The antivaxers have gone full retard

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by The Internet, Dec 7, 2015.

  1. The Internet Member

    Wow that Wolfson guy and his chiro wife take unwarranted self confidence and heartlessness to a level I don't much see outside of Scientology.

    WTF does that mean, "my child is pure"?
    • Like Like x 2
  2. The Internet Member

    I'm reading this debate between the AVN (antivaxers in Austrailia) and a philosophy prof, Patrick Stokes. It is a tl;dr .pdf (158 pages). But there are little gems of interest, like Kierkegaard's smallpox vaccination certificate.

    Good on the Danes for their public health record keeping.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Don't be dumb, get informed. Vaccines are not this perfect invention that you seem to believe like a mindless cult.


    This message by sadignorance has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  4. DeathHamster Member

    An unknown source video, passed through Alex Jones and someone else, and no one has bothered to translate it? No newspaper accounts about the incident in the video? Where and when this took place? Who's doing the Spanish voice-over?

    This is dumb.
    • Like Like x 4
  5. WTF does it matter if Alex Jones mentioned it? Hitler was vegetarian, are vegetables evil? lol
    The youtuber asked for a translation and it was given in the comments.
    It wasn't in official news sources so it's fake? You already think it is fake without any evidence of it.
    "This is dumb." lol
    This message by dumbino has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  6. DeathHamster Member

    Alex Jones has a long history of Making Shit Up, and he never did a speck of fact-checking in his life.

    Stuff has to be verifiable so that it can be double-checked: Did it really happen? Does the video tell the whole story?

    Hey, guess what? The video isn't from Mexico, it's from Colombia, and they'd been vaccinated nearly half a year before the video.

    • Like Like x 5
  7. From that article:
    "no other agents or toxins have been found, the most likely cause is mass sociogenic illness, better known as mass hysteria...They really do experience headaches, nausea, occasional fainting and so on. But the problems are not caused by any external substance or contaminant. The cause is social and psychological."

    lol mass hysteria xD That was just a guess.
    Plus, the article gives no sources. I agree, "stuff has to be verifiable so that it can be double-checked".
  8. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 1
  9. Random guy Member

    Because Jones has an obvious agenda and is known to play loose and fast with facts. When the video was presented through him, it can be trusted as much as the Poultry Trade Organization claiming poultry products are very healthy without a third neutral party verification.

    That's why.

    Damn, what DeathHamster said.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. The Internet Member

    The black PR against vaccines seems aimed at poorly educated people vulnerable to sensationalism.

    Black PR is a bad look. Because misleading people makes them less free. Why would somebody want to do that?

    There's a theme that runs through the tl;dr debate I read: people do not understand that a scientific consensus is the best source of info we are ever going to get.

    If you ask, "what is the state of human understanding regarding X?" the answer you get should be a summary of the relevant scientific literature. The best people to summarize that literature are the scientists actively working and publishing in that area. They are the experts.

    A second theme in that debate: "Oh experts, lol." But nobody can master multiple fields of study in one lifetime. We all have to rely upon experts all the time. There is no escaping that.

    Third theme: the "experts" are all in cahoots to mislead us or are brainwashed by big corporations or are trapped within groupthink. But science means testing and challenging the status quo all the time. The whole literature is a collection of debates carrying on over lifetimes as evidence sifts in. So the picture of scientists in lock step is just crazy talk.
    • Like Like x 2
  11. anon8109 Member

    Conspiracy theorists have a religious/emotional attachment to their conspiracy and no amount of evidence or logic will sway their attachment.

    They have some sort of cognitive failure. Arguing with them is a complete waste of energy since arguments and evidence will never change their minds. For some reason though, they won't stop talking about their obsession, and telling everyone that they are the only ones who know what's really going on.

    I have no idea what would change their minds, or if it's ever possible.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Don't worry somebody somewhere will acomplisch working the Bilderberg group into that one.

  13. The Internet Member

    I agree regarding the true believers. They are slippery fish in any discussion. You respond to one of their points and they misrepresent or misunderstand you. Back and forth then abruptly a whole bunch of other points are thrown at you before that first point is conceded or otherwise settled. Plus they do not understand that being charitable is expected in a civil discussion. You are supposed to assume that the other person said something sensible and not totally crazy, if at all possible.

