Thinking of getting vaccinated? [Archive] - Page 4

bogan

31st October 2015, 17:06

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

“I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal ‘Pediatrics’.".

You're classing first hand evidence, an admission of guilt no less, as grasping at straws? Love your scientific method BTW, choice :niceone:

Oh, and you owe Katman $50.

Perhaps he has seen how many idiot anti-vaccers throw money at those who champion their cause. Regardless, I couldn't give a fuck what his motives are, evidence is what was allegedly buried; evidence is what the scientific method demands. But his 'evidence' has now been thrown out twice; which you would know if you did anything more than a cursory search of sensationalist bullshit.

I owe KM nothing because his bet included me being right anyway, why the fuck would I take that? :facepalm:

You don't need money, then let's bet on who post posts a leaving thread and fuck off this site then? Let's face it, your words are empty, your spine is like jelly, your mind closed off to the real world; you'll not be a loss to this site.

mashman

31st October 2015, 17:17

Perhaps he has seen how many idiot anti-vaccers throw money at those who champion their cause. Regardless, I couldn't give a fuck what his motives are, evidence is what was allegedly buried; evidence is what the scientific method demands. But his 'evidence' has now been thrown out twice; which you would know if you did anything more than a cursory search of sensationalist bullshit.

I owe KM nothing because his bet included me being right anyway, why the fuck would I take that? :facepalm:

You don't need money, then let's bet on who post posts a leaving thread and fuck off this site then? Let's face it, your words are empty, your spine is like jelly, your mind closed off to the real world; you'll not be a loss to this site.

The guy stated what and why he had done and handed over the data. Why are you looking for a motive that would prove that they falsified the falsified results? Because science yeah?

Sorry, that's for us to judge not you as you've clearly shown yourself to be incompetent.

Retreating to ad hominem so early? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ... get offa my site, no one likes you, every one hates you BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

http://orig02.deviantart.net/39f4/f/2010/138/1/2/double_loser_by_scorchalives.jpg

bogan

31st October 2015, 17:22

The guy stated what and why he had done and handed over the data. Why are you looking for a motive that would prove that they falsified the falsified results? Because science yeah?

Sorry, that's for us to judge not you as you've clearly shown yourself to be incompetent.

Retreating to ad hominem so early? BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ... get offa my site, no one likes you, every one hates you BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

http://orig02.deviantart.net/39f4/f/2010/138/1/2/double_loser_by_scorchalives.jpg

Like I said, I couldn't give a fuck what his motive was, show me evidence they falsified the results. And no mushy, he said she said isn't actually evidence, on account of you just picking who you want to listen to.

You haven't even seen the journal article he tried to submit have you?

mashman

31st October 2015, 18:13

Like I said, I couldn't give a fuck what his motive was, show me evidence they falsified the results. And no mushy, he said she said isn't actually evidence, on account of you just picking who you want to listen to.

You haven't even seen the journal article he tried to submit have you?

bwaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... Hi, I wrote a report that left out this evidence and the conclusion that this evidence points to. I hope you can prove me wrong. :killingme...

No I haven't. You're right. You win.

bogan

31st October 2015, 18:17

No I haven't. You're right. You win.

Well it's good to see you're learning.

mashman

31st October 2015, 18:21

Well it's good to see you're learning.

Only one of us ever will.

bogan

31st October 2015, 19:04

Only one of us ever will.

Perhaps you will learn otherwise...

Perhaps by looking into why Brian S Hooker's journal article on this topic has been retracted.

RDJ

31st October 2015, 19:39

This is probably the most objective critique / analysis of why the Hooker study was retracted.

http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2014/09/mmr-cdc-and-brian-hooker-media-guide.html

mashman

31st October 2015, 20:29

Perhaps you will learn otherwise...

Perhaps by looking into why Brian S Hooker's journal article on this topic has been retracted.

I'm not the one taking my post out of context :niceone:

Thanks for proving that point... but you'll scare the natives into thinking the discussion was about what you thought I meant and not what I thought I meant. Oh noes... too late :facepalm:

This is probably the most objective critique / analysis of why the Hooker study was retracted.

http://www.harpocratesspeaks.com/2014/09/mmr-cdc-and-brian-hooker-media-guide.html

bogan

31st October 2015, 21:31

I'm not the one taking my post out of context :niceone:

Implying it had any sort of relevant context to begin with.

As RDJ's link shows, the original data was thrown out for good reason. So the two options are; end sensationalist dribble, or keep digging.

Thanks for proving that point... but you'll scare the natives into thinking the discussion was about what you thought I meant and not what I thought I meant. Oh noes... too late :facepalm:

Oh wait, he's gone all 'I know what you think I meant but you don't know what I meant to mean', so too late :facepalm: I'll leave you to it, your digging requires no help.

TheDemonLord

31st October 2015, 21:48

125 years ago 1/2 of all children died before their 5th birthday (in Victorian England) - in Sub Saharan Africa today - its still about 1/4 - 1/6 of all children die. When you look at the stats, there is a sharp decrease in the mortality rate after the 1970's

Maybe because Smallpox (the biggest killer of people in Human history) was eradicated in 1979.

If you really think Vaccines are bad and evil - feel free to take your children to Sub Saharan Africa, far beyond the reaches of those nasty pharmaceutical companies.

And when they are dieing in Agony from preventable pathogens - I'll tell you "Thank Fuck, you aren't passing your stupid onto the next generation"

mashman

31st October 2015, 21:53

Implying it had any sort of relevant context to begin with.

As RDJ's link shows, the original data was thrown out for good reason. So the two options are; end sensationalist dribble, or keep digging.

Fact, not implication.

I believe that's what Thompson was saying i.e. keep digging/dig again.

Oh wait, he's gone all 'I know what you think I meant but you don't know what I meant to mean', so too late :facepalm: I'll leave you to it, your digging requires no help.

:yawn:

Katman

1st November 2015, 10:23

If you really think Vaccines are bad and evil......

See, this is why trying to have a sensible discussion with you is a waste of time.

Why do you assume that wanting to be told the truth about the risks associated with a vaccine automatically equates to thinking all vaccines are bad and evil?

bogan

1st November 2015, 10:29

See, this is why trying to have a sensible discussion with you is a waste of time.

Why do you assume that wanting to be told the truth about the risks associated with a vaccine automatically equates to thinking all vaccines are bad and evil?

Because you are biased against believing the truth unless it is an evil one. Just look at that article, you should have done as I did (or at least listened to what I was saying) and done some cursory background on the truth (read, science) behind it and dismissed it accordingly...

TheDemonLord

1st November 2015, 19:56

See, this is why trying to have a sensible discussion with you is a waste of time.

Why do you assume that wanting to be told the truth about the risks associated with a vaccine automatically equates to thinking all vaccines are bad and evil?

1: The only Causal link between MMR and Autism was by a disgraced scientist, funded by a rival Pharmaceutical company (you know - the same 'Big pharma' you are so suspicious of, except when it suits your agenda) - this paper has been discredited and retracted, completely - it should be as if this paper never existed, yet it is STILL cited by fuckwits (the Anti-Vax community)

2: There have been umpteen studies done since that study that show no causal link - yet none of these have persuaded the Anti-Vax crowd

3: with the likes of Jenny-no-scientific-credibility-what-so-ever-McCarthy - this is a classic example where rhetoric, Popularity/celebrity status and a Scientifically illiterate populace beat Science, Logic, Reason and Data

4: Since the introduction of Vaccines we have seen the infant mortality rate drop to from 50% in the west (500 in every 1000) to 0.4% (4 in every 1000) in the space of about 125 years - thanks mostly to Vaccination

5: Scientifically illiterate fuckwits (Anti-Vaxers) choose not to Vaccinate their children, thus weakening the entire concept of Herd Immunity (hint - this is how we Eradicated Small Pox in the wild) - Herd immunity is what protects those who can't have the Vaccine or have weaker immune systems.

So I will now ask a question - since there has never been a causal link shown between MMR and Autism - why do you need to be told the truth about something that has never existed?

And more importantly - why do you believe a debunked, discredited BS paper that was paid for by 'Big Pharma', when it that is entirely what you are arguing AGAINST?

I'll have a Sensible discussion with you when you educate yourself about how Vaccines work, Disease vectors, Pathology, the history of human suffering due to disease and virulent outbreaks pre and post vaccination etc. - however I suspect if you actually did that, you would realise how utterly and completely insane anyone is to suggest that Vaccinations are bad.

And for the record - My Daughter is up to date with her Vaccines.

Ocean1

13th December 2015, 16:50

It's sad to see Darwin in action.

But, y'know, fuck 'em, they're risk taking the rest of us with them.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/75045757/antivaxxers-baby-hospitalised-with-whooping-cough

Her baby could be dead and she'd still insist she's right. :facepalm:

Oakie

13th December 2015, 18:14

And ... http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/australia/74981701/eighty-children-get-chickenpox-at-school-that-calls-for-tolerance-of-vaccine-dodgers

Akzle

13th December 2015, 18:32

uhhh... Children get chicken pox...

LAWDY LAWDY IT'S A FUCKEN//

wait. Wut. Children always have.
The pox as a children is better than the shingles as an adult... Natural immunity? Cant have that!

Hupping coff? Fuck right off. So all these vaccinated cunts, like, more than ever before, and the outbreak is worse than before. And only 2% are unvaccinated. And more than 2% are sick with it.
I'd love to know the overlap, but it sounds like an overwhelming bullshit.

Oakie

13th December 2015, 20:25

I stood in an overwhelming bullshit one day when I was out shooting rabbits.

RDJ

13th December 2015, 20:28

Walk some late-19th / early-20th century graveyards in Western Europe sometime. There are legions of children dead from diseases that are now completely preventable - along with many of their mothers who died before handwashing, anesthetics and safe obstetrics brought the maternal mortality rate down from horrific to just inevitable.

People who don't want to vaccinate their children and 'leave it to nature' would be roundly denounced by the many mothers of previous generations who could only have wished for a safe, effective and simple solution to stop their babies dying young from preventable illness.

Sheesh.

Oakie

13th December 2015, 21:52

Ocean1

14th December 2015, 06:39

RDJ

14th December 2015, 07:06

The incidence of whooping cough illness is currently rising in young adolescents (12/13-15) which very likely represents a cohort of unvaccinated kids growing up - who, because the amount of herd immunity present in their community when they were babies did not get infected although they were vulnerable then - and also likely respesents the effect of the reduced immunity conferred by the newer vaccine.*

The number of deaths from whooping cough is rising in small babies (under 3 months of age) because the effects of the anti-vaccine surrealists' campaign against vaccination have increased the likelihood of infection circulating - and thereby increasing the risk an infant will contract the illness and die.

