Hey! Let's Open The Vaccination Can Of Worms!

Most of what you say is probably correct, too, just completely irrelevant to the discussion as you admit it is... except you keep pressing the same points despite their irrelevance. Why?

Gisteron wrote: [strike]Most of[/strike] what you say is [strike]probably[/strike] correct

Thank you.

[hr]

Gisteron wrote: just completely irrelevant

Earlier I refused to answer Brenda's question because it would have dragged things off into endless debate into areas that have nothing to do with vaccines.

Mercury still has everything to do with vaccines.

Believe it or not I've tried my best to focus on just how devastating to your brain mercury really is, and the evidence which supports that.

[hr]

Gisteron wrote: Why?

Because I keep getting asked off topic questions like this one, and then challenged on my responses, forcing me to cite sources till the other parties are satisfied with the evidence. That's the long and the short of it.

Red_Eye_Jedi wrote: Mercury still has everything to do with vaccines.

Believe it or not I've tried my best to focus on just how devastating to your brain mercury really is, and the evidence which supports that.

Evidence for the damaging effects of mercury is not evidence for the damaging effects of vaccines even if they contain it. Brenna argued that it is a trade-off and that we are willingly risking the negative for the positive. I go a step further: Show us the negative that most of us should by now be suffering from. You readily admitted that you cannot show any correlation between those effects and vaccination which we definately should be seeing if there is one. You thereby admit yourself that your argument has nothing to do with the topic and then in the same breath you go on to insist that it does. That is what I mean when I say it is irrelevant or when I ask what your argument really is. Make up your mind. Change it, correct it, when necessary if necessary; just don't stick to one that contradicts itself.

Also, thanks for quote-mining.

Gisteron wrote:

Red_Eye_Jedi wrote: Mercury still has everything to do with vaccines.

Believe it or not I've tried my best to focus on just how devastating to your brain mercury really is, and the evidence which supports that.

Evidence for the damaging effects of mercury is not evidence for the damaging effects of vaccines even if they contain it. Brenna argued that it is a trade-off and that we are willingly risking the negative for the positive. I go a step further: Show us the negative that most of us should by now be suffering from. You readily admitted that you cannot show any correlation between those effects and vaccination which we definately should be seeing if there is one. You thereby admit yourself that your argument has nothing to do with the topic and then in the same breath you go on to insist that it does. That is what I mean when I say it is irrelevant or when I ask what your argument really is. Make up your mind. Change it, correct it, when necessary if necessary; just don't stick to one that contradicts itself.

Also, thanks for quote-mining.

What are you asking? Lack of evidence is not lack of existence, its just lack of evidence. I don't think anyone is saying all people are going to suffer the effects of mercury poisoning from vaccines... the concern seems to be 'some' people might, and the problem is their is no proof (yet, or ever).

Adder wrote: I don't think anyone is saying all people are going to suffer the effects of mercury poisoning from vaccines... the concern seems to be 'some' people might, and the problem is their is no proof (yet, or ever).

Some people are also allergic to egg proteins (found in certain vaccines for very important reasons), which prohibit them from being fully vaccinated. If you are not known to be likely to have an adverse reaction to thimerosal, then there is really no excuse to not vaccinate. If you willingly refuse to vaccinate because you 'might' have an adverse reaction, then you would be endangering all of those who most certainly would.

Many people are allergic to peanuts, but does that mean we should never eat peanuts on the off chance that we are allergic?

Allergies and adverse reactions are one of the reasons vaccinations are carried out in such a controlled manner. When we got them in primary and high school, we weren't allowed to go back to class for 20 minutes to make sure we didn't react. Out of 200 students on multiple occasions, no one ever got a serious adverse reaction (assuming a sore arm doesn't count).

Fenton wrote: Many people are allergic to peanuts, but does that mean we should never eat peanuts on the off chance that we are allergic?

The grey area which constitutes the problem here is not evident with peanut allergy, as peanut allergies can be tested for AFAIK. The divergence occurs around the element of individual choice about something which cannot be scientifically ascertained with certainty (yet, or ever) which can impact others. I've already posted my thoughts in this thread ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) but its easy for a conversation with these sorts of attributes to run around in circles. It's an interesting discussion to consider where individual freedom is overturned by social responsibility.

In every practical sense, absense of evidence is very much evidence of absense, but I needn't argue that at all. We don't act on scientific certainty, we act on what we believe. Fear is a powerful incentive and we should not ignore it when making decisions, but we must make sure our fears are less than completely baseless before we act on it.

To that end I had already made the case so simple as to require only demonstration of a correlation, not a causation. If not even that can be shown, there is nothing to discuss. I concurr with Fenton that we cannot refuse everything that causes a negative effect on some, but since we don't know that vaccines do cause those effects on anyone or that it is even possible that they would, it is not even a concern. Those arguing against vaccination with the dangerous-chemical argument have still all their way ahead of them to make it worth considering even if we grant them that it is valid and sound.

We've had vaccines for some time now, and many of us exist thanks to them. Why people blame vaccines for a rise in any kind of problems while completely ignoring the fact that we've poisoned our food and water is beyond me. Your morning cereal is toxic, those pills that so many take in order "to cope" are toxic. Those hormones you consume either willingly or not are known to screw things up. People regularly inject themselves with the most potent neurotoxin known to man, but for some reason, it's the last line of defense against serious diseases that gets blamed.
It almost feels like a rumor started by the voluntary human extinction movement.

The grey area which constitutes the problem here is not evident with peanut allergy, as peanut allergies can be tested for AFAIK.

Exactly. I would be a whole lot less against vaccine's if it wasn't a all or nothing thing. There is no way to test your bodies response to the vaccine before you take it. You either get it and suffer the after effects (And pray to god its not a to death after effect) or you don't and your looked at as a reject of society.

I have a daughter who at the age of one years old had gotten sick with a high fever, this was her first real fever and we had no idea how sensitive she was to illness's. I was 9 months pregnant with my second child and it was in the middle of july. Life was literally quite miserable as I tried to love my daughter and take care of her with a Huge belly in the way. Anyways...One evening her fever spiked unexpectedly. Just out of no where BAM. She was so hot and no matter what I did (Cold rags, bath, popsicles, another round of Ibuprophin) That fever just got too hot and she went into a seizure. Thank the gods for kind people, quick response ambulances, and semi friendly doctors....(Semi)

Now to this day my daughter is still very sensitive to illness. She will get fevers out of no where, even when just too stressed out and over stimulated and goes to school so gets to bring home all those lovely flues from school.

Otherwise...she is a perfectly healthy child. As such, I am more than a little concerned what the effects of Vaccine will have on her. Call me an outcast, call me irrisponsable, spit at my feet all you people want. But my child's safety is my number one concern and as a mother. I have my reason and there is no insult either of you can give to me that will change my mind, or what I take from my own research. Which has done little quail my concerns thus far. Its all or nothing....and that scares me.

Another story.....I almost lost my best friend to vaccine. I was sick the day she got it.... So I stayed home from school (first grade years) and heard the story through frantic adult talking....my best friends mother was in a full state of panic...turned out the nurses vaccinated all the children in my class without parental consent (yes this does happen) and my best friend was rushed to the hospital due to an allergic reaction. No one knew she was allergic to anything in vaccines until that day when it was too late....All or nothing.

Kitsu Tails wrote: You either get it and suffer the after effects (And pray to god its not a to death after effect)

Which is totally worse than the "death after effect" of, say, the measles.

or you don't and your looked at as a reject of society.

...because you're actively working against that society's collective interest by providing conditions in which formerly controlled diseases can return. People are petri dishes and innoculation protects us from being a breeding ground for diseases we're vaccinated against. This lowers the incidence that unvaccinated people will come in contact with the disease in question, and is generally considered a very smart idea. That's why the vast majority of doctors with modern medical degrees throughout the world maintain that vaccination is, as Martha might put it, "a good thing."