    Debate over scientific evidence happens within the published, peer reviewed literature. Limiting debate to the literature cuts away a lot of the bullshit that jams up human discussions in other forums. It's important for the public to understand this point. If they think public debates settle anything, they will be mislead about how science actually works. So there is that danger to worry about when you chat with antivaxxers online.

    Sadly, repetition does tend to make wrong ideas seem less wrong. Even educated people are vulnerable to this effect. So there has to be some way to counter the bad info with good info.

    Antivaxxers are notorious for fair gaming people who call them out, sadly. Also, the anti-GMO people are getting militant, even violent. For those reasons, something like Anonymous will be needed to get the scientific consensus on these matters out to the public.
  14. The Internet Member

    Seems like *not* vaccinating would be a better way to kill off a bunch of people.

    Oh I saw this in the comments at your link, KKS. Seems to explain Gates' point, which is indeed about reducing population growth:
    The word "depopulation" makes me think of "culling the herd," i.e., killing people. But Gates is talking about reducing population growth by improving infant mortality rates. When parents don't have dying kids they tend to have fewer kids.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. Ethics Bait Member

    Uh, no just no. A consensus is a political animal, not scientific at all.

    If you want to understand science, then study science. Seriously, that's the only way. It's a tough field, one that requires actually perceiving reality as it is, not as we wish it.

    As Einstein said, when told there was a book with 100 reasons why relativity was wrong said "Why 100? One would do."

    He understood that a consensus is meaningless.

    Wasn't it de Grassi who overturned the consensus on Pluto?
    About 10-15 years ago there was a scientist who drank some nasty concoction to overturn a consensus on what causes ulcers. He was right. Consensus destroyed.

    Consensus has no meaning in science, except perhaps to identify a fruitful place to do research.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. The Internet Member

    A scientific consensus is not the same as a political consensus. You find a scientific consensus within the published, peer reviewed literature.

    For some issues there is no clear consensus. But for others, there are multiple interrelated lines of evidence pointing in one direction. The odds of some new bit of info overturning all that evidence become very small. For example, the laws of thermodynamics. Or the fact that the Earth is getting warmer and that warming relates to human CO2 production. Or that the variety of species on Earth resulted from a process of natural selection.

    The scientific consensus does change over time as new evidence is published within the literature. But the fact that the consensus changes doesn't mean we shouldn't take the current consensus seriously. We simply have no better representation of humanity's understanding of reality.

    Oh one more point: when you "study science," you are studying the scientific consensus concerning various topics. But textbooks nowadays go out of date fairly rapidly. So if you need the current, best summary of the scientific literature, you ask an expert --a scientist working and publishing within the relevant field.

    Members of a political consensus are not required to restrict their comments to some published, peer reviewed body of established facts.
  17. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Posting in epic discussion re science.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. DeathHamster Member

    The post gives a number of links to news articles at the time that covered the story.

    I guess you're not going to address the issue that the video wasn't from Mexico like Alex Jones said?
  19. Just remove the parental power for a short time and get the kids vaccinated.
  20. The Internet Member

    I don't see that working, KittyKat.

    Society can handle a few misinformed or paranoid parents. But how can a good government force thousands of parents to do something that they believe is going to harm their kids?

    We gotta get the legit info to the people so they can understand why vaccinating is sensible. It is not going to be easy because the people pushing misinformation are slick and they spam their message all over the place. If we fail, then a lot of kids are going to suffer terribly.
  21. What I meant by sources was actual evidence, not news links that do not contain any sources of evidence also. Does it prove that the video is fake because Alex Jones said it's not from Mexico? ...No it doesnt

    The Mass Hysteria explanation could be possible, but it is not proven. They also didn't mention anything about the convulsions. Can a person have convulsions because of hysteria?