* The earlier vaccine was a "whole cell" vaccine i.e. used all parts of the bacteria that causes whooping cough. It was very effective, but it had more side effects, including sore arms, crying, fussiness, anxiety, and occasional seizures... the latter especially not to be taken lightly. So a newer "acellular" vaccine was developed containing fewer antigenic components; it has fewer side effects than the older and works as well as whole cell vaccine in the first years after vaccination: BUT as time went on, immunity starts waning earlier. This would not matter as much if we had very high vaccine coverage as we could eliminate the spread of infection due to herd immunity - as has been done for smallpox and polio (except polio is making a comeback thanks to idiot Muslims in Muslim-majority countries: we're looking at you, Pakistan, Syria, Cameroon... but that's a whole other story - but when we can't get near-complete coverage, decreasing immunity leads to increasing numbers of cases in the non- and partially-immune. Especially as vaccinated people can still be carriers to the uninfected.

mashman

14th December 2015, 08:06

Ocean1

14th December 2015, 11:03

Stop all vaccination and let people who catch whatever it is either live or die. After that, using your logic, the disease will be dead and there'll be no need to vaccinate anyone more and the argument will be over. Far simpler and cheaper in the long term.

Excellent idea.

And since it's the unvaccinated fuckwits that get to do the dying and are in the meantime far more likely to pass it on to someone else let's have the fuckwits isolated while until they're dead.

mashman

14th December 2015, 12:30

Excellent idea.

And since it's the unvaccinated fuckwits that get to do the dying and are in the meantime far more likely to pass it on to someone else let's have the fuckwits isolated while until they're dead.

See, people who are inoculated can still be carriers and people who have been inoculated can still die from whatever they've been inoculated against. You obviously don't grasp the concept it seems. Dickhead.

Akzle

14th December 2015, 13:32

Speaking of overwhelming bullshit; how about you show us where hooping cough vaccinations are higher than ever before, and a current outbreak is worse now than ever before.

is your argument that we're not vaccinated more than before? Has there been a previous time when humans have been more vaccinated??

RDJ

14th December 2015, 15:10

Stop all vaccination and let people who catch whatever it is either live or die. After that, using your logic, the disease will be dead and there'll be no need to vaccinate anyone more and the argument will be over. Far simpler and cheaper in the long term.

Using your logic (and it's a stretch to call it that) we will be going back to regular epidemics, a seriously high paediatric dying-off ratio, leper colonies and the like. I hope you're just being sarcastic...

RDJ

14th December 2015, 15:12

is your argument that we're not vaccinated more than before? Has there been a previous time when humans have been more vaccinated??

Yes, there has been. in the 70s and 80s before the Jenny McCarthy's and their ilk got started.

mashman

14th December 2015, 15:55

Using your logic (and it's a stretch to call it that) we will be going back to regular epidemics, a seriously high paediatric dying-off ratio, leper colonies and the like. I hope you're just being sarcastic...

You're spreading fear in an age that's a far cry from the age/circumstances that you're drawing your comparisons from. Naive at best.

bogan

14th December 2015, 16:32

You're spreading fear in an age that's a far cry from the age/circumstances that you're drawing your comparisons from. Naive at best.

Not really considering how causal vaccinations were in getting us to this age... In fact the increased travel may well offset increased general hygienic practises; for some transmission vectors anyway.

RDJ

14th December 2015, 16:49

You're spreading fear in an age that's a far cry from the age/circumstances that you're drawing your comparisons from. Naive at best.

I'm not trying to change your point of view. People like you should be left to think what they like. I'm simply stating the (extrapolating) facts that your point of view would lead to.

mashman

14th December 2015, 17:11

Not really considering how causal vaccinations were in getting us to this age... In fact the increased travel may well offset increased general hygienic practises; for some transmission vectors anyway.

Whilst I take your points, Ebola seemed to manage not to get away from dirty dirty Africa. Similarly with SARS, Swine Flu, Bird Flu etc... not really causing epidemics wherever they appeared. I have little doubt that a large part of our social immunity is due to vaccination.

I'm not trying to change your point of view. People like you should be left to think what they like. I'm simply stating the (extrapolating) facts that your point of view would lead to.

bwaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaa... sorry, I fail to see where I have stated my position, recently? Merely stating that your extrapolation may not be as awesomely dark as you make it sound. So not quite sure how you think you know what my position is, son. Leave people the fuck alone to make up their own minds up.

bogan

14th December 2015, 17:49

Leave people the fuck alone to make up their own minds up.

To be fair, he might have meant your kind lack the requisite equipment to do that :whistle:

mashman

14th December 2015, 18:07

To be fair, he might have meant your kind lack the requisite equipment to do that :whistle:

Kind of funny given that my family are inoculated... but hey :D

Ocean1

14th December 2015, 20:54

See, people who are inoculated can still be carriers and people who have been inoculated can still die from whatever they've been inoculated against. You obviously don't grasp the concept it seems. Dickhead.

Oh, I don't grasp the concept eh?

Care to back up those statements with some actual numbers numpty?

Ocean1

14th December 2015, 20:59

is your argument that we're not vaccinated more than before? Has there been a previous time when humans have been more vaccinated??

Why don't you just answer the fucking question?

how about you show us where hooping cough vaccinations are higher than ever before, and a current outbreak is worse now than ever been before.

mashman

15th December 2015, 06:44

Oh, I don't grasp the concept eh?

Care to back up those statements with some actual numbers numpty?

Nope... coz you added caveats where none were needed.

What? People who are inoculated don't contract whatever it is that they're inoculated against and die?

Ocean1

15th December 2015, 06:54

Nope... coz you added caveats where none were needed.

What? People who are inoculated don't contract whatever it is that they're inoculated against and die?

Again, show me a comparison between how many inoculated people contract whatever it is they're inoculated against and die and how many non-inoculated people contract pathological contagions and die.

Or admit you're full of shit. Again.

mashman

15th December 2015, 10:48

Again, show me a comparison between how many inoculated people contract whatever it is they're inoculated against and die and how many non-inoculated people contract pathological contagions and die.

Or admit you're full of shit. Again.

Why? It wasn't a part of the scenario that I put up. So, yet again, your post is just yer typical KB goal post shifting to make an argument that wasn't even up for discussion. Such is especially amusing when it comes from you... oh yes.

Ocean1

15th December 2015, 11:23

Why? It wasn't a part of the scenario that I put up. So, yet again, your post is just yer typical KB goal post shifting to make an argument that wasn't even up for discussion. Such is especially amusing when it comes from you... oh yes.

I'm so glad I misunderstood, and that you weren't actually arguing that inoculation was pointless 'cause inoculated people still catch shit and die.

You should express yourself more clearly, for a minute there I thought you'd outdone your usual stupidity.

mashman

15th December 2015, 11:45

I'm so glad I misunderstood, and that you weren't actually arguing that inoculation was pointless 'cause inoculated people still catch shit and die.

You should express yourself more clearly, for a minute there I thought you'd outdone your usual stupidity.

:killingme... carry on captain tangent.

RDJ

28th December 2015, 07:58

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/rich-white-and-refusing-vaccinations/?ref=health&_r=1

Yep. And I reckon they probably also drive Priuses, buy organic argula, and compost their kale. Feeling smug while putting everybody else at risk... What's the word for that?

Katman

28th December 2015, 08:04

Feeling smug while putting everybody else at risk... What's the word for that?

Personal choice?

Ocean1

28th December 2015, 08:17

Personal choice?

Public liability.

mashman

28th December 2015, 08:34

Personal choice?

+1............

bogan

28th December 2015, 08:36

Personal choice?

Public liability.

They're both two words.

Irresponsible.

Ocean1

28th December 2015, 08:49

They're both two words.

Irresponsible.

Personal choice is good.

Means those at risk from un-vaccinated fuckwits can exercise their personal choice in how they go about dealing with that risk.

RDJ

28th December 2015, 09:01

Personal choice is good.

Means those at risk from un-vaccinated fuckwits can exercise their personal choice in how they go about dealing with that risk.

other than being a hermit, those at risk can't avoid the risk because the unvaccinated are unidentified.... Those most at risk are the immunocompromised, whether because of disease or chemotherapy, and they can die quickly and badly from these preventable diseases. Not much personal choice if an unvaccinated Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kate-wit wanders into the ER or the ward (or the rest home, or the mall) where these patients are.

yokel

28th December 2015, 09:07

Personal choice is good.

Means those at risk from un-vaccinated fuckwits can exercise their personal choice in how they go about dealing with that risk.

But if you're vaccinated then you're nice,safe and warm, or is that not "safe" enough for you?

Stop being a necrotic fag.

Now if there is a mass die off of people I don't see that as all bad, we don't need those weak people polluting the gen pool.

Ocean1

28th December 2015, 09:08

other than being a hermit, those at risk can't avoid the risk because the unvaccinated are unidentified.... Those most at risk are the immunocompromised, whether because of disease or chemotherapy, and they can die quickly and badly from these preventable diseases. Not much personal choice if an unvaccinated Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kate-wit wanders into the ER or the ward (or the rest home, or the mall) where these patients are.

Step one, then: "un-vaccinated fuckwit" tattoo on the forehead.

RDJ

28th December 2015, 09:34

Step one, then: "un-vaccinated fuckwit" tattoo on the forehead.

That would be functional, although impracticable; and, we'd have to combine it with an embedded chip to keep them ring-fenced away from the vulnerable.

YMMV, but IMO being an unvaccinated carrier of a preventable illness is as a potentially lethal personal choice to make as being an intoxicated cager driver in an environment where there are pedestrians and motorcyclists.

Katman

28th December 2015, 09:39

YMMV, but IMO being an unvaccinated carrier of a preventable illness is as a potentially lethal personal choice to make as being an intoxicated cager driver in an environment where there are pedestrians and motorcyclists.

Hey, you could always fuck off to a desert island somewhere.

RDJ

28th December 2015, 10:07

<<<10 chars >>>

mashman

28th December 2015, 15:08

other than being a hermit, those at risk can't avoid the risk because the unvaccinated are unidentified.... Those most at risk are the immunocompromised, whether because of disease or chemotherapy, and they can die quickly and badly from these preventable diseases. Not much personal choice if an unvaccinated Foxtrot Uniform Charlie Kate-wit wanders into the ER or the ward (or the rest home, or the mall) where these patients are.

All of the above holds for vaccinated persons also. Just because you are vaccinated does not mean you aren't infectious. Take your concerns to johnny boy key and I'm sure he'll be more than glad to legislate your way.

Ocean1

28th December 2015, 15:23

All of the above holds for vaccinated persons also. Just because you are vaccinated does not mean you aren't infectious. Take your concerns to johnny boy key and I'm sure he'll be more than glad to legislate your way.

Go stand in the queue for a tattoo with the rest of the fuckwits.

RDJ

28th December 2015, 15:27

All of the above holds for vaccinated persons also.

No, all of the above does not hold for vaccinated persons also.

mashman

28th December 2015, 15:40

No, all of the above does not hold for vaccinated persons also.

Sounds like bullshit to me given that the CDC/WHO don't categorically state that vaccinated persons cannot be infected/infectious. They do say, however, that if symptoms do occur in the vaccinated, that they're likely going to have a mild case. So what's a less than mild case? or a less than less than mild case etc...? It's called, still being infectious but highly unlikely to display symptoms. Are there no grades of infection? Only None, Mild and Holy shit you're going to die?

bogan

28th December 2015, 15:55

Sounds like bullshit to me given that the CDC/WHO don't categorically state that vaccinated persons cannot be infected/infectious. They do say, however, that if symptoms do occur in the vaccinated, that they're likely going to have a mild case. So what's a less than mild case? or a less than less than mild case etc...? It's called, still being infectious but highly unlikely to display symptoms. Are there no grades of infection? Only None, Mild and Holy shit you're going to die?

It's that tricky trick probability thing again isn't it? To put it in your perspective; vaccinated people have a really slim 50/50 chance of contracting shit, while un<s>washed</s>vaccinated plebs have a significantly 50/50 chance of contracting shit. :killingme

mashman

28th December 2015, 16:00

It's that tricky trick probability thing again isn't it? To put it in your perspective; vaccinated people have a really slim 50/50 chance of contracting shit, while un<s>washed</s>vaccinated plebs have a significantly 50/50 chance of contracting shit. :killingme

Probability :killingme... Awesome depth perception bro :niceone:

RDJ

28th December 2015, 17:19

Probability :killingme... Awesome depth perception bro :niceone:

amongst other misconceptions, your original statement where you wanted to invoke the CDC information, completely ignores the benefits of herd immunity. Some vaccinated people do indeed get ill, but less virulently, are less contagious (if at all), and for a shorter period; but most of all, the number of those able to spread disease and those potentially able to contract the disease when brought as close to zero does inhibit the spread of the disease and can if enough people are vaccinated, be eliminated. See, smallpox and polio (and hopefully in the future hepatitis B) as the examples of achieved and impending success.

Disagreeing with the facts of epidemiology is awkward.

Katman

28th December 2015, 17:22

Disagreeing with the facts of epidemiology is awkward.

I don't think anyone has suggested there has never been any benifit from vaccines.

These days though, they want to vaccinate for everything and you good little citizens line up in droves.

mashman

28th December 2015, 17:49

amongst other misconceptions, your original statement where you wanted to invoke the CDC information, completely ignores the benefits of herd immunity. Some vaccinated people do indeed get ill, but less virulently, are less contagious (if at all), and for a shorter period; but most of all, the number of those able to spread disease and those potentially able to contract the disease when brought as close to zero does inhibit the spread of the disease and can if enough people are vaccinated, be eliminated. See, smallpox and polio (and hopefully in the future hepatitis B) as the examples of achieved and impending success.

I found plenty of evidence for herd immunity. My statement stands. Surely the CDC/WHO state otherwise? If only to prove me wrong.

Disagreeing with the facts of epidemiology is awkward.

I've no doubt. Calling them facts is always funny though ;).

TheDemonLord

28th December 2015, 19:04

I don't think anyone has suggested there has never been any benifit from vaccines.

These days though, they want to vaccinate for everything and you good little citizens line up in droves.

Okay then - I'll indulge you - can you define the exact point when there stopped being benefits to Vaccines and can you present any evidence to support your conclusion for there being a point in time when Vaccines stopped being beneficial.

mashman

28th December 2015, 19:37

Okay then - I'll indulge you - can you define the exact point when there stopped being benefits to Vaccines and can you present any evidence to support your conclusion for there being a point in time when Vaccines stopped being beneficial.

I reckon you might have polished Katman off with that one. Death by laughter.

Katman

28th December 2015, 19:42

I reckon you might have polished Katman off with that one.

My helmet's never looked cleaner.

TheDemonLord

28th December 2015, 19:48

I reckon you might have polished Katman off with that one. Death by laughter.

Some would say I would be doing a Civil service - but as of yet - not determination of a point in time, nor any evidence is forthcoming.

mashman

28th December 2015, 20:08

My helmet's never looked cleaner.

Ready for a ride eh.

Some would say I would be doing a Civil service - but as of yet - not determination of a point in time, nor any evidence is forthcoming.

Well, put me down on the keep him list when someone finally decides to crunch the numbers and give us some best case scenarios.

TheDemonLord

28th December 2015, 20:22

Well, put me down on the keep him list when someone finally decides to crunch the numbers and give us some best case scenarios.

Well, we have the historical figures (before Vaccines) and we have the current figures - so what Numbers exactly would you like crunched?

mashman

28th December 2015, 21:15

Well, we have the historical figures (before Vaccines) and we have the current figures - so what Numbers exactly would you like crunched?

It was a joke.

TheDemonLord

6th January 2016, 15:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atpl734d_ns

I've been itching for an excuse to post this.

bogan

6th January 2016, 16:33

Did someone illuminati-censor a bunch of posts from this thread? I though I remember KM whinging about how it was taken off topic, or was that another thread?

Woodman

6th January 2016, 16:40

These threads have topics?:wacko:

Katman

6th January 2016, 16:48

These threads have topics?:wacko:

Perhaps you'd be more at home in the Association Picture Game thread.

Or any of the other easy going ones - IYKWIM.

Woodman

6th January 2016, 16:57

Perhaps you'd be more at home in the Association Picture Game thread.

Or any of the other easy going ones - IYKWIM.

No thanks, I am quite happy in the special classes.

Katman

28th January 2016, 10:30

http://truthinmedia.com/cdc-vaccines-autism-coverup/

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 11:53

http://truthinmedia.com/cdc-vaccines-autism-coverup/

two can play this game:

http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html

Katman

28th January 2016, 12:16

two can play this game:

Really?

Do you view people searching for the truth as some sort of game?

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 12:52

Really?

Do you view people searching for the truth as some sort of game?

Except you aren't searching for the Truth, You are searching for confirmation of your beliefs.

And besides - The game in the case refers to people posting links without bothering to fact check them as evidence for their beliefs.

Katman

28th January 2016, 12:55

Except you aren't searching for the Truth, You are searching for confirmation of your beliefs.

And besides - The game in the case refers to people posting links without bothering to fact check them as evidence for their beliefs.

My only 'belief' in this particular matter is that people should be entitled to the truth regarding any risks involved.

And when a government agency is guilty of hiding the truth there this is very good cause to be alarmed.

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 13:10

My only 'belief' in this particular matter is that people should be entitled to the truth regarding any risks involved.

Do those same people have the necessary intellect, education and understanding to properly evaluate the risks? And as a follow up, what if their personal choice impacts others in society?

If a group of Racing Drivers said it was unsafe to drive in a particular way, but Jenny Mcarthy said it was fine - who would you listen to?

And when a government agency is guilty of hiding the truth there this is very good cause to be alarmed.

Except it has never been proved that they are hiding the truth around this - compare to say Mr Snowdon and Watergate - where there was an actual coverup and it was exposed.

Katman

28th January 2016, 13:13

Do those same people have the necessary intellect, education and understanding to properly evaluate the risks?

Who the fuck are you (or any government agency for that matter) to decide who is capable of evaluating information?

Katman

28th January 2016, 13:15

Except it has never been proved that they are hiding the truth around this - compare to say Mr Snowdon and Watergate - where there was an actual coverup and it was exposed.

Did you watch the video?

oldrider

28th January 2016, 13:44

Except you aren't searching for the Truth, You are searching for confirmation of your beliefs.

And besides - The game in the case refers to people posting links without bothering to fact check them as evidence for their beliefs.

With respect TDL.

I get the impression that you are doing exactly the same thing as you accuse Katman of only your focus is upon Katman rather than the subject of this case!

I.E. Prove Katman wrong at any price - thought you were better than that actually. - Just my observation, I may well be wrong! :scratch:

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 14:09

Who the fuck are you (or any government agency for that matter) to decide who is capable of evaluating information?

Some subjects require very specific prior knowledge and understanding in order to properly evaluate them and as such, the average member of society cannot properly evaluate the information.

Case in point:

Should I run this on my PC:

$HomeFolders = Get-ChildItem C: -Directory
$group = get-adgroup | where{$_.name -like "everyone"}
foreach ($HomeFolder in $HomeFolders) {
$Path = $HomeFolder.FullName
$Acl = (Get-Item $Path).GetAccessControl('Access')
$Ar = New-Object System.Security.AccessControl.FileSystemAccessRule ($group, 'Modify', 'ContainerInherit,ObjectInherit', 'None', 'Allow')
$Acl.SetAccessRule($Ar)
Set-Acl -path $Path -AclObject $Acl
}

or should I run this:

$HomeFolders = Get-ChildItem C: -Directory
$group = get-adgroup | where{$_.name -like "admins"}
foreach ($HomeFolder in $HomeFolders) {
$Path = $HomeFolder.FullName
$Acl = (Get-Item $Path).GetAccessControl('Access')
$Ar = New-Object System.Security.AccessControl.FileSystemAccessRule ($Group, 'Modify', 'ContainerInherit,ObjectInherit', 'None', 'Allow')
$Acl.SetAccessRule($Ar)
Set-Acl -path $Path -AclObject $Acl
}

Now - you might be able to make a guesstimate as to which one to run - but to properly evaluate requires an understanding of Powershell, NTFS permissions and the Security implications for running them.

The problem then is when people see something that makes them panic or confuses them and they make an irrational decision based on that, as opposed to understanding. There are 2 great examples of this - one is http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html and the other is the Annoying StoneDine advert that is shown on NZ TV - which warns consumers that their current Pans may contain PTFE, the implication is that this is an Acronyms and is therefore bad/dangerous (just like the Anti-Vaxxers love to do) - however anyone who recognizes them will know that PTFE is just the technical name for Teflon - which of cause their nonstick pans contain! The entire advert is trying to sell you something based on the fact that the average person won't know what PTFE is.

