know more than the Dr.?!"

"With my body, yes." Also, who knows what they inject into Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

Of course, all my reactions were "anecdotal." It was just an incredible co-incidence that everytime I received a shot I'd just happen to get a bad reaction. I'm in no statistics.

I do have food sensitivities as well, that I watch. Mercola and other sites mentioned above that were mocked gave me good tips on foods and chemicals to avoid that have really helped me. Maybe their advice only applies to 5% of the population, who knows, but Mercola shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. I remember in the 90s when he was called a quack for recommending omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, and low carb diets for diabetics.

I'm not completely anti-vaccine, but there are people like me who get bad reactions, but are ignored. It is frustrating because none of this is researched and so easily dismissed. Whether it's profit, unprovable data, or just too big of a headache to make a study that has to account for individual reactions that differ from the scientific charts and paradigms. The mysteries of the human body still far exceeds human understanding whether our arrogance wants to admit it or not.

I'm really not here to get in an argument, this is just my opinion from my own life's experience.

TER
11-21-2013, 12:57 AM
Ah, yes, but the natural condition is not the presence of vaccines, it is the lack of vaccines. Therefore, if vaccines are introduced as a solution, they must be proven to be effective.

They have been, which is why doctors all over the world give them.


I cannot prove them ineffective if you haven't offered any evidence that they are, indeed, effective.

But you ignore history. The history of mankind's discovery and development of the art of vaccination is because they have worked and indeed have saved lives and prevented sickness and death. There is no conspiracy in making the statement that vaccines have saved lives. This is a historical fact.

This is not to say that imperfection does not exist or that such works can not be corrupted. But to make the blanket statement that there is no evidence that vaccines work, that only demonstrates an ability to ignore the historical facts and the overwhelming witness and experiences of people who have spent their entire lives trying to help people who are sick or suffering.

The hatred for the evil and corruption found in people who practice medicine should not then cause us to blind ourselves from what is good and cause us to then attack and disbelieve any and all treatments offered by modern medicine. There is bodily healing and spiritual nourishment in many kinds of schools of medicine, including modern medicine. Vaccines are a triumph of modern medicine and we should fear not vaccines. Rather, we should fear those who have the ability to control others with them. This is a natural desire of a tyrannical state.

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 07:34 AM
My college degree isn't in science, so any research I produced would, in all likelihood be seriously flawed. I therefore depend on the decades of research by people devoted to perfecting the knowledge as well as the strict methodology.

I don't design my own home electrical system either, for much the same reason.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You know whoever designed your home electrical system is doing it right, or at least in a way that works because you are able to experience the results. As for science, you are dependent on statistics to even know whether it works or not because you don't know whether your experience with the vaccine is really representative of the population. If all you want is a good electrical system, then it doesn't matter how representative of the population your electrical system is as long as it works for you. However, in the case of vaccines, it does matter in order for you to make the claim that vaccines are good for the overall population. Since you don't have the ability to make that decision, you are dependent on scientific authorities to provide that information to you, and you form your opinion based on what they say, but it's easy to see how the power to control your mind and the minds of many others by being a scientist can corrupt. Now consider that the government is heavily involved in science. Who has a specific interest in controlling your mind and what you think? That's right, the government.

You can have your opinion if you want, but before claiming to know the absolute truth, do some research that doesn't involve statistics about how many scientific authorities have made a conclusion based on, you guessed it, statistics. You're being blindly led where there is a clear motive to bend the truth and you don't even question it. You probably don't question the motives of your electrician, but you very well should question the motives of people who use statistics to mold and shape the minds of the population. They have the power to control what the population believes, and because of that, you should be very suspicious of what they say.

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 07:42 AM
Don't romanticize the past -- life sucked for most people, if you were lucky enough to not perish from preventable illness. I don't see this 'medical tyranny', and quite frankly it is an insult to people who suffered under real tyranny.



You're a frothing-at-the-mouth lunatic. You have abandoned any pretense of rational discussion for the ideologies of a madman. You don't want discourse; you want to beat your chest. You're completely off the deep-end.

And since 'millions of people die', why does it matter if they die from vaccines (which they don't, but for the sake of argument)?

For the last part, all I can do is LOL. If taking vaccines is the worst tyranny you face, I'll trade lives with you on the spot. Real tyranny is being rounded-up and executed. Also LOL @ vaccination being 'slavery'. Spend a few days as a slave, and you'll see why that comparison is ludicrous.



Please, educate me. What could be responsible for such a rapid change in mortality rate?

Many, many things, James Madison. Many things. How many variables cause changes in the overall health of a population? Well, it's that many. There are things that affect the health of a population that you probably don't even know exist, and you think that, just because there is some statistic (which may have been doctored) that says mortality has decreased. It would be a serious logical fallacy to just assume that it's vaccines that cause the drop when you haven't even considered the question scientifically. Don't take things for granted. That's a huge rule of scientific thought. If you really want to be scientific, then all you have to do is question your sources and think logically. Logically, you can't just mentally connect a drop in mortality to vaccines without any indication of the cause. If you are told that it is a causal relationship, you should not just believe it blindly. Believe nothing blindly. I can't believe people on this forum are saying that we should believe things blindly. It's a disgrace.

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 07:53 AM
They make a product, and they market it. Isn't that the definition of capitalism?

Marketing certainly can involve fear tactics. Just because something is "the definition of capitalism" doesn't make it NOT fear mongering. Also, you should check just how heavily the government is involved before you assume it's "the definition of capitalism.

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 07:57 AM
This picture doesn't even make sense.

'Paid for by those receiving vaccines'

The people who got the vaccine paid themselves?

It's actually quite easy to understand. Those receiving vaccines pay for them. A significant portion of that money is provided to the few people who receive Vaccine Injury Compensation. So, in a way, yes, the people who are injured by vaccines are contributing toward what they are paid because of that injury, but not everyone. I'm actually quite surprised you didn't understand that. It's a pretty easy thing to understand. It's just like taxes: everyone pays into the system and it is redistributed to specific groups of people, such as the poor in the form of welfare.

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 08:01 AM
They have been, which is why doctors all over the world give them.



But you ignore history. The history of mankind's discovery and development of the art of vaccination is because they have worked and indeed have saved lives and prevented sickness and death. There is no conspiracy in making the statement that vaccines have saved lives. This is a historical fact.

This is not to say that imperfection does not exist or that such works can not be corrupted. But to make the blanket statement that there is no evidence that vaccines work, that only demonstrates an ability to ignore the historical facts and the overwhelming witness and experiences of people who have spent their entire lives trying to help people who are sick or suffering.

The hatred for the evil and corruption found in people who practice medicine should not then cause us to blind ourselves from what is good and cause us to then attack and disbelieve any and all treatments offered by modern medicine. There is bodily healing and spiritual nourishment in many kinds of schools of medicine, including modern medicine. Vaccines are a triumph of modern medicine and we should fear not vaccines. Rather, we should fear those who have the ability to control others with them. This is a natural desire of a tyrannical state.

But, see the burden of proof is still on you because I am not convinced. I have not seen the evidence. All I see is people claiming that the evidence is overwhelmingly in their favor. The burden of proof is still on you because asking me to prove that vaccines are not effective is asking me to prove a negative and that is impossible. I can only dispute the evidence you provide, of which I have seen very little. Granted, I probably will not engage in a fact-flinging debate, but the point is that you should question what you are told. Just because a bunch of scientists say it's been proven, that doesn't make it so.

Furthermore, how do you know that there is no conspiracy? The motivation is there. I am not saying there is no evidence, but just that I am not going to assume there is evidence because the scientists say it is so. If I am to believe that there is evidence, then I should do the research for myself by studying science and learning about it. Until then, I am skeptical of the research provided by "the scientists" because of the motivations that exist for controlling public opinion, not to mention the motivations for controlling public health. Then I consider that the government is heavily involved in medicine and that makes me question it even more because I know it is extremely likely that the government has an agenda.

Logically, it makes no sense to just blindly believe in the effectiveness of vaccines.

donnay
11-21-2013, 08:42 AM
Typical post by you, no facts just fear tactics.

Anyway, to show you how safe vaccines are, here is an example using the HPV vaccine:


Well I will tell you what...since they are starting to give it to boys, take it and let me know how it works for you.

donnay
11-21-2013, 09:08 AM
They have been, which is why doctors all over the world give them.



But you ignore history. The history of mankind's discovery and development of the art of vaccination is because they have worked and indeed have saved lives and prevented sickness and death. There is no conspiracy in making the statement that vaccines have saved lives. This is a historical fact.

This is not to say that imperfection does not exist or that such works can not be corrupted. But to make the blanket statement that there is no evidence that vaccines work, that only demonstrates an ability to ignore the historical facts and the overwhelming witness and experiences of people who have spent their entire lives trying to help people who are sick or suffering.

The hatred for the evil and corruption found in people who practice medicine should not then cause us to blind ourselves from what is good and cause us to then attack and disbelieve any and all treatments offered by modern medicine. There is bodily healing and spiritual nourishment in many kinds of schools of medicine, including modern medicine. Vaccines are a triumph of modern medicine and we should fear not vaccines. Rather, we should fear those who have the ability to control others with them. This is a natural desire of a tyrannical state.

Hey TER, are you okay with some of the vaccines being made with aborted human fetal tissue?

donnay
11-21-2013, 09:09 AM
For any one interested, this is an interview with an ex-vaccine researcher:

Jon Rappoport interview of ex vaccine researcher
http://www.whale.to/v/rapp.html

Eagles' Wings
11-21-2013, 09:21 AM
This is just one of thousands of articles on this topic:

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html

TER
11-21-2013, 09:32 AM
Hey TER, are you okay with some of the vaccines being made with aborted human fetal tissue?

I don't know much about this happening. At the face of it, I am not okay with that.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 09:39 AM
I don't know much about this happening. At the face of it, I am not okay with that.


You can pretty much discount everything the anti-vax crowd says. They have no real evidence.

The truth, according to Science Based Medicine is that some cell lines used to grow up virus stocks were derived from aborted fetuses 40 or more years ago.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/31/if-you-think-its-just-about-mercury-when-1/


**There are no fetal tissues in vaccines. The viruses used to make certain vaccines are cultured and maintained in human cell lines that were derived from a fetus. One of these cell lines has been around since the early 1960′s. Big difference.

Here's a MD who is a Christian writing about it: http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion


Of the many lies told by anti-vaccination advocates, this is one of the worst, because it hits on a real moral issue. However, anyone with a modicum of training in biology will tell you that it is impossible for vaccines (or any other injected medicine) to contain human tissue. The reason is simple: if you are injected with anything containing tissue from another person, your body will immediately recognize it as an invader and begin attacking it. This immune response is often quite radical and can easily lead to death! This is why blood from a donor to a recipient must be carefully matched before the recipient can receive it. Thus, there is no human tissue of any kind in vaccines. Unfortunately, the anti-vaccination movement (and even some naive pro- life groups) will try to convince the uninformed that vaccines contain tissue from aborted babies and that abortions must be continually done to supply this tissue to the "evil" drug companies. This is, of course, a bald-faced lie. Unfortunately, this lie is particularly evil, in that it targets a person's morally correct view that abortion is murder.


More at the link.

donnay
11-21-2013, 09:54 AM
If vaccines saved humanity then it is wise to research past history--shall we?

HORRORS OF VACCINATION EXPOSED AND ILLUSTRATED
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/higgins_b.html

The Hidden Dangers In Polio Vaccine
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html

CHAPTER 3: ANTI-TYPHOID VACCINE CAUSES A WORSE DISEASE WHICH THE DOCTORS NAME PARATYPHOID
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf3.html

CHAPTER 2: THE SPANISH INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC OF 1918 WAS CAUSED BY VACCINATIONS
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf1.html

THE POISONED NEEDLE
Suppressed Facts About Vaccination
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html

WHO SMALLPOX ERADICATION SUCCESS RECONSIDERED
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/obomsawin2.html

The Man-Made Peanut Allergy Epidemic
A revealing history of a medical mystery
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fraser.html

Smallpox Vaccination in the Phillipines 1905-1920
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html

Vaccine Facts
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-unbiased-vaccine-science-and-data.html

angelatc
11-21-2013, 09:58 AM
If vaccines saved humanity then it is wise to research past history--shall we?

HORRORS OF VACCINATION EXPOSED AND ILLUSTRATED
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/higgins_b.html

The Hidden Dangers In Polio Vaccine
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html

CHAPTER 3: ANTI-TYPHOID VACCINE CAUSES A WORSE DISEASE WHICH THE DOCTORS NAME PARATYPHOID
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf3.html

CHAPTER 2: THE SPANISH INFLUENZA EPIDEMIC OF 1918 WAS CAUSED BY VACCINATIONS
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sf1.html

THE POISONED NEEDLE
Suppressed Facts About Vaccination
http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean.html

WHO SMALLPOX ERADICATION SUCCESS RECONSIDERED
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/obomsawin2.html

The Man-Made Peanut Allergy Epidemic
A revealing history of a medical mystery
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fraser.html

Smallpox Vaccination in the Phillipines 1905-1920
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox7.html

Vaccine Facts
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-unbiased-vaccine-science-and-data.html


We have picked apart and destroyed those articles already. Why are you still posting them? And the site that they're hosted on is so notoriously bad that there's an internet meme named after it.

Seriously?

This is what we're dealing with. People who still either don't believe or refuse to admit smallpox was eradicated. And we are supposed to seriously consider anything they say because.....? That is just beyond ludicrous.

donnay
11-21-2013, 10:10 AM
You can pretty much discount everything the anti-vax crowd says. They have no real evidence.

The truth, according to Science Based Medicine is that some cell lines used to grow up virus stocks were derived from aborted fetuses 40 or more years ago.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/08/31/if-you-think-its-just-about-mercury-when-1/



Here's a MD who is a Christian writing about it: http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion



More at the link.


ABORTED FETAL CELL USE IN RUBELLA VACCINES: A MEDICAL AND ETHICAL CONFLICT
http://www.whale.to/m/aborted.htm

VACCINES AND THEIR SOURCE CELL LINES
http://www.whale.to/v/vaccines_and_their_source_cell_l.htm

Cell lines & Fetal tissue
http://www.whale.to/v/fetal.html

Vaccine Ingredients
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ingredients1.html

7 Most Disgusting Ingredients Used to Make Vaccines
http://vactruth.com/2013/10/28/7-disgusting-ingredients/#sthash.gSsFVTJ7.dpuf

angelatc
11-21-2013, 10:21 AM
This is just one of thousands of articles on this topic:

http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html


It actually says that there is no human tissue in vaccines and that the cell lines have been in production for decades.
The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, and the U.S. and British bishops conferences have studied the issue in detail and concluded that using the vaccines is morally permissible.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 10:25 AM
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You know whoever designed your home electrical system is doing it right, or at least in a way that works because you are able to experience the results. As for science, you are dependent on statistics to even know whether it works or not because you don't know whether your experience with the vaccine is really representative of the population. If all you want is a good electrical system, then it doesn't matter how representative of the population your electrical system is as long as it works for you. However, in the case of vaccines, it does matter in order for you to make the claim that vaccines are good for the overall population. Since you don't have the ability to make that decision, you are dependent on scientific authorities to provide that information to you, and you form your opinion based on what they say, but it's easy to see how the power to control your mind and the minds of many others by being a scientist can corrupt. Now consider that the government is heavily involved in science. Who has a specific interest in controlling your mind and what you think? That's right, the government.

You can have your opinion if you want, but before claiming to know the absolute truth, do some research that doesn't involve statistics about how many scientific authorities have made a conclusion based on, you guessed it, statistics. You're being blindly led where there is a clear motive to bend the truth and you don't even question it. You probably don't question the motives of your electrician, but you very well should question the motives of people who use statistics to mold and shape the minds of the population. They have the power to control what the population believes, and because of that, you should be very suspicious of what they say.

Yeah, the fact that I haven't seen a case of measles, mumps, or even chicken pox for 15 years is not really due to the success of immunizations. It's actually just the government controlling my mind.

Thanks for clearing that up.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 10:33 AM
TER - would you have given this infant the immunizations?

There seems to be info to suggest that ALL vaccines can wait until later years. Do you think waiting or giving single doses over time is prudent?


Just to point out that this just isn't true, especially in the case of Ruebella. Infants are the most likely to die from it, and it's usually spread in the pre-school crowd. The best way of keeping the children from contracting it is to immunize them as soon as possible.

If you look at the most recent outbreaks, almost all the deaths were in babies who either were not vaccinated or had not yet completed the entire series and were not fully immunized.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 10:48 AM
This picture doesn't even make sense.

'Paid for by those receiving vaccines'

The people who got the vaccine paid themselves?


That is part is actually right. Once trial lawyers figured out that juries might award large settlements based on emotion rather than science, the vaccine makers threatened to pull out of the market. To protect us from the crazy people that want to destroy the vaccine programs, Congress created a special settlement mechanism as a result. Settlements are paid from a trust funded by a small surcharge on the vaccines administered.

However, despite the name, it isn't actually a court. It's actually no-fault system, and so far, despite hundreds of people trying to cash in, less than a handful of people have actually collected.

Nobody denies that some people do indeed experience side effects. No medical treatment is 100% safe, and vaccines are no different. But the number of them is infinitesimal compared to the number of people who would experience permanent side effects to the diseases themselves.

This is from Wikipedia:


A petitioner seeking to establish causation-in-fact must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for her vaccination she would not have been injured, and that the vaccination was a substantial factor in bringing about her injury. Shyface, 165 F.3d at 1352. Mere temporal association is not sufficient to prove causation in fact; a petitioner must present a medical theory that is supported either by medical records or by the opinion of a competent physician. Grant v. Sec’y of Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 956 F.2d 1144, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Proof of actual causation must be supported by a sound and reliable “medical or scientific explanation that pertains specifically to the petitioner’s case, although the explanation need only be ‘legally probable, not medically or scientifically certain.’” Moberly, 592 F.3d at 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 548-49); see also Grant, 956 F.2d at 1148 (medical theory must support actual cause). The preponderance of evidence standard under the Vaccine Act requires proof that a vaccine more likely than not caused the vaccinee’s injury. Althen, 418 F.3d at 1279. Causation is determined on a case-by-case basis, with “no hard and fast per se scientific or medical rules.” Knudsen, 35 F.3d at 548. On March 13, 2010, the court ruled in three test cases that thiomersal-containing vaccines do not cause autism. The test cases were among the strongest for this theory. Special Master Hastings concluded, "The overall weight of the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to the petitioners' causation theories."

donnay
11-21-2013, 10:49 AM
Just to point out that this just isn't true, especially in the case of Ruebella. Infants are the most likely to die from it, and it's usually spread in the pre-school crowd. The best way of keeping the children from contracting it is to immunize them as soon as possible.

If you look at the most recent outbreaks, almost all the deaths were in babies who either were not vaccinated or had not yet completed the entire series and were not fully immunized.

If you are going to argue the facts why not put up some information to back what you're saying?

We have provided our information to back up what we say. Of course you continually dispute it with nothing more than your so-called word.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 10:58 AM
I no longer get vaccines because I have had bad reactions in the past, not based on brainwashing by the intellectual brilliance of Jenny McCarthy, Alex Jones, etc., but rather my own personal experience. Hearing these people just let me realize it's not just in my head.

It became really bad in the Marine Corps when I was shot up with a bunch of them, and had no choice. Towards the end of my enlistment, I started to complain and was told, "Do you think you know more than the Dr.?!"

"With my body, yes." Also, who knows what they inject into Uncle Sam's Misguided Children.

Of course, all my reactions were "anecdotal." It was just an incredible co-incidence that everytime I received a shot I'd just happen to get a bad reaction. I'm in no statistics.

I do have food sensitivities as well, that I watch. Mercola and other sites mentioned above that were mocked gave me good tips on foods and chemicals to avoid that have really helped me. Maybe their advice only applies to 5% of the population, who knows, but Mercola shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. I remember in the 90s when he was called a quack for recommending omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, and low carb diets for diabetics.

I'm not completely anti-vaccine, but there are people like me who get bad reactions, but are ignored. It is frustrating because none of this is researched and so easily dismissed. Whether it's profit, unprovable data, or just too big of a headache to make a study that has to account for individual reactions that differ from the scientific charts and paradigms. The mysteries of the human body still far exceeds human understanding whether our arrogance wants to admit it or not.

I'm really not here to get in an argument, this is just my opinion from my own life's experience.


I don't that it's true that you're ignored. The medical profession has always acknowledged that there are some people who have negative reactions to vaccines and therefore should not be immunized. Those people depend on the vaccine status of the general population to stave of the infections.

I think some of you will live long enough to see the genetic code cracked to the point where a nurse can swab your cheek and the computer will immediately tell her what you're likely to be allergic to. In the meantime, if you have a doctor who doesn't listen to you, then change doctors.

I think it's pretty arrogant to assert the the medical profession claims to know everything there is to know about the human body. That's just not true and the fact that they're still looking to advance treatments for everything that ails is evidence of that.

I'm allergic to NSAIDs, but I don't walk around trying to prove their harmful to the population at large. I found out when I developed a case of non-infectious menengitis as a result of taking some Ibuprofen.

James Madison
11-21-2013, 11:49 AM
Many, many things, James Madison. Many things.

Like what?


How many variables cause changes in the overall health of a population? Well, it's that many.

Like what?


There are things that affect the health of a population that you probably don't even know exist,

Like what?


and you think that, just because there is some statistic (which may have been doctored) that says mortality has decreased. It would be a serious logical fallacy to just assume that it's vaccines that cause the drop when you haven't even considered the question scientifically. Don't take things for granted. That's a huge rule of scientific thought.

I'm being lectured on scientific skepticism by a man who refuses to believe smallpox was eradicated and who thinks evolution is a lie. Now I've seen everything. :rolleyes:


If you really want to be scientific, then all you have to do is question your sources and think logically. Logically, you can't just mentally connect a drop in mortality to vaccines without any indication of the cause. If you are told that it is a causal relationship, you should not just believe it blindly. Believe nothing blindly. I can't believe people on this forum are saying that we should believe things blindly. It's a disgrace.

I propose an experiment. We inject brain matter from a rabid dog into your spinal cord and see what happens! I will volunteer myself to also have rabies-laced brain matter injected into my spinal cord, but I will have received a vaccine prior to being infected. You can be the control group.

amy31416
11-21-2013, 12:15 PM
Hey James, there's one known case of a person surviving rabies without the vaccine, he could get lucky....

http://site.jeannagiese.com/

James Madison
11-21-2013, 12:18 PM
Hey James, there's one known case of a person surviving rabies without the vaccine, he could get lucky....

http://site.jeannagiese.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_protocol

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 01:22 PM
We have picked apart and destroyed those articles already. Why are you still posting them? And the site that they're hosted on is so notoriously bad that there's an internet meme named after it.

Seriously?

This is what we're dealing with. People who still either don't believe or refuse to admit smallpox was eradicated. And we are supposed to seriously consider anything they say because.....? That is just beyond ludicrous.

All I am trying to do is to get you to question how you got this notion that everything science says is proven beyond a doubt and those who question it are crazy. You admit having very little knowledge about actual science, and yet you have such a strong belief despite your ignorance of the actual facts. Think about where you get your information: you are dependent on a small group of people to supply you with all you know, and every time they churn out a new "consensus", you eat it up like it's candy.

Before you assume that everything they say is accurate, question your sources. Consider these facts about the sources you trust (scientists)

1. They possess the power to control public opinion and public beliefs. This is a strong motive for providing false information pursuant to an agenda. What makes you think the scientific community hasn't already been corrupted like the US government has been?
2. The government is heavily involved in medicine and the scientific peer review process. The government has an agenda, and the fact that they are involved is a strong indication that you should not trust them.
3. Consensus among the scientific community is very poorly recorded. Many legitimate scientists disagree with the consensus, and yet they are pushed aside and you don't even know why they disagree. You just take it for granted that they are wrong because they are in the minority.
4. You don't study the facts. If you've never really analyzed the studies, it makes it much easier for the power mentioned above to be abused.

The ingredients for corruption are all there. This should make you very suspicious of what you hear from the scientific community. Please reconsider that anyone who dissents or doubts the official story is crazy. All I am asking is that you question this knee-jerk belief that your unsubstantiated opinion based on the words of others is indisputable fact. Take nothing for granted, including the truth of all the various studies that supposedly prove your point. It's very easy to manipulate statistics so that they paint a picture you want people to see. If you don't even know what to look for, then how do you know that what you've seen is even real? Now, you may not even read these statistical analyses. You simply base your very strong opinion on the fact that it seems widespread and mainstream. If nobody even bothers to analyze the statistics that are presented except the "kook" scientists that are then discredited based on their disagreement, then how would you ever know if what you perceived to be the consensus was based on anything remotely close to the truth?

I beg of you people, think for yourselves. We always have to go out and tell other people not to trust what the politicians say, but then we turn around and blindly trust what scientists say because they are the unquestionable authority on all things science that you don't understand. Strive to understand. Clear the "scientific consensus" bias from your mind and start from scratch. Learn how to analyze data and conduct experiments, then draw your own conclusions. Stop forming strong, uneducated opinions based on what other people tell you. Just because they have some sort of authentication, it doesn't mean everything they say is right or can be trusted. As I have shown, there is a lot of potential for corruption, and there is nothing preventing that power from being utilized to further someone's agenda. Nothing is stopping the people involved from fooling the unwitting public into going along with their agenda. There is no safeguard against this corruption, so why are we perpetuating ignorance by advocating blind trust? I advocate free thought because it protects against corruption, and you should, too. If you are ignorant, admit your ignorance.

If you get anything from this, it's that you should ADMIT YOUR IGNORANCE!

Stop having blind faith in the scientists admit that you don't know the truth about vaccines.

donnay
11-21-2013, 01:26 PM
California Girl Only Third in U.S. to Survive Rabies Without Vaccine
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/california-girl-us-survive-rabies/story?id=13830407

Rabies vaccination
http://www.whale.to/v/ruesch.html

Imovax Rabies
https://startpage.com/do/search?

Rabies Immune Globulin (Human) USP Imogam Rabies
http://www.whale.to/a/p/imogam.pdf

New study finds strong evidence of humans surviving rabies bites without treatment
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-08/bc-nsf072712.php

MYSTERY as six people SURVIVE deadly VAMPIRE BAT BITES
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/02/vampire_bite_survivors_in_peru/

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 01:32 PM
Yeah, the fact that I haven't seen a case of measles, mumps, or even chicken pox for 15 years is not really due to the success of immunizations. It's actually just the government controlling my mind.

Thanks for clearing that up.

That's one data point. Do you really even know what it was like in the past? Just how bad was it in the past and what do you base this belief on?

Secondly, you're using inductive reasoning by applying your own experiences to the experience of the whole world. That's pretty shaky evidence and it really doesn't prove anything. It's very easy to work around what you see in the world and create a story that fits your experiences in so that it seems more reasonable to believe. Now combine these factors and there's really nothing stopping TPTB abusing it. I'm sure you know that the politicians do it now with the general public, so why not scientists, especially when government and science/medicine is interconnected? How can you justify this blind faith? Make no mistake, that's what it is: blind faith. You are being led blindly and yet you question nothing you are told by the medical and scientific establishment. Just answer me this one question: Why doesn't this bother you?

amy31416
11-21-2013, 01:32 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_protocol

Quit making me correct myself! When I read about it I think she was the only one. :p

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 01:40 PM
Like what?



Like what?



Like what?

For God's sake, James Madison, I don't have to tell you what. You already KNOW there is an abundance of factors that can affect the health of a population. This is self-evident. Do I have to list them for you to get the point? There are many factors. They exist. You already know this. Stop being daft.


I'm being lectured on scientific skepticism by a man who refuses to believe smallpox was eradicated and who thinks evolution is a lie. Now I've seen everything. :rolleyes:

But WHY do you believe these things are the unquestionable truth? If you never stopped to wonder that, then how can you ever know the truth? If you never stopped to wonder why you think I'm crazy for believing such and such, then how can you find a legitimate reason for dismissing what I say?


I propose an experiment. We inject brain matter from a rabid dog into your spinal cord and see what happens! I will volunteer myself to also have rabies-laced brain matter injected into my spinal cord, but I will have received a vaccine prior to being infected. You can be the control group.

You're not injecting anything into me. And if you've never actually tried this experiment, then why are you so sure of the outcome already? You are so blinded that you don't even question where your preconceived notions come from. We know the politicians manipulate information, so what makes you think science and medicine, in which the government is also heavily involved, are immune to this kind of corruption and manipulation? Treat scientists like you treat politicians. The popular beliefs are very often wrong, and there's a reason. It's because the information is controlled to create a certain public perception. WAKE UP!

Eagles' Wings
11-21-2013, 01:44 PM
All I am trying to do is to get you to question how you got this notion that everything science says is proven beyond a doubt and those who question it are crazy. You admit having very little knowledge about actual science, and yet you have such a strong belief despite your ignorance of the actual facts. Think about where you get your information: you are dependent on a small group of people to supply you with all you know, and every time they churn out a new "consensus", you eat it up like it's candy.

Before you assume that everything they say is accurate, question your sources. Consider these facts about the sources you trust (scientists)

1. They possess the power to control public opinion and public beliefs. This is a strong motive for providing false information pursuant to an agenda. What makes you think the scientific community hasn't already been corrupted like the US government has been?
2. The government is heavily involved in medicine and the scientific peer review process. The government has an agenda, and the fact that they are involved is a strong indication that you should not trust them.
3. Consensus among the scientific community is very poorly recorded. Many legitimate scientists disagree with the consensus, and yet they are pushed aside and you don't even know why they disagree. You just take it for granted that they are wrong because they are in the minority.
4. You don't study the facts. If you've never really analyzed the studies, it makes it much easier for the power mentioned above to be abused.

The ingredients for corruption are all there. This should make you very suspicious of what you hear from the scientific community. Please reconsider that anyone who dissents or doubts the official story is crazy. All I am asking is that you question this knee-jerk belief that your unsubstantiated opinion based on the words of others is indisputable fact. Take nothing for granted, including the truth of all the various studies that supposedly prove your point. It's very easy to manipulate statistics so that they paint a picture you want people to see. If you don't even know what to look for, then how do you know that what you've seen is even real? Now, you may not even read these statistical analyses. You simply base your very strong opinion on the fact that it seems widespread and mainstream. If nobody even bothers to analyze the statistics that are presented except the "kook" scientists that are then discredited based on their disagreement, then how would you ever know if what you perceived to be the consensus was based on anything remotely close to the truth?

I beg of you people, think for yourselves. We always have to go out and tell other people not to trust what the politicians say, but then we turn around and blindly trust what scientists say because they are the unquestionable authority on all things science that you don't understand. Strive to understand. Clear the "scientific consensus" bias from your mind and start from scratch. Learn how to analyze data and conduct experiments, then draw your own conclusions. Stop forming strong, uneducated opinions based on what other people tell you. Just because they have some sort of authentication, it doesn't mean everything they say is right or can be trusted. As I have shown, there is a lot of potential for corruption, and there is nothing preventing that power from being utilized to further someone's agenda. Nothing is stopping the people involved from fooling the unwitting public into going along with their agenda. There is no safeguard against this corruption, so why are we perpetuating ignorance by advocating blind trust? I advocate free thought because it protects against corruption, and you should, too. If you are ignorant, admit your ignorance.

If you get anything from this, it's that you should ADMIT YOUR IGNORANCE!

Stop having blind faith in the scientists admit that you don't know the truth about vaccines.Well said, again, Paul. Infortunately many parents do not question their pediatricians and have blind faith regarding immunizations. In one pre-school our child attended, more that one-half of the parents did not vaccinate or chose single dose over a long period of time.

eduardo89
11-21-2013, 03:58 PM
Well I will tell you what...since they are starting to give it to boys, take it and let me know how it works for you.

Already got my first two doses. My girlfriend already finished her three. When my daughter is older, she'll be getting it as well.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 04:01 PM
Well said, again, Paul. Infortunately many parents do not question their pediatricians and have blind faith regarding immunizations. In one pre-school our child attended, more that one-half of the parents did not vaccinate or chose single dose over a long period of time.


Those are the environments where outbreaks happen.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 04:04 PM
For God's sake, James Madison, I don't have to tell you what. You already KNOW there is an abundance of factors that can affect the health of a population. This is self-evident. Do I have to list them for you to get the point? There are many factors. They exist. You already know this. Stop being daft.
!

Daft? Stop being belligerent. Why do you keep insisting that none of us has ever looked at any of those factors while refusing to actually name even one?

angelatc
11-21-2013, 04:06 PM
All I am trying to do is to get you to question how you got this notion that everything science says is proven beyond a doubt and those who question it are crazy. .

Dear God, what actual facts???? If I am ignorant of a fact, then by a means - introduce that fact into my life. But here's the thing - you don't have any actual facts. I just went back and read all your posts. You keep insisting that we all need to check our facts and our sources, but you can't tell us why.

I'm trying to figure out where you got the notion that I got the notion that everything science says is proven beyond a doubt. (Not that science actually speaks, but I understand what you're trying to say.)

Questioning things is good science. Spewing random anecdotes and broad generalizations hinting at government conspiracies while ignoring simple studies isn't science. It's misdirection.


Think about where you get your information: you are dependent on a small group of people to supply you with all you know, and every time they churn out a new "consensus", you eat it up like it's candy.

Before you assume that everything they say is accurate, question your sources.

.

If I used that methodology - just entirely discounting information because I didn't trust the publications it appeared in I'd still be cheering on the Iraq War.

That's actually a logical fallacy, but since you're so amazingly superior you already knew that, right? So tell me - where am I getting all my bad information? What sources are you using?


If there's a debate to be had, then lets have it. But the anti vaccine movement is like a freaking religion - science be damned. Even though thousands of scientists from thousands of organizations in hundreds of countries publish, compare, question, examine and replicate results, lets just say it's all a giant government conspiracy. (They will believe that without a shred of evidence, natch.)




http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/50326/large/Science.gif?

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 04:25 PM
Daft? Stop being belligerent. Why do you keep insisting that none of us has ever looked at any of those factors while refusing to actually name even one?

It's self-evident that there are many different factors that affect public health. This is just a given. Yet, the poster I was arguing with had originally insisted that the drop in mortality could only be due to vaccination as if we're supposed to just take that for granted instead of realizing that maybe something else was involved in changing those rates, not to mention the validity of the actual data.

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 04:36 PM
You don't have any actual facts. Cant be ignorant about something that doesn't even exist.
[QUOTE]

I'm not talking about my facts or your facts or Steven-down-the-road's facts. I'm talking about the scientific facts which you have admitted to being ignorant of. I'm not even talking about things scientists have said which you now take as fact. I'm talking about real data that you, yourself have looked at and studied.

[quote]I'm trying to figure out where you got the notion that I got the notion that everything science says is proven beyond a doubt. (Not that science actually speaks, but I understand what you're trying to say.)

I didn't mean "everything" literally, but you sure as hell don't question the vaccine stuff for some unknown reason.


If I used that methodology - just entirely discounting information because I didn't trust the publications it appeared in I'd still be cheering on the Iraq War.

There's such a thing as controlled opposition, which is what you are referring to. I'm not telling you to entirely discount information, I'm telling you to question it. There's a difference. What you are doing now is blindly trusting it and applying no level of health critical skepticism. I never said to discount anything. Just don't form a strong gung-ho opinion of something from what someone else told you. You haven't evaluated the facts, so forming an opinion based on what you accept as the truth from other people is ludicrous. It should be common sense not to form such strong opinions when you admit to not knowing much yourself.


That's actually a logical fallacy, but since you're so amazingly superior you already knew that, right? So tell me - where am I getting all my bad information? What sources are you using?

If there's a debate to be had, then lets have it. But the anti vaccine movement is like a freaking religion - science be damned. Even though thousands of scientists from thousands of organizations in hundreds of countries publish and replicate results, lets just say it's all a giant government conspiracy.

So tell me, Brothers and Sisters - where did you see The Light?


http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/50326/large/Science.gif?

You're one to tell me about logical fallacies. You're a hypocrite. Nobody has cast any ill will toward your precious science that you know so much about, so settle down. You're still the smartest person in your own mind.

angelatc
11-21-2013, 04:44 PM
You don't have any actual facts. Cant be ignorant about something that doesn't even exist.


I'm talking about the scientific facts which you have admitted to being ignorant of.

In relation to this topic, just disprove one assertion that I've made in this thread. I'm ignorant, so it will be easy. If my sources are flawed, this is where it will come out.

Waiting.

Or just give me a fact that I'm ignorant of.

Zippyjuan
11-21-2013, 04:49 PM
It's self-evident that there are many different factors that affect public health. This is just a given. Yet, the poster I was arguing with had originally insisted that the drop in mortality could only be due to vaccination as if we're supposed to just take that for granted instead of realizing that maybe something else was involved in changing those rates, not to mention the validity of the actual data.

We can again cite India as an example of the impact vaccines can have. When they started their massive vaccination programs, things like the measles dropped by over 75% within less than three years. Polo by over 90%. Can't say that dramatic of a decline in a very short period of time was due to "natural forces" or "something else".

angelatc
11-21-2013, 04:51 PM
It's self-evident that there are many different factors that affect public health. This is just a given. Yet, the poster I was arguing with had originally insisted that the drop in mortality could only be due to vaccination as if we're supposed to just take that for granted instead of realizing that maybe something else was involved in changing those rates, not to mention the validity of the actual data.


Wow - and I'm the ignorant one? He didn't make that claim. You put it out there, trying to make yourself look scholarly and deep. And the beauty of it is that exposes the fact that you consider yourself too smart to actually read the damned research, because guess what! They actually do look for other factors that could explain the results.

They even did that way back in the 17th century, when they were examining the efficiency of the smallpox vaccine.

donnay
11-21-2013, 05:48 PM
Already got my first two doses. My girlfriend already finished her three. When my daughter is older, she'll be getting it as well.

Well, I will keep you in my prayers. If you intend to procreate, you might have a very hard time after this particular vaccine.

Vaccines: Infertility, Sterilisation & Abortion
http://www.whale.to/m/sterile.html

PaulConventionWV
11-21-2013, 08:00 PM
Wow - and I'm the ignorant one? He didn't make that claim. You put it out there, trying to make yourself look scholarly and deep. And the beauty of it is that exposes the fact that you consider yourself too smart to actually read the damned research, because guess what! They actually do look for other factors that could explain the results.

They even did that way back in the 17th century, when they were examining the efficiency of the smallpox vaccine.

No, he definitely did make the claim. I was trying to get him to look at the other factors that could have caused that, and he insisted that I "name one" as if it had any relevance whatsoever to the point. Is it really this hard to just relay one point to you people? It's so simple: He said, "Mortality went down! Vaccines explains that!" (paraphrased) and I pointed out to him that other factors could have affected mortality. It's scientific thought, not just "scholarly and deep" thought. It's critical thinking instead of making blind assumptions.

And by the way, he did not cite any research at all... NONE. So, this argument took place apart from any scientific argument. There's no "they". I was just trying to inject a little reason into the argument and you all had to nitpick such that the simple point was lost on everyone.

James Madison
11-21-2013, 11:52 PM
No, he definitely did make the claim. I was trying to get him to look at the other factors that could have caused that, and he insisted that I "name one" as if it had any relevance whatsoever to the point. Is it really this hard to just relay one point to you people? It's so simple: He said, "Mortality went down! Vaccines explains that!" (paraphrased) and I pointed out to him that other factors could have affected mortality. It's scientific thought, not just "scholarly and deep" thought. It's critical thinking instead of making blind assumptions.

And by the way, he did not cite any research at all... NONE. So, this argument took place apart from any scientific argument. There's no "they". I was just trying to inject a little reason into the argument and you all had to nitpick such that the simple point was lost on everyone.

Here's how I know this:

Smallpox only infects humans
Smallpox needs humans to reproduce
When you vaccinate all of the humans, smallpox cannot reproduce
Smallpox dies

Better sanitation couldn't be responsible for the drop because all evidence indicates smallpox mortality rates have held between 30-40% for millennia. Even then, it wouldn't be enough to eradicate the virus. We also know sanitation is not responsible for the decline because smallpox isn't a 'pestilence' disease -- it spreads predominately through aerosols, not human waste.

This leaves our remaining options:

Act of God
Random Chance / Luck
Aliens??

Again, please educate us. Provide me with an alternative explanation.

Ender
11-22-2013, 12:46 AM
Chandler Blake Webb
Obituary
Guest Book
"God rest your Soul Chandler... "

Chandler Blake Webb
June 18, 1994 - Nov. 19, 2013

Chandler was born in Salt Lake City, Utah. He was welcomed into a loving home by his parents, Blake J. Webb and Loralyn (Lori) Killpack Webb. He was the baby brother to Brandon and Mitch.

He passed away peacefully after a hard battle in the ICU, suffering from severe brain damage, the result of a flu shot.

Chandler was a special boy with a heart of gold. His happiness was contagious. He recently graduated from Brighton High School and was preparing to leave on a 2 year mission for his church.
Chandler loved his brothers and family. He loved to hang out with his friends, boating, snowboarding, vacations, candy and the Utah Jazz!

Chandler will be missed more than words can express. His death is so senseless. He is survived by his loving parents Blake (Dawn) Webb, Lori Webb, brothers Brandon , Mitchel (Breynn). His grandparents Lowell O. Killpack (Karen), Lynn Johnson, Dean and Lucile Webb (deceased). He has numerous Aunts, uncles, cousins and friends.
Chandler's last 28 days were spent surrounded by so many who loved him. He may not have been able to wake up to see them, but we know that he knew they were there.

The family wishes to thank the incredible people at the IMC ICU, especially the nurses and tech's who treated him with exceptional competence, dignity and love.

Funeral services will be held at 11:00am on Saturday, November 23, 2013 at the LDS Church, 10945 South 1700 East in Sandy. A visitation will be held Friday evening from 6-8 pm at Larkin Sunset Gardens, 1950 East Dimple Dell Road (10600 South) and on Saturday from 9:30-10:30am prior to the services at the church. Online condolences may be shared at www.larkincares.com.

Chandler you are a Champion! True at all times. We will always love you.

- See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/deseretnews/obituary.aspx?n=chandler-blake-webb&pid=168113815&#sthash.lvCmProe.dpuf

Eagles' Wings
11-22-2013, 07:18 PM
Those are the environments where outbreaks happen.Nope.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/unvaccinated-children-suffer-fewer-infectious-diseases-study/

Long article...must read whole thing.


Oh, I imagine this is not "valid" science.

Eagles' Wings
11-22-2013, 07:33 PM
Ender, thank you for posting this obituary. Very sad indeed.

amy31416
11-22-2013, 08:13 PM
Chandler Blake Webb
Obituary
Guest Book
"God rest your Soul Chandler... "

Chandler Blake Webb
June 18, 1994 - Nov. 19, 2013

Chandler was born in Salt Lake City, Utah. He was welcomed into a loving home by his parents, Blake J. Webb and Loralyn (Lori) Killpack Webb. He was the baby brother to Brandon and Mitch.

He passed away peacefully after a hard battle in the ICU, suffering from severe brain damage, the result of a flu shot.

Chandler was a special boy with a heart of gold. His happiness was contagious. He recently graduated from Brighton High School and was preparing to leave on a 2 year mission for his church.
Chandler loved his brothers and family. He loved to hang out with his friends, boating, snowboarding, vacations, candy and the Utah Jazz!

Chandler will be missed more than words can express. His death is so senseless. He is survived by his loving parents Blake (Dawn) Webb, Lori Webb, brothers Brandon , Mitchel (Breynn). His grandparents Lowell O. Killpack (Karen), Lynn Johnson, Dean and Lucile Webb (deceased). He has numerous Aunts, uncles, cousins and friends.
Chandler's last 28 days were spent surrounded by so many who loved him. He may not have been able to wake up to see them, but we know that he knew they were there.

The family wishes to thank the incredible people at the IMC ICU, especially the nurses and tech's who treated him with exceptional competence, dignity and love.

Funeral services will be held at 11:00am on Saturday, November 23, 2013 at the LDS Church, 10945 South 1700 East in Sandy. A visitation will be held Friday evening from 6-8 pm at Larkin Sunset Gardens, 1950 East Dimple Dell Road (10600 South) and on Saturday from 9:30-10:30am prior to the services at the church. Online condolences may be shared at www.larkincares.com.

Chandler you are a Champion! True at all times. We will always love you.

- See more at: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/deseretnews/obituary.aspx?n=chandler-blake-webb&pid=168113815&#sthash.lvCmProe.dpuf

I don't mean to be cold, but that's not a medical report and the mother opted out of an autopsy for her son. It's his mother's guess.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27747957&nid=148&s_cid=rss-extlink

I don't do 'flu shots unless necessary for a job, but posting an obituary written by a traumatized mother is simply not right and proves nothing. You should kinda be ashamed about that.

angelatc
11-22-2013, 08:21 PM
Nope.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/unvaccinated-children-suffer-fewer-infectious-diseases-study/

Long article...must read whole thing.


Oh, I imagine this is not "valid" science.


This is copied straight from the article at the link you posted:


The study found that children who had received no vaccinations were significantly more likely to come down with pertussis, measles, mumps, or rubella than those they determined were “sufficiently vaccinated” against those diseases.

Additionally, every recent outbreak of these diseases that we've discussed in these forums has occurred in unvaccinated pockets of the population. Which makes sense - people who are not vaccinated against a disease are more likely to get the disease. It really is that simple.

angelatc
11-22-2013, 08:34 PM
I don't mean to be cold, but that's not a medical report and the mother opted out of an autopsy for her son. It's his mother's guess.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27747957&nid=148&s_cid=rss-extlink

I don't do 'flu shots unless necessary for a job, but posting an obituary written by a traumatized mother is simply not right and proves nothing. You should kinda be ashamed about that.

Even it it is true, it doesn't matter. Nobody in the pro-science camp has ever denied that there are never any side effects to vaccines.

It's a shame that she would not allow them to autopsy him - I suspect he had an auto-immune disorder and the shot could have triggered the response.

James Madison
11-22-2013, 08:38 PM
Nope.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/unvaccinated-children-suffer-fewer-infectious-diseases-study/

Long article...must read whole thing.


Oh, I imagine this is not "valid" science.

Did you even read the study?

http://data.aerzteblatt.org/pdf/DI/108/7/m99.pdf

See how small the group of unvaccinated to vaccinated children is? Now scroll down to the other graphs. See those lines that bisect each column? Those are error bars -- BIG error bars. Also notice the P values. Whenever the value of P is >0.1 there is no relationship, and that's being generous -- most scientists cutoff at 0.05. This happens because there are so few participants in the unvaccinated group. Outliers skew the average in small populations; those outliers are neutralized by other outliers in larger populations. So, quite frankly, it's grossly irresponsible to claim something is true when it isn't. The only significant takeaway is that unvaccinated children suffer from preventable illnesses far more than vaccinated children, P<0.05.

Their conclusions:



● On the basis of representative KiGGS data, 0.7% of children and adolescents aged 1–17 years from non-immigrant families in Germany have never been vaccinated.
● The evaluation showed that vaccinated children and unvaccinated children differed substantially only in terms of the lifetime prevalence of vaccine preventable diseases; as is to be expected the risk of such diseases is notably lower in vaccinated subjects.
● In the largest study in children and adolescents so far none of the often anticipated health differences—such as allergies and the number of infections—were observed in vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects aged 1–17 years.


Science is tough and if you wanna talk science, you better do your homework.

Ender
11-23-2013, 01:05 AM
I don't mean to be cold, but that's not a medical report and the mother opted out of an autopsy for her son. It's his mother's guess.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=27747957&nid=148&s_cid=rss-extlink

I don't do 'flu shots unless necessary for a job, but posting an obituary written by a traumatized mother is simply not right and proves nothing. You should kinda be ashamed about that.

You should be ashamed- you know nothing of this family. I am sure that this mother would not mind the posting of her son'e death if it would help save others.

amy31416
11-23-2013, 11:07 AM
You should be ashamed- you know nothing of this family. I am sure that this mother would not mind the posting of her son'e death if it would help save others.

You do? And you're using the kid's death and mother's grief for anti-vax propaganda.

angelatc
11-23-2013, 11:53 AM
You should be ashamed- you know nothing of this family. I am sure that this mother would not mind the posting of her son'e death if it would help save others.


That's ridiculous. Every year the obituaries contain the death notices of thousands of people who died from the flu. The number would be higher if nobody was getting the flu vaccine.

So how do you conclude that telling peope about one death will save anybody? We don't even know if the flu shot actually killed him, much less why.

Ender
11-23-2013, 11:54 AM
You do? And you're using the kid's death and mother's grief for anti-vax propaganda.

So- to prove your pro-vax stance you are now going to accuse me of using a real death as propaganda? Maybe when one of your loved ones die from a vaccination or any other Big Pharma propaganda, you won't be so altruistic.

angelatc
11-23-2013, 12:08 PM
So- to prove your pro-vax stance you are now going to accuse me of using a real death as propaganda? Maybe when one of your loved ones die from a vaccination or any other Big Pharma propaganda, you won't be so altruistic.

Encouraging the deaths of millions of children by spreading undocumented anti-science propaganda is hardly altruistic.

It's propaganda because there's no proof that the boy died from the flu vaccine.

And the fact that none of us personally know a single person who has been harmed by a vaccine actually speaks volumes about the safety of vaccines. This is propaganda at its best!

amy31416
11-23-2013, 12:29 PM
So- to prove your pro-vax stance you are now going to accuse me of using a real death as propaganda? Maybe when one of your loved ones die from a vaccination or any other Big Pharma propaganda, you won't be so altruistic.

1. I'm not pro-flu-vax for most people.
2. Perhaps your reading comprehension is off--THAT WAS NOT A MEDICAL REPORT. You are using the obituary of a young man who died a tragic death due to UNKNOWN causes in order to try to yank on people's heartstrings rather than using factual information.
3. Are you wishing death on "one of my loved ones" just because you're pissed off at me and think I'll magically turn into an anti-science drone while you say "I told you so?"

Do you understand yet that the obituary was not a medical report and had no proof/evidence? You aren't stupid.

Ender
11-23-2013, 01:28 PM
1. I'm not pro-flu-vax for most people.
2. Perhaps your reading comprehension is off--THAT WAS NOT A MEDICAL REPORT. You are using the obituary of a young man who died a tragic death due to UNKNOWN causes in order to try to yank on people's heartstrings rather than using factual information.
3. Are you wishing death on "one of my loved ones" just because you're pissed off at me and think I'll magically turn into an anti-science drone while you say "I told you so?"

Do you understand yet that the obituary was not a medical report and had no proof/evidence? You aren't stupid.

Obviously, I know it is not a medical report. I also know that the guy got a shot, immediately became sick and died. I know this family and I have a personal knowledge of what happened.

I also have a relative that went deaf after a vaccination; I have seen infants die after a vaccination.

Save your "holier-than-thou stuff for the pro-vaxers; I've seen enough tragedy in my short life to not be able to tolerate opinions from those who are just looking from afar and has no real knowledge of what these things can do or what Big Pharma is all about.

amy31416
11-23-2013, 01:48 PM
Obviously, I know it is not a medical report. I also know that the guy got a shot, immediately became sick and died. I know this family and I have a personal knowledge of what happened.

I also have a relative that went deaf after a vaccination; I have seen infants die after a vaccination.

Save your "holier-than-thou stuff for the pro-vaxers; I've seen enough tragedy in my short life to not be able to tolerate opinions from those who are just looking from afar and has no real knowledge of what these things can do or what Big Pharma is all about.

IIRC, he also had other things done.

Are you a doctor? Does having a personal knowledge (whatever that means), mean that you magically have a better understanding of complicated medical issues?

I have an in-law who went blind for four years and there were no vaccinations and no explanations.

I don't have a "holier than thou" stuff, and I doubt you've seen more tragedy than I have or many others here have, princess. I was directly involved, as in working for, an arm of big pharma, and there are some things that need to be questioned, and questioned hard--but you anti-vaxxers dilute your own message with your asinine claims about ALL vaccines, ALL pharmaceuticals, ALL people who work in the industry.

So keep shooting yourself in the foot--it'll do nothing but pave the way for mandatory vaccines, and that's why it pisses me off so much.

Zippyjuan
11-23-2013, 02:02 PM
Flu deaths per year in the US: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
How many flu vaccine deaths?


CDC estimates that from the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 flu season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people. Death certificate data and weekly influenza virus surveillance information was used to estimate how many flu-related deaths occurred among people whose underlying cause of death was listed as respiratory or circulatory disease on their death certificate.

Ender
11-23-2013, 02:32 PM
IIRC, he also had other things done.

Are you a doctor? Does having a personal knowledge (whatever that means), mean that you magically have a better understanding of complicated medical issues?

I have an in-law who went blind for four years and there were no vaccinations and no explanations.

I don't have a "holier than thou" stuff, and I doubt you've seen more tragedy than I have or many others here have, princess. I was directly involved, as in working for, an arm of big pharma, and there are some things that need to be questioned, and questioned hard--but you anti-vaxxers dilute your own message with your asinine claims about ALL vaccines, ALL pharmaceuticals, ALL people who work in the industry.

So keep shooting yourself in the foot--it'll do nothing but pave the way for mandatory vaccines, and that's why it pisses me off so much.

The doctor told them that it was the shot- and please go blame someone else for mandatory vacs- you know NOTHING about me and what i have done and am doing in these issues.

And, BTW- quit calling me "princess". My avatar is Legolas, the elf warrior.

amy31416
11-23-2013, 02:52 PM
The doctor told them that it was the shot- and please go blame someone else for mandatory vacs- you know NOTHING about me and what i have done and am doing in these issues.

And, BTW- quit calling me "princess". My avatar is Legolas, the elf warrior.


Another spokesperson late Friday offered another statement:

"Our epidemiology staff have [sic] commented that although they have no evidence of a flu vaccine (or any other kind of vaccine) causing this type of reaction/outcome, they take these reports very seriously and they are thoroughly investigated by the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]."

Webb admitted to reporters that not even all the neurologists on her son's team agree to blame the flu shot, but she also said every test for a disease came up negative.


Read more at http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=27747957#isvSUfF6TaZ6tVIU.99

What I do know about you is that you're being petty (hoping for my loved ones to become ill), you use a tragedy to try to prove your point when there's no proof (terrible logic, fearmongering and trying to "convert" people via emotional appeals), and that you relate to Legolas, the pretty elf warrior. Rawr.

Mind if I ask your age?