    A waste of time is arguing with someone that denies any reasonable question because it was tagged as conspiracy theory. Many doctors, nurses and others are worried about certain vaccines and are sharing their evidence and expert opinions. If they are just spreading lies, it should be easy for big companies to sue them and end the dispute... but that is not the case.
    There are many movies about this issue now, if they are spreading lies that could damage millions of ppl, why aren't they in prison?

    If ppl think there is nothing to question, then there is no point in discussing it with them. It's a choice really, it doesn't matter how much evidence is presented.

    I agree completely. Consensus in science means nothing. If we accepted everything deemed fact, there would never be progress in science. Many scientists have been proven wrong after their theories were accepted by majority.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  22. The Internet Member

    A scientific consensus is different from what you think. It is a summary of all the evidence in the published, peer reviewed literature regarding some issue. For some issues there may be no consensus at present, while for other issues there exists a mountain of evidence all lining up on one side of some debate.

    The consensus changes as new evidence is discovered, usually very gradually. So a hundred years from now we might have different views on a lot of things. But we can be pretty sure that many views will not change, thanks to the quality and quantity of evidence available today. For example, in a hundred years we will still understand that we live on a planet in orbit around our sun. And we will still understand how antibody responses are provoked by antigens, and how these antibodies help us to fight off infections.

    Do not ask a scientific expert for his personal opinion. Ask him, "what is the scientific consensus regarding vaccines right now?" Even a slightly cranky expert should be able to summarize how the evidence stacks up. If the cranky guy cannot do that competently, he is not an actual expert.

    You can't sue someone for an opinion in the US, thanks to the 1st amendment.

    There is only one forum for scientific evidence: the published, peer reviewed literature. So if doctors are "sharing" their evidence, you must mean that they are publishing papers that others can review. "Sharing" evidence on blogs and YouTubes without publishing is cheating.
    • Like Like x 2
  23. The Internet Member

    I am glad you are interested in evidence. We probably should clarify the type of evidence relevant to this question.

    Hey what is the question? Oh yeah. Some girls in a school started acting like they were having seizures. These girls had received a vaccine against human papilloma virus over 6 months prior. We want to know if the vaccine caused the behavior.

    So what evidence do we need? Well, not a scientific consensus. In this case we need an evaluation of the girls by a doctor who can make a diagnosis.

    Hey guess what! We got that! As I understand, a doctor said these girls did not have seizures or some physical problem. Their behavior was best explained as mass hysteria.

    So as message board people who did not examine these girls, we must defer to the relevant expert in this case.

    A lot of problems are easy to sort once you get the chowder out of your head.
    • Like Like x 5
  24. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Oh hai
  25. The Wrong Guy Member

  26. The Internet Member

    That title is misleading because it sounds like a pharma company bribed this state senator. The article says the senator has investments in medical and pharma companies. Lots of people do.

    Maybe this guy should not have been involved in legislation that would affect his stock portfolio.

    Oh wait my bad. It says he also got $420,ooo from pharma companies over 4 years. Seems like a lot of money. I wish the article would say if that was for his campaign or something more sneaky.

    Oh wait my bad (I blame this incredible beer), I read, "Sen. Kemp Hannon's investments and the campaign contributions he received from the medical community have raised eyebrows as the actions of state lawmakers are under legal scrutiny." So it is not clear to me how much is from a pharma company that makes the menningitis vax and how much is from doctors or other medical related companies.

    I don't want to get too sidetracked by dirty politics, which is most politics now thanks to PACs. Because the issue is not relevant to the question of evidence for or against vaccine efficacy.
    • Like Like x 3
  27. You see evidence of politics corrupted by big pharma and you still think vaccine skeptics don't have reasons to question?

    Give me some of that beer please! :p
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  28. The Internet Member

    If a pharma company bribes a politician, that does not mean honest scientific work concerning meds and vaccines is not happening.