So you ask who am I to decide who can and can't evaluate information, but your premise is flawed, because it assumes everyone CAN evaluate the information, whereas the opposite is true.

Katman

28th January 2016, 14:19

So you ask who am I to decide who can and can't evaluate information, but your premise is flawed, because it assumes everyone CAN evaluate the information, whereas the opposite is true.

You dumb fuck.

People don't vaccinate their children themselves. They go to a doctor.

If the parent can't make their own informed decision then a doctor who has access to the full scale of risks involved can ensure the parent is adequately informed.

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 14:19

With respect TDL.

I get the impression that you are doing exactly the same thing as you accuse Katman of only your focus is upon Katman rather than the subject of this case!

I.E. Prove Katman wrong at any price - thought you were better than that actually. - Just my observation, I may well be wrong! :scratch:

In this case and at the moment, I AM doing what I am accusing Katman of - If there was something to discuss about the Subject, I would do so, but this isn't about the Subject, this is about religious faith. No matter what I put up, Katman will see conspiracy and a Coverup, No matter what numbers that show the Millions upon Millions of lives that have been saved thanks to Vaccines, Katman will claim Big Pharma trying to keep us sick, No matter which studies I post up showing that there is no Causal link between the MMR vaccine and Autism, Katman will still believe it causes Autism.

IF Katman (or anyone else for that matter) was to have a hypothetical debate about the Needs of Society vs the Rights of the Individual, then I'd happily discuss that - as I think that is a much more interesting topic of conversation especially as I don't actually have an answer and both sides of the debate have very valid concerns.

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 14:31

You dumb fuck.

People don't vaccinate their children themselves. They go to a doctor.

If the parent can't make their own informed decision then a doctor who has access to the full scale of risks involved can ensure the parent is adequately informed.

Then where do the Anti-Vaxxers come from? Because no Doctor I have ever met has said that the risks of Vaccination outweigh the risks of not getting Vaccinated. The Reality is that people often get their information from the loudest source, as opposed to the most reputable.

You are always so fond of decrying the MSM and referring to people as a Sheeple, So which is it? Either people are easily fooled and therefore cannot make an adequately informed decision or everyone else is adequately informed when they tell you that your other beliefs are horse shit....

Katman

28th January 2016, 14:33

IF Katman (or anyone else for that matter) was to have a hypothetical debate about the Needs of Society vs the Rights of the Individual, then I'd happily discuss that - as I think that is a much more interesting topic of conversation especially as I don't actually have an answer and both sides of the debate have very valid concerns.

My discussion on this matter has never been about whether the MMR vaccine causes Autism.

It's about the right to be told the truth.

Katman

28th January 2016, 14:34

Then where do the Anti-Vaxxers come from? Because no Doctor I have ever met has said that the risks of Vaccination outweigh the risks of not getting Vaccinated. The Reality is that people often get their information from the loudest source, as opposed to the most reputable.

At the moment it appears that even doctors aren't being given the truth about the risks.

FJRider

28th January 2016, 14:43

The Reality is that people often get their information from the loudest source, as opposed to the most reputable.

So which is it? Either people are easily fooled and therefore cannot make an adequately informed decision or everyone else is adequately informed when they tell you that your other beliefs are horse shit....

The loudest source of information is inside their own tiny minds. They choose the risk factor to themselves and their family.

Their choice ... their decision ... their family ... their risk.

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 14:49

The loudest source of information is inside their own tiny minds. They choose the risk factor to themselves and their family.

Their choice ... their decision ... their family ... their risk.

But it's not their risk. Everyone else is unnescesarily exposed to the risk as a result of their choice. Any other choice they made that risked so much suffering and death amongst their own people would see them nailed to a tree at the nearest crossroad. Why should we treat these fuckwits any different?

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 14:50

My discussion on this matter has never been about whether the MMR vaccine causes Autism.

It's about the right to be told the truth.

What then do you define as 'Truth'? Because thus far, what you refer to as 'Truth' tends to be what you wish to be true, as opposed to what is objectively and demonstrably true. This is my point about this being a religious argument.

FJRider

28th January 2016, 14:56

At the moment it appears that even doctors aren't being given the truth about the risks.

Their aim is to find cheaper drugs to to the same job. The fewer the options ... the higher the price.

Often resulting in similar formulas (from different companies) ... but different side-effects. Some side-effects are as bad (if not worse) as the original problem that needed treatment. Often a lottery on how badly a patient is affected by those side-effects ...

If asked ... Doctors can only reply (starting with the line) ... studies have shown ...

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 14:56

But it's not their risk. Everyone else is unnescesarily exposed to the risk as a result of their choice. Any other choice they made that risked so much suffering and death would see them nailed to a tree at the nearest crossroad. Why should we treat these fuckeits any differently?

A Question then:

Does the Needs of Society overrule your sovereign right to your own body? And the follow up, Does the Needs of Society overrule my right as a parent to make decisions for my Child?

As I said above - this question I find much more interesting, because although I agree with the notion that not vaccinating your child (without a damn good medical reason) is akin to Child Abuse, I find the notion of the State being able to usurp my parental authority equally frightening.

FJRider

28th January 2016, 15:03

But it's not their risk. Everyone else is unnescesarily exposed to the risk as a result of their choice. Any other choice they made that risked so much suffering and death amongst their own people would see them nailed to a tree at the nearest crossroad. Why should we treat these fuckwits any different?

Do you think those motorcyclists/motorists ... that regularly infringe on the road rules ... could be thought of in a similar vein ... ?????????????

Katman

28th January 2016, 15:14

What then do you define as 'Truth'?

When data that doesn't conform to the official story is hidden (or worse, destroyed) there is a high likelihood that we're not being told the whole truth.

As a parent that should concern you.

If it doesn't, you're a fucking moron.

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 15:22

When data that doesn't conform to the official story is hidden (or worse, destroyed) there is a high likelihood that we're not being told the whole truth.

As a parent that should concern you.

If it doesn't, you're a fucking moron.

But you are taking it on Faith that:

a: The Data existed in the first place
b: Was destroyed
c: was done so at the behest of someone actively trying to cover something up.

And even if it were true - and there was a Causal link between Autism and the MMR Vaccine - Do you know what As a Parent concerns me more? Other peoples unvaccinated walking biological weapons making my child sick - because the historical data shows that there is an almost infinitely greater chance of that causing harm to my child.

Katman

28th January 2016, 15:25

But you are taking it on Faith that:

a: The Data existed in the first place
b: Was destroyed
c: was done so at the behest of someone actively trying to cover something up.

And even if it were true - and there was a Causal link between Autism and the MMR Vaccine - Do you know what As a Parent concerns me more? Other peoples unvaccinated walking biological weapons making my child sick - because the historical data shows that there is an almost infinitely greater chance of that causing harm to my child.

Did you watch the video?

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 15:39

Did you watch the video?

I read the article, then did a brief search to determine the credibility of the people cited in the Article, Suffice to say, their credibility was found wanting.

Katman

28th January 2016, 15:40

I read the article, then did a brief search to determine the credibility of the people cited in the Article, Suffice to say, their credibility was found wanting.

:facepalm:

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 15:56

Aaaaand here comes the Red Rep when Katman starts loosing the Argument.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 17:04

Do you think those motorcyclists/motorists ... that regularly infringe on the road rules ... cold be thought of in a similar vein ... ?????????????

of course he never exceeds the posted speed limit! That's what society/ higher minds have deemed in the best interests of.... Society.

And he never has weekends either. Cunt works 80 hours a week.
Because fuck the labour party.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 17:07

also. Motobicycles are fucking dangerous and should be banned. In the interests of society.

mashman

28th January 2016, 17:09

But it's not their risk. Everyone else is unnescesarily exposed to the risk as a result of their choice. Any other choice they made that risked so much suffering and death amongst their own people would see them nailed to a tree at the nearest crossroad. Why should we treat these fuckwits any different?

Than get yourself vaccinated and follow your own advice i.e. keep your nose out of other peoples' business. Hypocrite.

FJRider

28th January 2016, 18:01

I read the article, then did a brief search to determine the credibility of the people cited in the Article, Suffice to say, their credibility was found wanting.

I did a Google search ... The credibility of TheDemonLord ....

No result found ...

russd7

28th January 2016, 18:18

never been against vaccination but have been against this HPV vaccine right from the beginning and refused permision for the one daughter that was under 16 when it came out. i don't like the fact that they tout it as a cancer vaccine which is why daughter number 2 has just had it done. would be better putting more of that money in to better educating kids to abstain from sex.

when daughter number 2 came home and told us she was getting the vaccine it was based on the fact that it was a "cancer" vaccine and that is what she was told at the family planning clinic.
i follow my gut instinct on a lot of things and something about this particular vaccine does not sit right.

Katman

28th January 2016, 18:20

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 18:44

Does the Needs of Society overrule your sovereign right to your own body? And the follow up, Does the Needs of Society overrule my right as a parent to make decisions for my Child?

Depends.

If the failure to vaccinate your child simply increases the risk to your child, (and let's face it, only very special fuckwits believe that vaccinating them constitutes an increase in risk) then outside of feeling sorry for your kid I couldn't give a fuck.

If the failure to vaccinate your kids increases the risk to him/her AND reduces the herd immunity effect that contributes to the safety of the rest of us I begin to give fucks. Particularly when, as is the case with most common viral contagions; 95% vaccination is required for that to work, and there's a valid case not to vaccinate a very few with compromised immune systems.

Begining to see a trend here?

If failure to vaccinate your kids increases the risk to not only this generation but threatens the potential to eventually make a particular contagion extinct then your mistaken belief that vaccination represents a higher risk than non-vaccination has to be balanced against not just tens of thousands at risk nationally, nor the millions at increased risk globally but increased risk for every single human yet to be born. Ever.

Which, in terms of comparable risk is effectively: Pandering to the ridiculous and demonstrably incorrect beliefs of a single parent VS pain and suffering for numbers such fuckwits are, (as demonstrated by their failure to understand the very numbers relating to risk to their kids alone) intellectually ill equipped to comprehend.

The ridiculous part comes when you realise that in order to demonstrate the veracity of that prognosis you only have to look at the health stat's of a century ago, when smallpox alone killed 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 people.

So if the fuckwits are so sure of their facts then let 'em chose between vaccination for, say smallpox or exposure to the unmodified version itself and some form of cheap and cheerful quarantine while their choice proves harmless or otherwise. Let Darwin sort 'em out.

FJRider

28th January 2016, 18:50

... would be better putting more of that money in to better educating kids to abstain from sex.

when daughter number 2 came home and told us she was getting the vaccine it was based on the fact that it was a "cancer" vaccine and that is what she was told at the family planning clinic.

i follow my gut instinct on a lot of things and something about this particular vaccine does not sit right.

Here was me thinking sex education was a parental responsibility ...

Cancer vaccine's at a family planning clinic. Diversification in the modern world eh ..

Does your gut instinct tell you it's ok for others to educate your children on sexual decisions .. if it does ... your guts may need checking out.

mashman

28th January 2016, 19:01

Fasting for three days can regenerate entire immune system, study finds (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/10878625/Fasting-for-three-days-can-regenerate-entire-immune-system-study-finds.html)... if only they could test that against immune-amnesia.

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 19:05

Do you think those motorcyclists/motorists ... that regularly infringe on the road rules ... could be thought of in a similar vein ... ?????????????

No valid comparison.

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 19:09

of course he never exceeds the posted speed limit! That's what society/ higher minds have deemed in the best interests of.... Society.

And he never has weekends either. Cunt works 80 hours a week.
Because fuck the labour party.

In fact not only is any velocity I may achieve of little risk to you it's of little risk to anyone, least of all teh constabulary. Which don't stop them pinging me occasionally.

But, y'know Fuck teh Labour party anyway.

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 19:09

I did a Google search ... The credibility of TheDemonLord ....

No result found ...

Well, that means that I've never been Discredited....

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 19:12

Than get yourself vaccinated and follow your own advice i.e. keep your nose out of other peoples' business. Hypocrite.

And when I've done that I'll come take a few shots at your head with a bat, eh?

Only, my behaviour can't possibly be any of your business, can it?

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 19:16

TheDemonLard will be along presently to banish you to West Africa.

Actually, no - I'll be along to point out that this:

would be better putting more of that money in to better educating kids to abstain from sex

is bad advice - compare the rates of US states where Abstinence is the sex education of choice to those without it, then look at which States have a higher rate of Teenage Pregnancy and STD rate vs those that don't.

As an Analogy - would you suggest to a Novice Motorcyclist that they don't need to worry about Helmets, Leathers etc. if they just work on Not Crashing? Or would you suggest that Crashing is likely to happen, therefore it would be best to be prepared and properly protected?

I haven't read too much on the HPV vaccine, but I do know that the HPV virus is considered a key component in various Cancers - so it would stand to reason that a Vaccine should that stops the initial disease that causes the cancerous mutations would by proxy help protect against certain types of Cancers.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 19:23

In fact not only is any velocity I may achieve of little risk to you it's of little risk to anyone, least of all teh constabulary. Which don't stop them pinging me occasionally.

But, y'know Fuck teh Labour party anyway.

so you exceed the posted limit...

shits dangerous yknow. science sais so.

look at the health stat's of a century ago, when smallpox alone killed 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 people.

not sure if youv been outside recently. but theres a stack of niggers the world would be better without.

your presumption that you know better than nature is fucken hilarious.

RDJ

28th January 2016, 19:23

The HPV virus is considered a key component in various Cancers - so it would stand to reason that a Vaccine should that stops the initial disease that causes the cancerous mutations would by proxy help protect against certain types of Cancers.

Yes. The type of Ca that predominantly affects women.

RDJ

28th January 2016, 19:25

your presumption that you know better than nature is fucken hilarious.

Most people die of natural causes.

FJRider

28th January 2016, 19:25

No valid comparison.

Only if your rights are more important than everybody else's ...

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 19:35

Depends.

If the failure to vaccinate your child simply increases the risk to your child, (and let's face it, only very special fuckwits believe that vaccinating them constitutes an increase in risk) then outside of feeling sorry for your kid I couldn't give a fuck.

If the failure to vaccinate your kids increases the risk to him/her AND reduces the herd immunity effect that contributes to the safety of the rest of us I begin to give fucks. Particularly when, as is the case with most common viral contagions; 95% vaccination is required for that to work, and there's a valid case not to vaccinate a very few with compromised immune systems.

Begining to see a trend here?

If failure to vaccinate your kids increases the risk to not only this generation but threatens the potential to eventually make a particular contagion extinct then your mistaken belief that vaccination represents a higher risk than non-vaccination has to be balanced against not just tens of thousands at risk nationally, nor the millions at increased risk globally but increased risk for every single human yet to be born. Ever.

Which, in terms of comparable risk is effectively: Pandering to the ridiculous and demonstrably incorrect beliefs of a single parent VS pain and suffering for numbers such fuckwits are, (as demonstrated by their failure to understand the very numbers relating to risk to their kids alone) aren't intellectually equipped to comprehend.

The ridiculous part comes when you realise that in order to demonstrate the veracity of that prognosis you only have to look at the health stat's of a century ago, when smallpox alone killed 300,000,000 to 500,000,000 people.

So if the fuckwits are so sure of their facts then let 'em chose between vaccination for, say smallpox or exposure to the unmodified version itself and some form of cheap and cheerful quarantine while their choice proves harmless or otherwise. Let Darwin sort 'em out.

I agree about the data behind Vaccinations - however do you not agree that it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for a Government to be able to usurp your right as a Parent? Assume a benevolent Government and restricted only to the cases of Vaccines, its not too bad a scenario - but the Slippery slope is what happens when the Government deems something else detrimental to the public good? A Case studio in the 'treatment' of Political dissidents in North Korea shows the eventual outcome of where the slope leads.

Possibly one could use the existing legal precedent set in the states - from memory I believe Jehovahs witnesses were forced to let their child have a Blood Transfusion in order to save the childs life, but even then - the question must be - where do you set the limits on the State's power to overrule a Parents Authority?

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 19:42

your presumption that you know better than nature is fucken hilarious.

No doubt when you've stopped laughing you'll be eschewing all that unnatural shit you currently own/stole, yeah?

Nature. :laugh: fuck that, that shit'll kill you dead.

Katman

28th January 2016, 19:43

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 19:43

Only if your rights are more important than everybody else's ...

No, just completely irrelevant.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 19:52

No doubt when you've stopped laughing you'll be eschewing all that unnatural shit you currently own/stole, yeah?

Nature. :laugh: fuck that, that shit'll kill you dead.

yes. it will.

scared?

i dont own anything.

(excepting my children, and thats getting iffy)

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 19:53

I agree about the data behind Vaccinations - however do you not agree that it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent for a Government to be able to usurp your right as a Parent? Assume a benevolent Government and restricted only to the cases of Vaccines, its not too bad a scenario - but the Slippery slope is what happens when the Government deems something else detrimental to the public good? A Case studio in the 'treatment' of Political dissidents in North Korea shows the eventual outcome of where the slope leads.

Possibly one could use the existing legal precedent set in the states - from memory I believe Jehovahs witnesses were forced to let their child have a Blood Transfusion in order to save the childs life, but even then - the question must be - where do you set the limits on the State's power to overrule a Parents Authority?

Yup, scary shit.

But not as scary as leaving all that shit to the whims of fuckwits.

And if there's a point at which a majority might justify removing choice from a minority it might just be when the choices of the minority threaten the existence of the majority.

Only, if the alternative is death on that scale then who can justify the choice of the minority causing it?

Which isn't the case with the JW, they're only damaging their own. It's a different argument, and the slope begins somewhere in between.

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 19:56

yes. it will.

scared?

i dont own anything.

(excepting my children, and thats getting iffy)

So the unnatural shit you use is all stole?

Point is, dude, if you're "natural" world is so good why aren't you living in it?

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 20:07

Yup, scary shit.

But not as scary as leaving all that shit to the whims of fuckwits.

This is where I am not so sure - I will ferociously defend Vaccinations (and the mountains of scientific evidence to back them up) in the public domain, and others using their right to free speech are entitled to disagree with me, and for the record - I do think that people who don't like Vaccinations should have to spend several months in a Sub-Saharan African country so they can see what life is like WITHOUT immunization programs - but I am also not a big fan of Governments force an individual against their will.

And if there's a point at which a majority might justify removing choice from a minority it might just be when the choices of the minority threaten the existence of the majority.

Only, if the alternative is death on that scale then who can justify the choice of the minority causing it?

Which isn't the case with the JW, they're only damaging their own. It's a different argument, and the slope begins somewhere in between.

The problem I see here - is that the Kommandant at the Gulag/Concentration camp would say the same thing - 'Ze Political Prisoners threaten ze well being of ze people, and zerefore Ve must protect ze people'

I suspect that in the near future we will (sadly) see a mass break out of a preventable disease with a significant death toll, then we will have to ask which is the lesser of the two evils?

The individuals right to be a Fuckwit or the States Mandate to protect the People from themselves?

For what it is worth - in an Ideal world, the populace would watch a public debate with an open mind and then evaluate each argument based on its merits and then have the rational thought to choose the right option, but alas - it is not an ideal world?

FJRider

28th January 2016, 20:09

No, just completely irrelevant.

My opinion too ... your rights ARE completely irrelevant ...

Ocean1

28th January 2016, 20:34

This is where I am not so sure - I will ferociously defend Vaccinations (and the mountains of scientific evidence to back them up) in the public domain, and others using their right to free speech are entitled to disagree with me, and for the record - I do think that people who don't like Vaccinations should have to spend several months in a Sub-Saharan African country so they can see what life is like WITHOUT immunization programs - but I am also not a big fan of Governments force an individual against their will.

The problem I see here - is that the Kommandant at the Gulag/Concentration camp would say the same thing - 'Ze Political Prisoners threaten ze well being of ze people, and zerefore Ve must protect ze people'

I suspect that in the near future we will (sadly) see a mass break out of a preventable disease with a significant death toll, then we will have to ask which is the lesser of the two evils?

The individuals right to be a Fuckwit or the States Mandate to protect the People from themselves?

For what it is worth - in an Ideal world, the populace would watch a public debate with an open mind and then evaluate each argument based on its merits and then have the rational thought to choose the right option, but alas - it is not an ideal world?

Whoever said anyone had the right to be a fuckwit? Try that in axle's "natural world" and see how long you live.

The only problem any of the above scenarios represent is that of a failure to prove and quantify a threat.

And I'm not suggesting that governments are immune to bullshit, simply that factual threat assessment is a necessary part of any reaction to that threat.

So what you might be better asking is how to evaluate fact in a world awash with background noise from fuckwits that think they know better.

mashman

28th January 2016, 20:42

And when I've done that I'll come take a few shots at your head with a bat, eh?

Only, my behaviour can't possibly be any of your business, can it?

And I thought you didn't understand. Bravo.

TheDemonLord

28th January 2016, 20:46

Whoever said anyone had the right to be a fuckwit? Try that in axle's "natural world" and see how long you live.

Well - They do have a right to do, they are not immune from the Consequences of their Fuckwittery,

So what you might be better asking is how to evaluate fact in a world awash with background noise from fuckwits that think they know better.

And thus lies the problems - Because Politicians are not known for being immune from Fuckwittery, on the contrary - they seem to be more susceptible to it....

bogan

28th January 2016, 20:49

This is where I am not so sure - I will ferociously defend Vaccinations (and the mountains of scientific evidence to back them up) in the public domain, and others using their right to free speech are entitled to disagree with me, and for the record - I do think that people who don't like Vaccinations should have to spend several months in a Sub-Saharan African country so they can see what life is like WITHOUT immunization programs - but I am also not a big fan of Governments force an individual against their will.

The problem I see here - is that the Kommandant at the Gulag/Concentration camp would say the same thing - 'Ze Political Prisoners threaten ze well being of ze people, and zerefore Ve must protect ze people'

I suspect that in the near future we will (sadly) see a mass break out of a preventable disease with a significant death toll, then we will have to ask which is the lesser of the two evils?

The individuals right to be a Fuckwit or the States Mandate to protect the People from themselves?

For what it is worth - in an Ideal world, the populace would watch a public debate with an open mind and then evaluate each argument based on its merits and then have the rational thought to choose the right option, but alas - it is not an ideal world?

Both alternatives merely highlight the wasted potential in our political system. Why, in this day and age, is it so hard to ask the people about this sort of thing directly?

So then both 'sides' get to publicly educate the people, who can then make an informed decision on whether a specific immunisation should be mandatory.

Thus, the power abusers cannot concentrate power to abuse, and the morons cannot drag down the herd with irresponsible actions.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 20:52

So the unnatural shit you use is all stole?

Point is, dude, if you're "natural" world is so good why aren't you living in it?
so little, you know.

noone owns anything. (stop me if youve heard this before)
even, rather: especially, you.

For what it is worth - in an Ideal world, the populace would watch a public debate with an open mind and then evaluate each argument based on its merits and then have the rational thought to choose the right option, but alas - it is not an ideal world?

no. the population is stupid. >80% believe in monotheism. "right" is subjective.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 20:54

Both alternatives merely highlight the wasted potential in our political system. Why, in this day and age, is it so hard to ask the people about this sort of thing directly?

So then both 'sides' get to publicly educate the people, who can then make an informed decision on whether a specific immunisation should be mandatory.

Thus, the power abusers cannot concentrate power to abuse, and the morons cannot drag down the herd with irresponsible actions.

mob rule. what could possibly go wrong.

bogan

28th January 2016, 20:55

mob rule. what could possibly go wrong.
Democracy. Only what we deserve.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 21:02

Democracy. Only what we deserve.

been working for decades.

//wait. What?

bogan

28th January 2016, 21:06

been working for decades.

//wait. What?
Could be better though. No doubt many would say it should be abandoned in favor of doing it 'their' way though[emoji23]fucking muppets

Akzle

28th January 2016, 21:39

Could be better though. No doubt many would say it should be abandoned in favor of doing it 'their' way though[emoji23]fucking muppets

yeeeeeeahhhh.
I just stop at "it should be abandoned"

bogan

28th January 2016, 21:46

yeeeeeeahhhh.
I just stop at "it should be abandoned"
Well aren't you just a rambunctious wee rebel.

Akzle

28th January 2016, 21:50

Well aren't you just a rambunctious wee rebel.

yes .

Oakie

30th January 2016, 09:18

And thus lies the problems - Because Politicians are not known for being immune from Fuckwittery, on the contrary - they seem to be more susceptible to it....

Perhaps they could be vaccinated for Fuckwittery? Oh, hang on ... isn't this were we came in? Circular argument.

Oakie stumbles away singing "This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started writing it not knowing what it was, and they'll continue writing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend" .... (ad infinitum)

http://www.zutroy.com/stuff/neverend/index.htm

mashman

31st January 2016, 18:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEkHN0Vc1Ls

jonbuoy

31st January 2016, 19:39

I'll bet a few women would line up right now for an Zika vaccination if one were available.

Katman

31st January 2016, 20:33

I'll bet a few women would line up right now for an Zika vaccination if one were available.

I'm sure there would be.

Then again, there will always be those who are easily swept up by hysteria.

TheDemonLord

31st January 2016, 20:53

I'm sure there would be.

Then again, there will always be those who are easily swept up by hysteria.

3,500 cases of Infants suffering from permanent deformity and Brain Damge. Up from 147 - which by some quick maths is an increase in 23 times.

Yup, Definitely not something to be concerned about.

Katman

31st January 2016, 20:56

3,500 cases of Infants suffering from permanent deformity and Brain Damge. Up from 147 - which by some quick maths is an increase in 23 times.

Yup, Definitely not something to be concerned about.

Meh, someone will probably 'discover' a vaccine within the next 6 months that will make them obscene profit.

yokel

31st January 2016, 20:56

I'll bet a few women would line up right now for an Zika vaccination if one were available.

The governments will be like

http://hd.wallpaperswide.com/thumbs/shut_up_and_take_my_money-t2.jpg

to the vaccine companies to come up with one quite smart.

TheDemonLord

31st January 2016, 22:06

Meh, someone will probably 'discover' a vaccine within the next 6 months that will make them obscene profit.

And you have a problem with this why?

Someone gets rich and Babies are born without Brain Damage - sounds like a win-win.

Katman

31st January 2016, 22:07

And you have a problem with this why?

Someone gets rich and Babies are born with Brain Damage - sounds like a win-win.

The word 'discover' is in inverted commas for a reason.

TheDemonLord

31st January 2016, 22:16

The word 'discover' is in inverted commas for a reason.

You got any evidence for that reason?

Cause that's a mighty big inference you are making...

Oakie

1st February 2016, 16:57

You got any evidence for that reason?

Cause that's a mighty big inference you are making...

Relax. He just has a heap of inverted commas lying around spare and decided to throw a couple in there.

mashman

5th February 2016, 09:08

Dr Sam Chachoua on Bill Maher (https://www.facebook.com/HealthNutNews/videos/1265242826824235/)... he injected himself with HIV infected blood etc... interesting story, for some.

RDJ

5th February 2016, 10:55

Meh, someone will probably 'discover' a vaccine within the next 6 months that will make them obscene profit.

So why don't you develop one and issue it at cost +15% markup?

Katman

5th February 2016, 11:48

So why don't you develop one and issue it at cost +15% markup?

Would 3 parts gear oil, 2 parts brake fluid and a dash of kerosene do you?

Katman

5th February 2016, 12:25

www.collective-evolution.com/2016/02/04/1947-rockefeller-patent-shows-origins-of-zika-virus-and-what-about-those-genetically-modified-mosquitoes/

RDJ

5th February 2016, 15:47

Would 3 parts gear oil, 2 parts brake fluid and a dash of kerosene do you?

Let me hazard a wild guess here. You have never had to deal personally or professionally with somebody who has suffered from an eminently avoidable disease if they had had a timely and effective vaccination, yes?

Sheesh. Enjoy your funnies. Some things are not amusing. But yeah, laugh while you can.

Oakie

5th February 2016, 16:46

Got notification yesterday at work from the company that has done our vaccinations the last three years that it's time to start planning for this year's round. I'm hoping to increase our uptake yet again this year. Three out of four in my office said "yes" straight up when I asked today so that's a good start.

Indoo

5th February 2016, 19:12

www.collective-evolution.com/2016/02/04/1947-rockefeller-patent-shows-origins-of-zika-virus-and-what-about-those-genetically-modified-mosquitoes/

The real irony here, is how gullible and poorly educated fools like yourself, are being so easily manipulated into believing what you want to believe by websites that regurgitate these spam conspiracy theories.

Like this one, which has just been made up by a 'redditor' as a joke and then been lapped up conspiracy theorists as the 'truth'.

http://www.businessinsider.com/zika-virus-conspiracy-theory-2016-1

bogan

5th February 2016, 20:13

Fuck off cocksucker. Your link ain't any more valid than mine.

Did it get a little more valid once you read his post? :laugh:

Katman

5th February 2016, 20:17

Did it get a little more valid once you read his post? :laugh:

No, why?

:scratch:

bogan

5th February 2016, 20:18

No, why?

:scratch:

Your self censure.

yokel

10th February 2016, 06:21

Zika virus, effects people with small brains that like to be parted of their cash, about $1.8 billion.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NFhsVs3IwjA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

jonbuoy

10th February 2016, 08:06

Easy to think that from a few thousand miles away - would be another story if you were living there and your missus was pregnant.

Katman

10th February 2016, 08:13

jonbuoy

10th February 2016, 09:10

The guy narrating Yokels video doesn't live their either.

Katman

10th February 2016, 09:28

Banditbandit

10th February 2016, 09:43

Hang on Kats .. are you suggesting that the Vika virus is a strawman in the vaccination argument? How so?

Katman

10th February 2016, 10:17

Hang on Kats .. are you suggesting that the Vika virus is a strawman in the vaccination argument? How so?

No, the straw man is the inference that one's opinion would be different if one lived in Brasil.

TheDemonLord

10th February 2016, 10:45

No, the straw man is the inference that one's opinion would be different if one lived in Brasil.

Because proximity to Danger has never caused Anyone to re-evaluate their opinion........

RDJ

10th February 2016, 12:52

No, the straw man is the inference that one's opinion would be different if one lived in Brasil.

Pretty robust straw then. As TDL says - direct involvement by the relationship of proximity to a risk tends to focus one on the risk. after all, there are car drivers out there who are thinking ATGATT... and truck drivers aren't exactly bothered by the concept of SMIDSY.

It's not yet proven that the high incidence of microcpehaly is because of the association with the ZIKV infection - although it is still the highest (or rather, most investigated) possibility. Evidence of perinatal transmission of ZIKV together with its very strong effect on neurological anatomy, and its invariable presence in the amniotic fluid of babies with microcephaly all favour this hypothesis. Against that, however, is that there has been no association with micro carefully since the virus was first identified in Africa over 50 years ago; neither in Africa there nor in the outbreaks outside Africa (i.e. the Pacific) has such an association with microcephaly been reported. (of course, it doesn't mean it hasn't happened, given the poor public health surveillance elsewhere). furthermore, during a recent outbreak of the infection in the French Polynesia there was a strong association with neurological problems such as Guillain-Barre but no Association yet identified with microcephaly. But ever since thalidomide, people have been very, very quick to worry about the possibility of teratogenesis in foetuses and advising pregnant women to avoid the agents, or in this case, the vector. Since one legacy of the greenies has been to ban DDT, mosquitoes are flourishing and clearing stagnant water and fogging are only temporary measures. If you want to avoid the risk, then so far until more is proven, the sensible advice is to avoid the area where Zika-virus-carrying mosquitoes are flourishing.

Banditbandit

10th February 2016, 14:37

No, the straw man is the inference that one's opinion would be different if one lived in Brasil.

Oh .. OK.

Let's see .. so if you lived in Brazil and if they had develped a vacine for ZIKV .. and you had a child bearing age daughter .. would you get her vaccinated against a virus that almost certainly causes microcpehaly or would you let her not be vaccinated, run the risk of a disabled baby against a very limited risk from the vaccine itself?

Akzle

10th February 2016, 16:26

Oh .. OK.

Let's see .. so if you lived in Brazil and if they had develped a vacine for ZIKV .. and you had a child bearing age daughter .. would you get her vaccinated against a virus that almost certainly causes microcpehaly or would you let her not be vaccinated, run the risk of a disabled baby against a very limited risk from the vaccine itself?

at child bearing age she'd make up her own mind.
I'd certainly "let" her not be. Encourage,even.

jonbuoy

10th February 2016, 23:34

at child bearing age she'd make up her own mind.
I'd certainly "let" her not be. Encourage,even.

Age of consent is 14 in Brazil - they could still probably do with some guidance at that age (along with a higher age of consent).

jonbuoy

10th February 2016, 23:37

Because proximity to Danger has never caused Anyone to re-evaluate their opinion........

That´s why the guy that says a high voltage cable is safe should be the one to disconnect it :shutup:

Akzle

11th February 2016, 05:44

Age of consent is 14 in Brazil - they could still probably do with some guidance at that age (along with a higher age of consent).

as compared to nz's really sane legislature at 15...

At any rate, irrelevant because they should be fucking for fun, not procreation at that age.

Banditbandit

11th February 2016, 09:26

as compared to nz's really sane legislature at 15...

At any rate, irrelevant because they should be fucking for fun, not procreation at that age.

Simple biology would suggest differently ...

oldrider

13th February 2016, 07:28

mashman

13th February 2016, 07:38

Ocean1

13th February 2016, 09:09

Interesting observation on Zika situation: http://drsircus.com/medicine/zika-virus-microcephaly-guillain-barre-genetically-modified-mosquitos-and-potential-vaccine-damage/?utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_campaign=f56263349c-Article_346_2_12_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ea98c09673-f56263349c-9531509

Dr Circus's "research" has the distinct flavour of one who has collated and interpreted almost any related article to fit his/her particular preconceptions on a subject he/she feels very strongly agrieved about.

Don't you recognise the style?

I've been following this reporter's take and it's remarkably similar... also fills in the corporate blanks. (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/02/10/bang-not-zika-brazilianargentine-doctors-say-pesticides/)

“A causal link between Zika infection in pregnancy and microcephaly has not, and I must emphasize, has not been established.”

Well it has now. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/76817296/zika-huge-step-as-research-strengthens-microcephaly-link

"Finding Zika virus inside the brain — and only in the brain — of this developing fetus with severe abnormalities is a crucial step in demonstrating the role of the virus in causing the congenital birth defects. It also suggests that the virus replicates robustly in the brain, but not elsewhere, the researchers wrote."

But, y'know, if Big Pharma isn't to blame then maybe it's Big Oil...

mashman

13th February 2016, 09:53

Dr Circus's "research" has the distinct flavour of one who has collated and interpreted almost any related article to fit his/her particular preconceptions on a subject he/she feels very strongly agrieved about.

Don't you recognise the style?

“A causal link between Zika infection in pregnancy and microcephaly has not, and I must emphasize, has not been established.”

Well it has now. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/76817296/zika-huge-step-as-research-strengthens-microcephaly-link

"Finding Zika virus inside the brain — and only in the brain — of this developing fetus with severe abnormalities is a crucial step in demonstrating the role of the virus in causing the congenital birth defects. It also suggests that the virus replicates robustly in the brain, but not elsewhere, the researchers wrote."

But, y'know, if Big Pharma isn't to blame then maybe it's Big Oil...

I've no doubt it could be a nasty virus that's responsible for a great many defects. However I certainly wouldn't be ruling out pesticide use either. Perhaps they should have left the bugs alone.

You rule out cahoots.

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 12:15

However I certainly wouldn't be ruling out pesticide use either.

Why?

What reason do you have for this position?

As conjecture - it seems like a variation on Hippy Logic - 'Its not Natural, therefore it's bad'

James Deuce

13th February 2016, 12:19

The only reason Zika virus has hit the news is because the Brazil Olympics are nearly here, there's been an outbreak in Brazil, and some white people who are rich enough to have bank accounts might catch the virus.

The virus is spread by people, not the mosquitoes. The mosquitoes are a local vector.

In regard to the GMO sterile males, they don't bite. Only females extract blood. So that angle is clearly bullshit. This process has been trialed in central Africa to reduce Malaria and Yellow fever and has been very successful on a local scale. 2 generations after the sterile males are introduced the mosquito population is 10% of what it was, however re-population post-trial from neighbouring areas ruins the effect. The process of creating targeted GMOs has recently gotten orders of magnitude cheaper so expect this practice to become more widespread. There are efforts to try and do the same to the parasite that makes mosquitoes bite humans and that is the next phase and obviously has less of an effect on the ecological niche the mosquito inhabits. There have been bullshit articles about the effect fo wiping out mosquito populations on bats, which are, as I said bullshit. Mosquitoes make up single figure percentages of a bat's food source and tend to be a food of last resoirt because there just that much meat on an individual mosquito. Law of Diminishing Returns and all that.

Microcephaly is a result of being infected with Zika virus in early pregnancy. Once brain development has largely finished, development, NOT growth, the risk of microcephaly is gone. Education is the way to address this issue, not bullshit anti-vaccine and pesticide campaigns from pseudo-scientific bullshit artists. Oh, and the fucking Catholic Church letting people in South America use condoms for both birth control and barrier control to prevent the spread of the Zika virus via semen.

mashman

13th February 2016, 13:04

Why?

What reason do you have for this position?

As conjecture - it seems like a variation on Hippy Logic - 'Its not Natural, therefore it's bad'

Because I can.

A reason you cannot fathom.

Misrepresentation.

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 13:15

Because I can.

A reason you cannot fathom.

Misrepresentation.

Just because you can, doesn't make it a good idea or logical, I'd say a more accurate statement is for a reason that you cannot Fathom.

Misrepresentation - really is your word of the Month isn't it.

mashman

13th February 2016, 13:26

Just because you can, doesn't make it a good idea or logical, I'd say a more accurate statement is for a reason that you cannot Fathom.

Misrepresentation - really is your word of the Month isn't it.

:yawn:

Honestly, the more you carry on, the more you sound like the bastard love spawn of bogan and husaberg.

TheDemonLord

13th February 2016, 13:31

:yawn:

Honestly, the more you carry on, the more you sound like the bastard love spawn of bogan and husaberg.

It's funny how Logic, Rational thinking and Wisdom often sounds similar :msn-wink:

Indoo

13th February 2016, 21:52

oldrider

13th February 2016, 22:39

Interesting if you want to believe what an acupuncturaist says, who also claims he can cure cancer using bicarbonate of soda maple syrup.

No body is arguing with you! :no: it was clearly addressed on his opinion piece! :rolleyes:

flyingcrocodile46

14th February 2016, 09:47

3,500 cases of Infants suffering from permanent deformity and Brain Damge. Up from 147 - which by some quick maths is an increase in 23 times.

Yup, Definitely not something to be concerned about.

Wow! Your response is a perfect illustration of Katmans concern. Oh how easily the brain dead are fooled. Not a shred of evidence to support the allegation yet there you are... swept away on the current of baseless fear just like a muppet.

flyingcrocodile46

14th February 2016, 09:54

Why?

What reason do you have for this position?

As conjecture - it seems like a variation on Hippy Logic - 'Its not Natural, therefore it's bad'

Maybe you should watch the video Yokel posted. 4 years of studies showed a leap in Microcephaly cases long before any reports of the Zika virus being concocted to explain the leap. So yeah! the similar leap in pesticide use appears to correlate with the increase in Microcephaly (mostly unreported for the last 4 years).

RDJ

14th February 2016, 11:45

Maybe you should watch the video Yokel posted. 4 years of studies showed a leap in Microcephaly cases long before any reports of the Zika virus being concocted to explain the leap. So yeah! the similar leap in pesticide use appears to correlate with the increase in Microcephaly (mostly unreported for the last 4 years).

It's almost certain that not every case of microcephaly is or was due to Zika infection during pregnancy. The logical difficulty with your allegation that the seeker virus was concocted to explain the leap in cases, is that even if the vast mosquito when conspiracy was real, the simple lack of testing for Zika during the rise in microcephaly cases means we can't prove a retrospective hypothesis (Zika virus testing is only possible during the first week of the infection; tests for antibodies can be done later, but they may yield false positives if the woman has had dengue, yellow fever or even a yellow fever vaccine). Because the majority were in urban environments where pesticides weren't used, the hypothesis that pesticides rather than the virus carried by the mosquito is the cause, appears unlikely.

So for the moment the evidence is circumstantial, but it is still evidence. there may be confounding factors, such as simultaneous infection with other illnesses (for example, rubella, toxoplasmosis, or even CMV, each of which are associated with microcephaly) or something different about the physiology of pregnancy in Brazilian mothers in the current polluted environment, which has contributed to the recent spike; and yes, it may be that Zika virus is not the main cause, just the most readily identifiable cause... About three million babies are born in Brazil each year. Normally, about 150 cases of microcephaly are reported, and Brazil says it is investigating nearly 4,000 cases. While reported cases usually (always) increase when people are alerted to a potential health crisis, we can't safely assume that previous underreporting was so bad and is the only explanation.

On the other hand, if anyone believes that so many researchers will tell lies about how a disease is disseminated just to put money in the pockets of vaccine manufacturers... then the old saying applies: "you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into".

flyingcrocodile46

14th February 2016, 12:13

It's almost certain that not every case of microcephaly is or was due to Zika infection during pregnancy. The logical difficulty with your allegation that the seeker virus was concocted to explain the leap in cases, is that even if the vast mosquito when conspiracy was real, the simple lack of testing for Zika during the rise in microcephaly cases means we can't prove a retrospective hypothesis (Zika virus testing is only possible during the first week of the infection; tests for antibodies can be done later, but they may yield false positives if the woman has had dengue, yellow fever or even a yellow fever vaccine). Because the majority were in urban environments where pesticides weren't used, the hypothesis that pesticides rather than the virus carried by the mosquito is the cause, appears unlikely.

