Vaccinations
-
Quote:
do you think the government knows about this claim of yours and either planned it, or just does not care
They don't care. It's called acceptable loss. The government knows about a lot of things that are harmful to us, and they don't care.
Quote:
You reject science, outright ?
Not at all. Not even close. I greatly respect science. And if you would have followed some of the links I provided earlier there is scientific evidence to link vaccines and mental disorders.
Quote:
The idea of science is to prove existing science wrong, and to further knowledge. That is the point. It's just not happened, in this case.
So, you admit there is a chance it is wrong. If you admit that, why are you so stubborn about believing what you know may later be proven wrong?
Quote:
The brain that, collectively, learns through the scientific method,
Observation is a scientific method. Yet you ignore that one.
Quote:
Which ones follow a proper scientific method
If they were proper and they prove your view point then your earlier point that science proves science wrong is also wrong. You are contradicting yourself. You are on the science bandwagon.
Quote:
They should not have the right to harm mine.
So, you expect me to put my child at risk of severe brain disorder or even death just so your little kid doesn't get the flu? You're a taker in this relationship. That is very lopsided. "Anyone who looks at the science, will know this is true." and "The idea of science is to prove existing science wrong". Can you not see how insane your argument is? You are saying that it's true, until it is later proven false. Truth is eternal, it doesn't change. I could also come after you for not teaching your children proper principles about God. In my point of view, you are damaging your children and doing them harm. But, I know you are trying to do the best you can with what knowledge you have so I don't judge you. Get off their backs.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
They don't care. It's called acceptable loss. The government knows about a lot of things that are harmful to us, and they don't care.
Because they don't have kids themselves ?
ryanb31 wrote:
And if you would have followed some of the links I provided earlier there is scientific evidence to link vaccines and mental disorders.
The way science works, is not through heresay. Give me a link that explains the mechanism by which this is caused, and a peer reviewed study that proves that autism is higher in kids who are vaccinated, and that other potential causes have been considered, and I will read it.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you admit there is a chance it is wrong. If you admit that, why are you so stubborn about believing what you know may later be proven wrong?
Because what we know now, is what is most likely right, and I'll change my mind when there's real evidence. Again, you don't get how science works.
ryanb31 wrote:
Observation is a scientific method. Yet you ignore that one.
No, it's a thin veneer of attempted respectability. Observation without control is not science. It's guessing.
ryanb31 wrote:
If they were proper and they prove your view point then your earlier point that science proves science wrong is also wrong. You are contradicting yourself. You are on the science bandwagon.
Please read a book so you understand what science is, before talking about it. I am not on any bandwagon, I just respect facts with evidence.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you expect me to put my child at risk of severe brain disorder or even death just so your little kid doesn't get the flu? You're a taker in this relationship. That is very lopsided.
No, you are the taker. You're taking the herd immunity I am offering by accepting a tiny risk for my child, and avoiding that tiny risk while increasing the risk to my child and other children.
ryanb31 wrote:
"Anyone who looks at the science, will know this is true." and "The idea of science is to prove existing science wrong". Can you not see how insane your argument is? You are saying that it's true, until it is later proven false. Truth is ete
-
ryanb31 wrote:
They don't care. It's called acceptable loss. The government knows about a lot of things that are harmful to us, and they don't care.
Because they don't have kids themselves ?
ryanb31 wrote:
And if you would have followed some of the links I provided earlier there is scientific evidence to link vaccines and mental disorders.
The way science works, is not through heresay. Give me a link that explains the mechanism by which this is caused, and a peer reviewed study that proves that autism is higher in kids who are vaccinated, and that other potential causes have been considered, and I will read it.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you admit there is a chance it is wrong. If you admit that, why are you so stubborn about believing what you know may later be proven wrong?
Because what we know now, is what is most likely right, and I'll change my mind when there's real evidence. Again, you don't get how science works.
ryanb31 wrote:
Observation is a scientific method. Yet you ignore that one.
No, it's a thin veneer of attempted respectability. Observation without control is not science. It's guessing.
ryanb31 wrote:
If they were proper and they prove your view point then your earlier point that science proves science wrong is also wrong. You are contradicting yourself. You are on the science bandwagon.
Please read a book so you understand what science is, before talking about it. I am not on any bandwagon, I just respect facts with evidence.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you expect me to put my child at risk of severe brain disorder or even death just so your little kid doesn't get the flu? You're a taker in this relationship. That is very lopsided.
No, you are the taker. You're taking the herd immunity I am offering by accepting a tiny risk for my child, and avoiding that tiny risk while increasing the risk to my child and other children.
ryanb31 wrote:
"Anyone who looks at the science, will know this is true." and "The idea of science is to prove existing science wrong". Can you not see how insane your argument is? You are saying that it's true, until it is later proven false. Truth is ete
Quote:
that proves that autism is higher in kids who are vaccinated,
Who made that claim? You admit that science is often wrong and yet that is all you have. I pity you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
They don't care. It's called acceptable loss. The government knows about a lot of things that are harmful to us, and they don't care.
Because they don't have kids themselves ?
ryanb31 wrote:
And if you would have followed some of the links I provided earlier there is scientific evidence to link vaccines and mental disorders.
The way science works, is not through heresay. Give me a link that explains the mechanism by which this is caused, and a peer reviewed study that proves that autism is higher in kids who are vaccinated, and that other potential causes have been considered, and I will read it.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you admit there is a chance it is wrong. If you admit that, why are you so stubborn about believing what you know may later be proven wrong?
Because what we know now, is what is most likely right, and I'll change my mind when there's real evidence. Again, you don't get how science works.
ryanb31 wrote:
Observation is a scientific method. Yet you ignore that one.
No, it's a thin veneer of attempted respectability. Observation without control is not science. It's guessing.
ryanb31 wrote:
If they were proper and they prove your view point then your earlier point that science proves science wrong is also wrong. You are contradicting yourself. You are on the science bandwagon.
Please read a book so you understand what science is, before talking about it. I am not on any bandwagon, I just respect facts with evidence.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, you expect me to put my child at risk of severe brain disorder or even death just so your little kid doesn't get the flu? You're a taker in this relationship. That is very lopsided.
No, you are the taker. You're taking the herd immunity I am offering by accepting a tiny risk for my child, and avoiding that tiny risk while increasing the risk to my child and other children.
ryanb31 wrote:
"Anyone who looks at the science, will know this is true." and "The idea of science is to prove existing science wrong". Can you not see how insane your argument is? You are saying that it's true, until it is later proven false. Truth is ete
You crack me up. I know exactly how science works which is why I use my own brain to come to conclusions. You are the one who will believe anything science tells you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
that proves that autism is higher in kids who are vaccinated,
Who made that claim? You admit that science is often wrong and yet that is all you have. I pity you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Who made that claim?
What now ? If autism is not higher in kids who have vaccinations, then vaccinations do not cause autism. That's just plainly obvious.
ryanb31 wrote:
You admit that science is often wrong and yet that is all you have. I pity you.
Wrong on both counts. I feel bad for you, but it's common for people like you to misrepresent people they can't answer.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You crack me up. I know exactly how science works which is why I use my own brain to come to conclusions. You are the one who will believe anything science tells you.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
So you're backing away from claiming I am letting my kids down by not raising them to know about God, just like you ran for cover from the claim that I know nothing about autism ? So, your claim in a nutshell is that your own powers of observation ( which is how humans decided the world was flat and the sky was a canvas with holes in it to let the light of God through ) are better than the scientific method ( which proved these ideas false and thus moved us further in our understanding of the universe ) ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Who made that claim?
What now ? If autism is not higher in kids who have vaccinations, then vaccinations do not cause autism. That's just plainly obvious.
ryanb31 wrote:
You admit that science is often wrong and yet that is all you have. I pity you.
Wrong on both counts. I feel bad for you, but it's common for people like you to misrepresent people they can't answer.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So you're backing away from claiming I am letting my kids down by not raising them to know about God, just like you ran for cover from the claim that I know nothing about autism ? So, your claim in a nutshell is that your own powers of observation ( which is how humans decided the world was flat and the sky was a canvas with holes in it to let the light of God through ) are better than the scientific method ( which proved these ideas false and thus moved us further in our understanding of the universe ) ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I am not backing out of anything. Not sure where you got that.