    Pharma companies invest a lot in R&D. Unfortunately, most new drugs that look promising during pre-clinical trials and during uncontrolled clinical trials later fail to prove safety and efficacy during controlled clinical trials. That proves that pharma companies really are constrained by the need for evidence. So that is reassuring.
  29. White Tara Global Moderator

  30. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    When big pharmaceutical companies cheat on side effects they don't out right lie about it, they minimize it. This is why you read the research and look at the adverse events. You don't read biased presentations, you look at the research. The U.S. government plugged one hole- all the research the drug companies finance have to published, not just the studies that support the pharmaceuticals profit. So look at the peer reviewed papers, articles in journals. Actually look at what you can find in NIH database, don't listen like sheep to biased information
    Shows industry bias 2003 6/reviewofnatProductPharm.pdf
    Why the pharmaceutical companies seem to support woo medicine.
    New prescription drugs more likely to have unreported side effects ( why you trust old drugs more - like vaccines- because the side effects are known.
  31. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  32. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  33. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    The point is- you can search for drug or vaccine problems and answer the question for yourself, because pharmaceuticals can't lie about their drugs, they try to hide them, look for yourself to see what's hidden.
  34. The Internet Member

    Problem is, Dis, that reported side effects aren't necessarily side effects. If you take a pill and drop dead that day, that event may get reported as a side effect when really it was just a coincidence. Sorting out cause and effect is complicated and usually requires a few years of monitoring. I don't think lay people are in the best position to judge the likelihood of a symptom being caused by a med versus being coincidental. Experienced, expert opinion is going to be better than lay opinion. Listening to experts doesn't make you a sheeple. Actually, not listening to experts sets you up to get robbed.

    Also, if side effects show up after a new drug is released, that doesn't necessarily mean the drug manufacture minimized or tried to cover up that side effect during clinical trials (FDA phase III testing). We expect side effects to become more apparent after the drug is released (FDA phase IV surveillance).

    It is important for trials to be registered prior to publication. That is a positive change. Another change we will likely see in the near future is the death of the p-value. People within the scientific community are always discussing and debating ways to make research more efficient. The woo friendly use areas of debate to make the public paranoid about meds and doctors. But those guys are not a part of any of those debates. They're not helping move science forward.
  35. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    All of that is true.
    The points are:
    1. There are legitimate studies showing drug companies minimize side effects. In the original studies you can see the side effect ignored as AE ( adverse events) but that side effect was judged to be rare.
    2. In these same journals there are research studies showing side effects of various drugs.
    3. You can find research on the side effects of every drug using the FDA data base, the same FDA that reported cases where the drug companies hid results. These results are the medical research papers from peer reviewed journals, not someone's thoughts on side effects.
    4. You can find the cases where side effects were seen after the drugs approved by the FDA and given to people.
    5. The side effects of older drugs are known unlike newer drugs.
    6. Vaccines are old.

    So the theory that the government and Big Pharma are in a conspiracy to hide vaccine side effects is disproven- if that were true there wouldn't be research proving that Big Pharma hides results. Everyone can see the research papers on vaccine safety, not someone's biased thoughts on vaccine safety. Major hidden side effects are in new drugs. Vaccines are old.
    Sheeple can and should look for themselves.
    Many of the antivax parents are intelligent and caring and capable of researching. There is nothing we can do about the lunatic fringe.
  36. anon8109 Member

    Every action has risk of harmful side effects, not just taking medicine.

    Driving your kids around, or taking them swimming, is much *much* much more dangerous than any kind of vaccine, yet there is no anti-car/anti-swimming movement out there that the media pays any attention to.

    If you want to keep your kids safe, don't put them in a car or near a pool, these are the #1 killers of children in the US.


    View attachment leading_causes_of_injury_deaths_highlighting_unint
    • Like Like x 1
  37. Puglife Member

    You're welcome:
    FDA documents admit vaccines are linked to autism!

    FDA Document:

    "Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting. Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine."

    So much hate and polarization of this fcked up issue and now they even admit it themselves lol...
    There should be ppl going to prison right about now.
  38. anon8109 Member

    Because these events are reported voluntarily from a population of uncertain size, it is not always possible to reliably estimate their frequencies or to establish a causal relationship to components of Tripedia vaccine
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Random guy Member

    Yes, it's been reported, does not mean there's any connection. Particularly after the Wakefield debackle, a lot of people automatically assumed there were a connection and reported it as such. The FDA reports that it have received reports, not that there's any causality.

    Try better next time.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins