I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

A skeptical look at medical practices
Arch-Theologist
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:01 am

I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Arch-Theologist » Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:41 pm

When it comes to vaccinations we all know there are incredibly ignorant people out there who would rather their children die or get incredibly ill, than take a harmless vaccine.

Today I spoke with a friend of a friend. She apparently writes for the following publication:

http://www.homefoodheals.com/

While discussing with her the dangers of her ignorance it became apparent that she was a right-wing science-denier and was willing to put her incredibly sick daughter through even more pain and suffering, rather than vaccinate her.

There has been in recent events (I'm sure you've probably heard), in which conspiracy theorists are claiming to have been enlightened to a CDC scandal in which they've hidden data.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... nd-autism/
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/c ... blower.asp
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/did ... ican-boys/

Even after having quoted these articles, I kept getting the run around from this lady. She would direct me to blogs and even posted this...

http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom ... er-review/

You know you have a problem with where you get your information if it has more than one 'freedom' in it :roll: .

Anyways, I just thought I'd share my experience with you. I'm incredibly tired, but I would also like to let you all get some kicks out of just how willingly ignorant she is. Here are a couple of posts she made.
My husband and I do a lot of fact searching and watch a lot of documentaries, should we create a website and call it fact? It's a husband and wife who are behind snopes. What makes them more credible than anyone else? I can go online and find anything to back up what I think and that is exactly what they do.

By the way, great argument, "I have all my vaccinations, why don't I have autism?" There are many people in this country with vaccine injuries, my daughter included. You don't need to be rude or condescending to others who have to suffer with this everyday. I pray to God you or your loved ones never have to suffer what we have because we didn't do our research well enough and believed what the government and doctors told us.


For every article you have, I have one too. Btw, I read your whole article, now you read mine. And measles is a rash that lasts a coupe of days, ask your parents and grandparents. Out of 500 cases in the US this year no one died and they all recovered. My daughter will never recover. I would rather her have had the measles.


Would anyone mind sharing some of their sources for rebuking some of this nonsense? I can only find so much going through old science textbooks or Sciencebasedmedicine.org.

- The Arch-Theologist

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:48 pm

lmgtfy.com
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Arch-Theologist
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:01 am

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Arch-Theologist » Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:55 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:lmgtfy.com

Ah yes, I used to love using that site as a kid during flame-wars.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 27, 2014 4:57 pm

Arch-Theologist wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:lmgtfy.com

Ah yes, I used to love using that site as a kid during flame-wars.

I use it when I detect a lack of effort.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:06 pm

parent wrote:And measles is a rash that lasts a coupe of days, ask your parents and grandparents.



If she's not afraid of measles today, it is thanks to vaccination - and misinformation. She also can consider herself lucky her daughter wouldn't have been one of the 1000:
Complications

About one out of 10 children with measles also gets an ear infection, and up to one out of 20 gets pneumonia. About one out of 1,000 gets encephalitis, and one or two out of 1,000 die. Other rash-causing diseases often confused with measles include roseola (roseola infantum) and rubella (German measles).


As to her claim "it's just a rash":
Measles is a respiratory disease caused by a virus. The disease of measles and the virus that causes it share the same name. The disease is also called rubeola. Measles virus normally grows in the cells that line the back of the throat and lungs.
...
It is so contagious that any child who is exposed to it and is not immune will probably get the disease.
...
Measles is very rare in countries and regions of the world that are able to keep vaccination coverage high.
(Bolding mine.)
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html


A friend's very young child died of encephalitis not too long ago. I would not advocate for taking any such chances as your friend of a friend is pushing for.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Arch-Theologist
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:01 am

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Arch-Theologist » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:11 pm

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Arch-Theologist wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:lmgtfy.com

Ah yes, I used to love using that site as a kid during flame-wars.

I use it when I detect a lack of effort.

Well this lady certainly isn't lacking effort. She's trying to convince me, but it's just making for one hilariously long conversation about hollow earth lizards and crystals.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:13 pm

I also like Quackwatch. It has much easy to read and understand information and tons of references.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Arch-Theologist
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:01 am

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Arch-Theologist » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:16 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
parent wrote:And measles is a rash that lasts a coupe of days, ask your parents and grandparents.



If she's not afraid of measles today, it is thanks to vaccination - and misinformation. She also can consider herself lucky her daughter wouldn't have been one of the 1000:
Complications

About one out of 10 children with measles also gets an ear infection, and up to one out of 20 gets pneumonia. About one out of 1,000 gets encephalitis, and one or two out of 1,000 die. Other rash-causing diseases often confused with measles include roseola (roseola infantum) and rubella (German measles).


As to her claim "it's just a rash":
Measles is a respiratory disease caused by a virus. The disease of measles and the virus that causes it share the same name. The disease is also called rubeola. Measles virus normally grows in the cells that line the back of the throat and lungs.
...
It is so contagious that any child who is exposed to it and is not immune will probably get the disease.
...
Measles is very rare in countries and regions of the world that are able to keep vaccination coverage high.
(Bolding mine.)
http://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/overview.html


A friend's very young child died of encephalitis not too long ago. I would not advocate for taking any such chances as your friend of a friend is pushing for.

Thanks for the information! I'll certainly use that overview page, though the CDC is "part of the conspiracy" LOL.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:23 pm

How about the parties where they purposely infect the children? Ain't that a plum.
Q/ How did such parents escape being Jonestowners?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arch-Theologist
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:01 am

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Arch-Theologist » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:24 pm

SweetPea wrote:How about the parties where they purposely infect the children? Ain't that a plum.

Oh yes, I live in Texas and I would expect that this lady would be into such modern ways of killing her children. Especially considering she's a right-wing nutjob.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:25 pm

Arch-Theologist wrote:
SweetPea wrote:How about the parties where they purposely infect the children? Ain't that a plum.

Oh yes, I live in Texas and I would expect that this lady would be into such modern ways of killing her children. Especially considering she's a right-wing nutjob.


There is no political divide, to my knowledge.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Arch-Theologist
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:01 am

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Arch-Theologist » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:31 pm

SweetPea wrote:
Arch-Theologist wrote:
SweetPea wrote:How about the parties where they purposely infect the children? Ain't that a plum.

Oh yes, I live in Texas and I would expect that this lady would be into such modern ways of killing her children. Especially considering she's a right-wing nutjob.


There is no political divide, to my knowledge.

Well true, and I should probably stop letting my politics take over. It's incredibly frustrating when arguing with science-deniers though. Sorry, hope I didn't offend you in any way.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:33 pm

Arch-Theologist wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Arch-Theologist wrote:
SweetPea wrote:How about the parties where they purposely infect the children? Ain't that a plum.

Oh yes, I live in Texas and I would expect that this lady would be into such modern ways of killing her children. Especially considering she's a right-wing nutjob.


There is no political divide, to my knowledge.

Well true, and I should probably stop letting my politics take over. It's incredibly frustrating when arguing with science-deniers though. Sorry, hope I didn't offend you in any way.
I'm not American and not right wing, and not offended, thanks.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22150
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Wed Aug 27, 2014 5:38 pm

Arch-Theologist wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:
Arch-Theologist wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:lmgtfy.com

Ah yes, I used to love using that site as a kid during flame-wars.

I use it when I detect a lack of effort.

Well this lady certainly isn't lacking effort. She's trying to convince me, but it's just making for one hilariously long conversation about hollow earth lizards and crystals.

I was referring to you.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by TJrandom » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:21 pm

Maybe those cancers were within the control group?

On related cancers – from Wiki….

In 1998, the National Cancer Institute undertook a large study, using cancer case information from the Institute's SEER database. The published findings from the study revealed that there was no increased incidence of cancer in persons who may have received vaccine containing SV40.[50] Another large study in Sweden examined cancer rates of 700,000 individuals who had received potentially contaminated polio vaccine as late as 1957; the study again revealed no increased cancer incidence between persons who received polio vaccines containing SV40 and those who did not.[51] The question of whether SV40 causes cancer in humans remains controversial however, and the development of improved assays for detection of SV40 in human tissues will be needed to resolve the controversy.

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

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by TJrandom » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:42 pm

A-number wrote: thank you. The recipients didn't all develop cancer right away (or maybe some did, I don't know), some did much later, others did in their teen years, etc. So there is really no way for them to exactly find out the magnitude of the impact or result. As not all keep up with their medical follow ups, etc.


The vaccine was developed in the early 50`s and released for widespread use in the early 60`s. So by 1998, when the National Cancer Institute undertook their study – between 40 and nearly 50 years after the first use, one might presume that the increase in cancers would have surfaced. In the meantime, the rate of polio infection dropped like a rock.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11291
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by OlegTheBatty » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:51 pm

A-number wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Maybe those cancers were within the control group?

On related cancers – from Wiki….

In 1998, the National Cancer Institute undertook a large study, using cancer case information from the Institute's SEER database. The published findings from the study revealed that there was no increased incidence of cancer in persons who may have received vaccine containing SV40.[50] Another large study in Sweden examined cancer rates of 700,000 individuals who had received potentially contaminated polio vaccine as late as 1957; the study again revealed no increased cancer incidence between persons who received polio vaccines containing SV40 and those who did not.[51] The question of whether SV40 causes cancer in humans remains controversial however, and the development of improved assays for detection of SV40 in human tissues will be needed to resolve the controversy.

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

thank you. The recipients didn't all develop cancer right away (or maybe some did, I don't know), some did much later, others did in their teen years, etc. So there is really no way for them to exactly find out the magnitude of the impact or result. As not all keep up with their medical follow ups, etc.

The main reason people develop cancers after being vaccinated is that, here in Canada at least, virtually everyone was vaccinated for polio. When i was a kid, they came to the schools and gave us the vaccine. Nbody asked if we wanted it or not.

Because of antibiotics and vaccines, people are living long enough to get cancers. The rates are much higher for older people. So, in that way, one could say that vaccines cause cancer - by letting you live long enought to get it.

Here's a question - if a person is vaccinated for polio when a child, then gets cancer when they are 70yo, do you count that as the vaccine causing the cancer?
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

nmblum88
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 6:28 pm

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by nmblum88 » Wed Aug 27, 2014 10:55 pm

A-number wrote:...Apparently "Dr. Mary's monkey" book talk about how in the 50's the US was responsible about 1000's and 1000's of people developping different types of cancer via agreeing to be polio vaccined.
Vaccins are good, not all of them tough. So if people are concerned about certain vaccins, they should be listened to and not automatically discredited and accused.

In regard to the book, some even argue that's how cancer first been spread as some strains were added to the vaccin as a part of conducting an experiment. B4 then, cancer was rare if not unheard of.


Really?
Somehow nothing really seems like satire any more: real life not only initiates art it continually surpasses it making the real more unreal than the actually unreal:
And vice versa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5Vvs2cdqY

And not that it matters, but cases of cancer did not just arrive like Topsy in the mid 20th Century.
Cases of cancer of various kinds and levels of fatality have been described in all their cruel suffering as far back as the ancient Greeks.
And in fact in very recently yet another tracing of cancer through the ages and in ever corner of the world, appeared.
The totally fascinating example of stunning research as well as an important history of mankind, and of science and medicine:
Mukherjee, Siddhartha, The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer (2011)

NMB
Skepticism:
" Norma, you poor sad lonely alcoholic. You entire life is devoted to interrupting other people's posts on this forum, regardless of the topic, to tell them what's wrong with them. The irony is, here you are doing it again, with this very post.
Your fanciful card games, movie sojourns and exciting overseas trips, that all take place within the four walls of an aged care retirement home, do not suggest your own children offered you the care, I gave my parents."

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:02 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:Because of antibiotics and vaccines, people are living long enough to get cancers. The rates are much higher for older people. So, in that way, one could say that vaccines cause cancer - by letting you live long enought to get it.
Modern medicine - including surgeries, plus sanitation and nutrition in general, are extending lifespan, and probably even if a control group were used, who did not receive vaccines, they too would have extended lifespan average - something which is difficult to analyze because the herd has been vaccinated and so that offers protection to the unvaccinated due to lower rate of contact with the diseased than would otherwise be.
But lifespans would be longer now anyway, even without vaccinations.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 27, 2014 11:22 pm

SweetPea wrote:... something which is difficult to analyze because the herd has been vaccinated and so that offers protection to the unvaccinated due to lower rate of contact with the diseased than would otherwise be.
But lifespans would be longer now anyway, even without vaccinations.