Quote:
that your own powers of observation ... are better than the scientific method
Nope. Didn't say that. Science recently did a study stating that drinking wine is good for you. Now, I have a brain so I know that drinking alcohol damages my liver so clearly the study is wrong. The part of wine that is good for you is in the grapes, so drinking grape juice is good for you but the alcohol is not. But you believe it because science said it was so and there is "proof." You have to take what science gives you and then apply reason to it. You can't just take it blindly, because as even you admitted, it is often wrong.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
Wrong on both counts.
It's what you said.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Not even close. In the first hand, I said that science is the best tool we have because it admits it can be wrong and improves in what it knows, using proven methodologies to separate facts from assumptions and theories. In the second, I never came close to saying 'it's all I have', and in fact when you accused me of raising my kids without knowing God, I intimated that this is not the case at all. Having a belief in a higher power does not excuse or explain deliberate ignorance. You're jumping from topic to topic, avoiding any where it's clear your assumptions are wrong, yet assuming I must be wrong because I disagree with you. I asked you for a link to credible research, and defined what I mean by that, and said I would read it. I take it that no link being offered means that you know that any research you trust, fails the test of openness and rigour, which only proves why I should not trust it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
I am not backing out of anything. Not sure where you got that.
Quote:
that your own powers of observation ... are better than the scientific method
Nope. Didn't say that. Science recently did a study stating that drinking wine is good for you. Now, I have a brain so I know that drinking alcohol damages my liver so clearly the study is wrong. The part of wine that is good for you is in the grapes, so drinking grape juice is good for you but the alcohol is not. But you believe it because science said it was so and there is "proof." You have to take what science gives you and then apply reason to it. You can't just take it blindly, because as even you admitted, it is often wrong.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
you accused me of not knowing anything about autism. I proved you wrong and you just never mentioned it again. Ditto when you accused me of raising heathen children. You keep going, and just drop any accusation that does not work out.
ryanb31 wrote:
Science recently did a study stating that drinking wine is good for you.
Not really. A focus group paid for by wine sellers found this. The tannins in wine are good for you, but they are also in grape juice. And science has proven that anyone who does a study, will try to come up with the results their employer wants, even if they try to be impartial. That's why impartial science is always best, not vested interest studies.
ryanb31 wrote:
You have to take what science gives you and then apply reason to it. You can't just take it blindly, because as even you admitted, it is often wrong.
your ignorance of what I said and what science is, is on open display, because you keep throwing it out there and ignoring my comments.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
You need to read what I wrote. I said you are wrong in assuming someone who chooses not to vaccinate is being selfish. I have seen a healthy young girl become autistic because of vaccinations. I have also seen a young man who played quarterback in high school become a schizophrenia from vaccinations. These are 2 people that I personally have known for years. I have seen what can happen from vaccinations. That is way more powerful than any "study" that can be done. You go ahead and vaccinate your children. I disagree with you but I am not going to criticize you because I know you are trying to be the best parent you know how. But don't do you dare call my a selfish "a**hole" because I love my kids the same as you and therefore I choose not to vaccinate them.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
There is no association with vaccination. The onset of schizophrenia is classically in the late teens and early 20s. Symptoms of autism (a very different disorder) can become apparent very early but they usually manifest most clearly around age 2. Because of these confounding factors we are left to rely on a HUGE body of information with large epidemiological studies that causally fails to support the hypothesis that vaccinations cause/reveal/exacerbate autism. And I've seen dozens and dozens of schizophrenics and autism spectrum patients so I guess my "personal experience" should trump yours too? But since I'm part of the medical profession I guess I'm the enemy because I would rather kids not get measles encephalitis as a result of avoiding vaccinations based on a faulty premise.
- F
-
There is no association with vaccination. The onset of schizophrenia is classically in the late teens and early 20s. Symptoms of autism (a very different disorder) can become apparent very early but they usually manifest most clearly around age 2. Because of these confounding factors we are left to rely on a HUGE body of information with large epidemiological studies that causally fails to support the hypothesis that vaccinations cause/reveal/exacerbate autism. And I've seen dozens and dozens of schizophrenics and autism spectrum patients so I guess my "personal experience" should trump yours too? But since I'm part of the medical profession I guess I'm the enemy because I would rather kids not get measles encephalitis as a result of avoiding vaccinations based on a faulty premise.
- F
Quote:
There is no association with vaccination.
Says you. I have seen it so I am not sure how you can say that, other than you haven't seen it.
Quote:
usually manifest most clearly around age 2.
Thank you for supporting my point. The girl I refer to was 12 years old when this happened. She was perfectly normal and within days of getting a shot she couldn't speak, act, etc, and was then diagnosed autistic. I realize popular studies don't support this, it's always about money, but I have seen it. That trumps anything you have not seen.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Not even close. In the first hand, I said that science is the best tool we have because it admits it can be wrong and improves in what it knows, using proven methodologies to separate facts from assumptions and theories. In the second, I never came close to saying 'it's all I have', and in fact when you accused me of raising my kids without knowing God, I intimated that this is not the case at all. Having a belief in a higher power does not excuse or explain deliberate ignorance. You're jumping from topic to topic, avoiding any where it's clear your assumptions are wrong, yet assuming I must be wrong because I disagree with you. I asked you for a link to credible research, and defined what I mean by that, and said I would read it. I take it that no link being offered means that you know that any research you trust, fails the test of openness and rigour, which only proves why I should not trust it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Quote:
[science] admits it can be wrong
Again, you state that science can be wrong. Then you deny you say that.
Quote:
I asked you for a link to credible research, and defined what I mean by that, and said I would read it.
You must be getting your messages mixed up because you haven't done this. I did provide a search which provided lots of links. If I gave you a link that proved my point would you change your mind? No, of course you wouldn't. You are not interested in changing your mind because you would have to admit you were wrong. So, what's the point in me providing links to you that you will discredit anyway? I have lots of links, if you won't read them don't try to blame me.
Quote:
You're jumping from topic to topic,
No, I brought up religion as a comparison to what your original post was about. You are mad at people that believe differently than you. That's your point, in simple form. I simply stated that there are tons of people in this world mad at you for your beliefs as well. Just showing you that it is not one-sided.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
you accused me of not knowing anything about autism. I proved you wrong and you just never mentioned it again. Ditto when you accused me of raising heathen children. You keep going, and just drop any accusation that does not work out.
ryanb31 wrote:
Science recently did a study stating that drinking wine is good for you.
Not really. A focus group paid for by wine sellers found this. The tannins in wine are good for you, but they are also in grape juice. And science has proven that anyone who does a study, will try to come up with the results their employer wants, even if they try to be impartial. That's why impartial science is always best, not vested interest studies.
ryanb31 wrote:
You have to take what science gives you and then apply reason to it. You can't just take it blindly, because as even you admitted, it is often wrong.
your ignorance of what I said and what science is, is on open display, because you keep throwing it out there and ignoring my comments.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Quote:
you accused me of not knowing anything about autism.
Not true. I am not sure if you are intentionally trying to incite something or if something I said honestly made you think that. You don't know enough about it, that is true. But I did not say you knew nothing about it. And, you have yet proven anything I said to be wrong. Your opinion is not proof.
Quote:
when you accused me of raising heathen children.
Give me a break. Stop putting words in my mouth. You're wasting my time. I never said this. Don't add to what I say.
Quote:
A focus group paid for by wine sellers found this.
Thank you for agreeing with me. Why don't you dig a little bit more to see who is paying for your so-called scientific studies. Find one and then dig more.
Quote:
your ignorance of what I said and what science is,
What part am I wrong about? I can go back and get your quotes.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
There are no reputable studies that show that.
Not according to your definition of reputable.
Quote:
Which only demonstrates that you know knowing about autism nor science.
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't? OK, so what is the answer?
Quote:
Have you ever heard of google?
I do. Here, let me help you. Click here.[^] Then you quote an article on immunizenow.org. Really? Really? ImmunizeNow.org? That is your reputable source? Wow.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't? OK, so what is the answer?
One, anecdotal evidence might lead to a theory but is seldom (or perhaps never) evidence of causality. Two, a relationship by itself is never proof of causality. If it was everyone would need to start drinking and smoking (since at one time the worlds oldest man did both.) Three, vaccinations do not cause autism. Period. Vaccinations have side effects but that is not one. And that in proven, not conjecture.
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't?
Per your other statements - your are correct in that you do not have the answer. Many relationships have been assumed to be causal because someone got sick, That however IGNORES the fact that there are many potential causes in day to day life and also ignores the KNOWN property that one can always find causality if one chooses the right group. Statistics, the science of statistics, goes to great lengths to determine how to avoid that.
ryanb31 wrote:
Then you quote an article on immunizenow.org. Really? Really? ImmunizeNow.org? That is your reputable source?
You mean a reputable source that actually is a doctor. And one that actually looks at the studies? Yes that is the source. Sigh...I suggest that you look up the "research" of the effects of cow urine which besides curing all known types of cancer also causes other ills as well. You will find that the "reseach" has even been published. I have no problem with someone wishing to believe in the healing power of prayer, voodoo or dancing around a stump in the woods at midnight. But none of those is supported by scientific knowledge. Just like your belief is not. Although it is quite possible that rather than having a positive belief you are allowing nothing but fear to drive your decisions.
-
You never understand logic.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But your analogies never make sense and are so far from the topic at hand and draw so many false conclusions
You understood it to be an analogy so obviously it succeeded. Other than that you can only state that you, yourself, do not find it apt. And since your beliefs/choices put others at risk (and probably yourself as well) and you demand the absolute right to do so then the analogy is apt.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't? OK, so what is the answer?
One, anecdotal evidence might lead to a theory but is seldom (or perhaps never) evidence of causality. Two, a relationship by itself is never proof of causality. If it was everyone would need to start drinking and smoking (since at one time the worlds oldest man did both.) Three, vaccinations do not cause autism. Period. Vaccinations have side effects but that is not one. And that in proven, not conjecture.
ryanb31 wrote:
When I see someone, not just one person, get sick from vaccinations you are telling me science has the answer and I don't?
Per your other statements - your are correct in that you do not have the answer. Many relationships have been assumed to be causal because someone got sick, That however IGNORES the fact that there are many potential causes in day to day life and also ignores the KNOWN property that one can always find causality if one chooses the right group. Statistics, the science of statistics, goes to great lengths to determine how to avoid that.
ryanb31 wrote:
Then you quote an article on immunizenow.org. Really? Really? ImmunizeNow.org? That is your reputable source?
You mean a reputable source that actually is a doctor. And one that actually looks at the studies? Yes that is the source. Sigh...I suggest that you look up the "research" of the effects of cow urine which besides curing all known types of cancer also causes other ills as well. You will find that the "reseach" has even been published. I have no problem with someone wishing to believe in the healing power of prayer, voodoo or dancing around a stump in the woods at midnight. But none of those is supported by scientific knowledge. Just like your belief is not. Although it is quite possible that rather than having a positive belief you are allowing nothing but fear to drive your decisions.
Quote:
a relationship by itself is never proof of causality.
I agree. But how would you explain it. If autism is developed during pregnancy then how is it this 12 year old girl I know developed autism all of the sudden after receiving a shot? What a monumental coincidence? All you have is your silly "causality" statement. What caused it then?
Quote:
You mean a reputable source that actually is a doctor.
There's an oxymoron. What does cow urine have to do with anything? You claim it can cure cancer yet science still says there is no cure for cancer. So, which is it? Loony claims or science? You are fence-sitting.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
You never understand logic.
The fact that you use a word in a sentence doesn't mean that it proves your point.
Quote:
The fact that you use a word in a sentence doesn't mean that it proves your point.
Waste of time. What in the world is this supposed to mean? And, you rarely make sense.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But your analogies never make sense and are so far from the topic at hand and draw so many false conclusions
You understood it to be an analogy so obviously it succeeded. Other than that you can only state that you, yourself, do not find it apt. And since your beliefs/choices put others at risk (and probably yourself as well) and you demand the absolute right to do so then the analogy is apt.
Quote:
You understood it to be an analogy so obviously it succeeded.
Succeeded? Yes, I understood you were trying to make an analogy. No, the analogy did not work. So, if you call that succeeding, you have low expectations of yourself.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
Quote:
but the odds of vaccination causing it, are zero. This is a proven fact.
It is not a proven fact. If it were a proven fact I would not have been able to witness it. At one point in history, it was a proven fact that the earth was flat. Doctors used to encourage patients to smoke, and that was only 60 years ago!! You think you are so smart because of some scientific study funded by the medical industry that even when someone says they have witnessed it you still claim it can't be true. This quote describes you to a T. "Why is it that when you tell a man there are 400 billion stars he will believe you, but when you tell him there's wet paint he has to touch it?"
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
At one point in history, it was a proven fact that the earth was flat.
How was it proven? ;P
Curvature of the Mind now with 3D