Yeah, but beginning when?

Has medicine really the ability to successfully deal with diseases that are no longer a threat because of continued, ongoing vaccination?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:18 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
SweetPea wrote:... something which is difficult to analyze because the herd has been vaccinated and so that offers protection to the unvaccinated due to lower rate of contact with the diseased than would otherwise be.
But lifespans would be longer now anyway, even without vaccinations.

Yeah, but beginning when?
Especially starting with proper sanitation in public and hospital facilities.

Has medicine really the ability to successfully deal with diseases that are no longer a threat because of continued, ongoing vaccination?
In some cases. But ability or no ability to treat diseases that are no longer a threat obviously doesn't add up to much difference either way, on average lifespans.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:28 am

Especially starting with proper sanitation in public and hospital facilities.

Very true, dat.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by clarsct » Fri Aug 29, 2014 3:57 am

A-number wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
. So, in that way, one could say that vaccines cause cancer - by letting you live long enought to get it.


some have cancer in thier 20's, I met a guy not long ago, who had cancer in his 30's. so sorry but I disagree.

Ancedotes are not evidence.

DId these folks get cancer from vaccines?

I am sorry to hear of someone young getting cancer. Don't misunderstand. But more cancers happen as we age. And we would expect this, given what we understand of cancer and genetics.

Cancer to someone who is twenty is rare. Potentially devastating, but rare.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

bad news

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 30, 2014 6:48 pm

News is that CDC covered up evidence that on-time MMR vaccine is linked to over 300 % increase in autism amongst black children.

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=24214
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:32 pm

The excerpt says "The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before 36 months...", but if true, it's still a

Spoiler:
Image
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:41 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:The excerpt says "The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before 36 months...", but if true, it's still a

Spoiler:
Image


"On-time" vaccination is before then.
This is a racial quagmire too. it's already dubbed "Tuskegee Revisited"
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 30, 2014 7:46 pm

I think Mrs. Obama's actions are going to be looked into as they reflect on it tangentially. More to come on that.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2 ... bama-.html

Had the MMR study been reduced in numbers of black childrens' results studied, it would have changed things.
It's tenuous but I think it may come up as an issue.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:07 pm

SweetPea wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:The excerpt says "The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before 36 months...", but if true, it's still a

Spoiler:
Image


"On-time" vaccination is before then.
This is a racial quagmire too. it's already dubbed "Tuskegee Revisited"

Yes, but in saying "children", the distinction the article makes about the results of that study is omitted: "males".
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:12 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:The excerpt says "The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before 36 months...", but if true, it's still a

Spoiler:
Image


"On-time" vaccination is before then.
This is a racial quagmire too. it's already dubbed "Tuskegee Revisited"

Yes, but in saying "children", the distinction the article makes about the results of that study is omitted: "males".
You're right.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by SweetPea » Sat Aug 30, 2014 8:31 pm

I hadn't noticed the thread author's links to this.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/c ... blower.asp
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PennyDotson
Poster
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:35 pm

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by PennyDotson » Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:24 pm

I have friends who don't believe in getting their kids vaccinated as well as friends who do. Personally I do, unless my child is allergic to it like the flu shot, due to the fact she's allergic to eggs. I say better safe than sorry. Everyone in my family is well vaccinated and yet nothing wrong with us. It's just misinformation and people who are against pretty much anything when it comes to vaccinations. For me, I am more content in having my child protected, while others might think I'm just making her more sick. Until I find some relevant information from a reliable source, not just some nut on the internet talking pure holistic and everything should be natural, I will keep my child vaccinated. Don't get me wrong, I don't like taking medications for everything, because long story short, I feel like they make you develop more issues than actually helping, due to personal experience, but as far as vaccinations, I haven't had a terrible or horrifying experience, so who I am to say what's really wrong or right because I'm not in those parents and people's shoes. As a parent though,I will keep on getting my child as my future children vaccinated for my own satisfaction knowing I'm doing what I can to protect them.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Oct 10, 2014 1:49 pm

PennyDotson wrote:I have friends who don't believe in getting their kids vaccinated as well as friends who do. Personally I do, unless my child is allergic to it like the flu shot, due to the fact she's allergic to eggs. I say better safe than sorry. Everyone in my family is well vaccinated and yet nothing wrong with us. It's just misinformation and people who are against pretty much anything when it comes to vaccinations. For me, I am more content in having my child protected, while others might think I'm just making her more sick. Until I find some relevant information from a reliable source, not just some nut on the internet talking pure holistic and everything should be natural, I will keep my child vaccinated. Don't get me wrong, I don't like taking medications for everything, because long story short, I feel like they make you develop more issues than actually helping, due to personal experience, but as far as vaccinations, I haven't had a terrible or horrifying experience, so who I am to say what's really wrong or right because I'm not in those parents and people's shoes.

Wise, informed choices. In regard to vaccination, and also to not taking sometimes unnecessary medications indiscriminately.

As a parent though, I will keep on getting my child as my future children vaccinated for my own satisfaction knowing I'm doing what I can to protect them.

And also others, by not posing an infectious thread to them. May you all stay well and healthy, and rational. :-D
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:55 pm

A-#, such longevity (and other features) may "run in families" and not necessarily apply to the next guy?

Location and environment also might play a role?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

clarsct
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1429
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 pm
Location: The Cultural Desert

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by clarsct » Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:25 am

A-number wrote:
clarsct wrote:
A-number wrote:
OlegTheBatty wrote:
. So, in that way, one could say that vaccines cause cancer - by letting you live long enought to get it.


some have cancer in thier 20's, I met a guy not long ago, who had cancer in his 30's. so sorry but I disagree.

Ancedotes are not evidence.


Those are statistics. Since you don't give {!#%@} about then, then I guess they're "anecdotal" to you and others.
...and somebody that gets cancer in their 20's has lived long enough so they need to vacate the space they are occupying to somebody else, right? what is wrong with this conclusion. My gran pa never got vaccinated in his life and lived to a staggering one hundred and seventeen!!!!!!!one of his female cousins made it to one hundred and twenty!!!!! the same thing no vaccine....Go ahead and try to process that. I am certain you can't.


Erm WTF?

Knowing a guy or two who got cancer in their twenties or thirties is not statistics.
This entire post reads like a non-sequitur. One guy didn't get vaccinated and lived a long time. That is also ancedotal. It is evidence of a specific circumstance, and nothing more. What we make public health decisions upon is not abnormal cases, but how things affect a population. I haven't seen any credible studies that link vaccines to cancer. I have seen a few that link old age to cancer, and we know some of the mechanisms by which cancer occurs. A vaccine does not insert into a cell's DNA, nor does it even interact with such. I am unsure on how they are causing cancer, and, thus far, have not seen any good evidence of a mechanism or any good math behind a link of the two.

When I look for evidence, I look on a scientific level, not a personal level. I can be fooled. My perceptions can be misdirected, and I am prone to bias. This is largely true of human beings. I want numbers. I want data. Give me not your tear-soaked, your ancedotes, or your drama. I find it unconvincing. Just because I have seen it does not make it so. I watch Penn & Teller, but I do not accept that they are using mystical powers to accomplish their illusions. It may appear so, but that does not make it true.
When Religion becomes State, and breaking the Law becomes a Sin, then Dissenters will become Heretics.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9834
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by TJrandom » Sun Oct 12, 2014 4:12 am

My own grandparents on my mothers` side lived well into their 90`s, and so did my own parents. But if you look back 200 years, their average lifespans were much shorter for reasons that are obvious by looking at the ancestral chart. Back then, many (20% or so) died in childhood, presumeably due to diseases which are managed today by vaccinations. First and second wives usually died in childbirth, as did some third wives, and only a very few women, and a few more men lived into their 70`s or 80`s. Of course none were vaccinated, so while a few did live into their 80`s – when averaged out they really only lived into their 40`s.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Tue Oct 28, 2014 7:44 pm

OlegTheBatty wrote:...virtually everyone was vaccinated for polio. When i was a kid, they came to the schools and gave us the vaccine...


Today is the 100th Birthday of the man who said: "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?"

Dr Jonas Salk. :bq:
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
gorgeous
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4900
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by gorgeous » Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:42 am

Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of polio vaccine, exposed as criminal

www.naturalnews.com/031564_Jonas_Salk_m ... --------Dr. Jonas Salk, inventor of polio vaccine, exposed as criminal-minded scientist who conducted illicit medical experiments on mental patients

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031564_Jonas ... -According to the Associated Press, Dr. Jonas Salk co-authored a clinical trial that "injected experimental flu vaccine in male patients at a state insane asylum in Ypsilanti, Mich., then exposed them to flu several months later." The victims of this medical experiment were described as "senile and debilitated," meaning that obtaining their rational consent to participate in such experiments would have been impossible. And that means Dr. Jonas Salk -- one of the most highly-worshipped figures throughout modern medicine -- was conducting this trial in violation of medical ethics and in violation of the law.
-----------------AP reports that in 1963, for example, "Researchers injected cancer cells into 19 old and debilitated patients at a Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital in the New York borough of Brooklyn to see if their bodies would reject them." This was a pharma-funded experiment, of course, conducted by yet another criminal-minded researcher claiming to be carrying out "science."
-------------The AP goes on to report:

"In widely covered congressional hearings in 1973, pharmaceutical industry officials acknowledged they were using prisoners for testing because they were cheaper than chimpanzees."
-------------Of course, as many of these gross criminal activities came to light, the U.S. government was finally forced to put a stop to it due to public outcry. So the drug companies simply moved their criminal operations offshore where they now engage in routine medical experimentation on children in developing nations, usually by paying off top government officials in those countries to look the other way while their scientists and researchers unleash "pharma crimes" upon the people there.

This is how the experiments in Guatemala came about (http://www.naturalnews.com/029924_medical_ex...).

------------------------Unethical human experimentation in the United States ...

en.wikipedia.org/.../Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the...
---------------In 1941, at the University of Michigan, virologists Thomas Francis, Jonas Salk and other researchers deliberately infected patients at several Michigan mental institutions with the influenza virus by spraying the virus into their nasal passages.[19] Francis Payton Rous, based at the Rockefeller Institute and editor of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, wrote the following to Francis regarding the experiments:


"It may save you much trouble if you publish your paper... elsewhere than in the Journal of Experimental Medicine. The Journal is under constant scrutiny by the anti-vivisectionists who would not hesitate to play up the fact that you used for your tests human beings of a state institution. That the tests were wholly justified goes without saying."[20]
---------------------From the 1950s to 1972, mentally disabled children at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York were intentionally infected with viral hepatitis, for research whose purpose was to help discover a vaccine.[43] From 1963 to 1966, Saul Krugman of New York University promised the parents of mentally disabled children that their children would be enrolled into Willowbrook in exchange for signing a consent form for procedures that he claimed were "vaccinations." In reality, the procedures involved deliberately infecting children with viral hepatitis by feeding them an extract made from the feces of patients infected with the disease.[44][45]
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 24204
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by scrmbldggs » Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:53 am

Ha, another double post/page thread. ^That last one is # 37 on the first page and # 41 on the second.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Harte
Poster
Posts: 251
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:19 pm
Location: Memphis Tennessee

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Harte » Sun Apr 26, 2015 10:55 am

SweetPea wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
SweetPea wrote:... something which is difficult to analyze because the herd has been vaccinated and so that offers protection to the unvaccinated due to lower rate of contact with the diseased than would otherwise be.
But lifespans would be longer now anyway, even without vaccinations.

Yeah, but beginning when?
Especially starting with proper sanitation in public and hospital facilities.

Actually, starting with proper water sanitation and sewage treatment considerations.

Harte
The skeptic, being a lover of his kind, desires to cure by speech, as best he can, the self-conceit and rashness of the dogmatists.
Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of PyrrhonismHello!

Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so.
Bertrand Russell

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 32183
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: I am rather baffled by the willingly ignorant...

Post by Gord » Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:15 am

Aha!
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?