So for the moment the evidence is circumstantial, but it is still evidence. there may be confounding factors, such as simultaneous infection with other illnesses (for example, rubella, toxoplasmosis, or even CMV, each of which are associated with microcephaly) or something different about the physiology of pregnancy in Brazilian mothers in the current polluted environment, which has contributed to the recent spike; and yes, it may be that Zika virus is not the main cause, just the most readily identifiable cause... About three million babies are born in Brazil each year. Normally, about 150 cases of microcephaly are reported, and Brazil says it is investigating nearly 4,000 cases. While reported cases usually (always) increase when people are alerted to a potential health crisis, we can't safely assume that previous underreporting was so bad and is the only explanation.

On the other hand, if anyone believes that so many researchers will tell lies about how a disease is disseminated just to put money in the pockets of vaccine manufacturers... then the old saying applies: "you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into".

An intelligent and well reasoned post.

Katman

14th February 2016, 12:27

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/25/mercks-former-doctor-predicts-gardasil-to-become-the-greatest-medical-scandal-of-all-time/

Woodman

14th February 2016, 12:51

Wow! Your response is a perfect illustration of Katmans concern. Oh how easily the brain dead are fooled. Not a shred of evidence to support the allegation yet there you are... swept away on the current of baseless fear just like a muppet.

yeahbut fear is not necessarily a bad thing, its been a pretty good survival mechanism.

An intelligent and well reasoned post.

I agree.

Akzle

14th February 2016, 13:06

Because the majority were in urban environments where pesticides weren't used, the hypothesis that pesticides rather than the virus carried by the mosquito is the cause, appears unlikely.

because everyone in town grows their own organic veges and shit :duh:

Katman

14th February 2016, 13:09

because everyone in town grows their own organic veges and shit :duh:

Go easy on him.

I think he got his honorary doctorate for being good at basketball.

RDJ

14th February 2016, 14:07

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/01/25/mercks-former-doctor-predicts-gardasil-to-become-the-greatest-medical-scandal-of-all-time/

FFS. Look at the clinical evidence before posting this type of feculent scaremongering.

Before the Gardasil HPV vaccine was licensed it was studied in 5 clinical trials involving over 21,000 girls and women ages 9-26. Since that licensing, for obvious reasons (obvious to anybody but a card-carrying conspiracy theorist) both the CDC and the FDA have been closely monitoring people who received the HPV vaccine. As of the time of writing there is no evidence that reports of serious adverse events reported for Gardasil that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine.

From June 2006 to March 2013, approximately 57 million doses of HPV vaccines were distributed and approximately 22,000 adverse event reports was submitted. As noted in a 2013 CDC follow-up announcement, 92% of those reports were classified as "non-serious," the other 8% generally encompassed symptoms such as "headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, syncope, and generalized weakness," and adverse events reported were consistent with those identified during the vaccine's pre-licensure clinical trials.

If you want to cite such apparent consequences, please also be aware that any adverse event which follows a patient being vaccinated, whether or not it can possibly be linked to the vaccine, is recorded as an adverse event. So if one of the young ladies who receive the vaccine is injured or killed in a car accident, that data point is entered on the database as an outcome for that vaccinee. if you have a cup of coffee in the morning and then fall off your bike in the afternoon, are you going to link the two? (yeah, you probably would want to blame Big Coffee...).

The CDC also noted that in 2011, the VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) studied the occurrence of specific adverse events following more than 600,000 doses of Gardasil. Adverse events in the HPV vaccinated population were compared to another appropriate population (such as adolescents vaccinated with vaccines other than HPV) and included Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), stroke, venous thromboembolism (VTE), appendicitis, seizures, syncope (fainting), allergic reactions, and a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. None of these adverse events were found to be any more common after HPV vaccination than among the comparison groups.

if you vaccinate or treat or do anything with any statistically significantly large number of people, adverse events up to and including death will occur as they would have a net population without your intervention. What you need to figure out is whether your intervention increased that baseline adverse event rate. The short answer at the moment, is it hasn't.

Not unreasonably, when a product gets bad press (yes thank you Jenny McCarthy / sarc), the number of reported "adverse events" rises and there is no way to tell from that publicity alone if a particular side effect is linked to the vaccine. Some people will die after any vaccination, not because vaccines cause death but because people, even babies and adolescents, die with inevitable regularity every damn day of the year.

What researchers are always looking for is any link between adverse events following vaccination, with the vaccine, and so far, that hasn't happened. Could this possibly happen in the future? Possibly, but on the available evidence, not probably. Has the vaccine possibly avoided nasty cancers in the people who have received? Likely, on the available evidence.

Now, unless you want to believe that all researchers are inherently moneygrubbing liars simply seeking to line their own pockets and those of their overlords Big Pharma - oh, wait a minute, what am I thinking, of course you do.

Never mind.

mashman

14th February 2016, 14:14

FFS. Look at the clinical evidence before posting this type of feculent scaremongering.

Before the Gardasil HPV vaccine was licensed it was studied in 5 clinical trials involving over 21,000 girls and women ages 9-26. Since that licensing, for obvious reasons (obvious to anybody but a card-carrying conspiracy theorist) both the CDC and the FDA have been closely monitoring people who received the HPV vaccine. As of the time of writing there is no evidence that reports of serious adverse events reported for Gardasil that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine.

From June 2006 to March 2013, approximately 57 million doses of HPV vaccines were distributed and approximately 22,000 adverse event reports was submitted. As noted in a 2013 CDC follow-up announcement, 92% of those reports were classified as "non-serious," the other 8% generally encompassed symptoms such as "headache, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, syncope, and generalized weakness," and adverse events reported were consistent with those identified during the vaccine's pre-licensure clinical trials.

If you want to cite such apparent consequences, please also be aware that any adverse event which follows a patient being vaccinated, whether or not it can possibly be linked to the vaccine, is recorded as an adverse event. So if one of the young ladies who receive the vaccine is injured or killed in a car accident, that data point is entered on the database as an outcome for that vaccinee. if you have a cup of coffee in the morning and then fall off your bike in the afternoon, are you going to link the two? (yeah, you probably would want to blame Big Coffee...).

The CDC also noted that in 2011, the VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) studied the occurrence of specific adverse events following more than 600,000 doses of Gardasil. Adverse events in the HPV vaccinated population were compared to another appropriate population (such as adolescents vaccinated with vaccines other than HPV) and included Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), stroke, venous thromboembolism (VTE), appendicitis, seizures, syncope (fainting), allergic reactions, and a potentially life-threatening allergic reaction called anaphylaxis. None of these adverse events were found to be any more common after HPV vaccination than among the comparison groups.

if you vaccinate or treat or do anything with any statistically significantly large number of people, adverse events up to and including death will occur as they would have a net population without your intervention. What you need to figure out is whether your intervention increased that baseline adverse event rate. The short answer at the moment, is it hasn't.

Not unreasonably, when a product gets bad press (yes thank you Jenny McCarthy / sarc), the number of reported "adverse events" rises and there is no way to tell from that publicity alone if a particular side effect is linked to the vaccine. Some people will die after any vaccination, not because vaccines cause death but because people, even babies and adolescents, die with inevitable regularity every damn day of the year.

What researchers are always looking for is any link between adverse events following vaccination, with the vaccine, and so far, that hasn't happened. Could this possibly happen in the future? Possibly, but on the available evidence, not probably. Has the vaccine possibly avoided nasty cancers in the people who have received? Likely, on the available evidence.

Now, unless you want to believe that all researchers are inherently moneygrubbing liars simply seeking to line their own pockets and those of their overlords Big Pharma - oh, wait a minute, what am I thinking, of course you do.

Never mind.

I predict a :facepalm: coming your way in the near future.

Aw bro... the original to "Never Mind" was much more entertaining.

Katman

14th February 2016, 14:53

Now, unless you want to believe that all researchers are inherently moneygrubbing liars simply seeking to line their own pockets and those of their overlords Big Pharma - oh, wait a minute, what am I thinking, of course you do.

Dude, it's not like I 'want' to.

(Hope you don't mind me asking)..... Are you American?

RDJ

14th February 2016, 17:06

You're out of luck - I can't be deported, I am an indigenous Kiwi.

Woodman

14th February 2016, 18:16

Dude, it's not like I 'want' to.

Why don't you just like not think about shit?

mashman

14th February 2016, 19:30

Why don't you just like not think about shit?

That's your job ;)

Woodman

14th February 2016, 19:35

That's your job ;)

I deserve a promotion.

TheDemonLord

14th February 2016, 19:58

Wow! Your response is a perfect illustration of Katmans concern. Oh how easily the brain dead are fooled. Not a shred of evidence to support the allegation yet there you are... swept away on the current of baseless fear just like a muppet.

Not a Shred of Evidence eh? Who is the Brain Dead Muppet Now? (http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/55702)

TheDemonLord

14th February 2016, 20:03

Ocean1

14th February 2016, 20:05

Not a Shred of Evidence eh? Who is the Brain Dead Muppet Now? (http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/55702)

And, yet again: http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/76817296/zika-huge-step-as-research-strengthens-microcephaly-link

"The Zika virus, thought to be responsible for a surge in birth defects in Brazil, has been found inside the abnormally small brain of an aborted fetus at roughly 29 weeks of gestation, a team of researchers reported in the New England Journal of Medicine.

An autopsy of the aborted fetus revealed a brain that had virtually none of the folds and convolutions that would usually be seen on the brain's surface in a fetus at that point in its development. Calcium deposits were evident throughout the brain's white matter — the tissue that connects neurons and brain regions to one another. And in several places, those calcifications displaced developing cortical matter.

The calcium deposits "resembled destroyed neuronal structures," the researchers said."

"Finding Zika virus inside the brain — and only in the brain — of this developing fetus with severe abnormalities is a crucial step in demonstrating the role of the virus in causing the congenital birth defects. It also suggests that the virus replicates robustly in the brain, but not elsewhere, the researchers wrote."

yokel

14th February 2016, 21:05

25,000 cases of microcephaly in the US per year.

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/busted-25000-cases-of-microcephaly-in-the-us-per-year/

“Microcephaly may result from any insult that disturbs early brain growth…Annually, approximately 25,000 infants in the United States will be diagnosed with microcephaly…”

why do you people keep believing every hysterical thing you hear in the news?

TheDemonLord

14th February 2016, 21:16

yokel

14th February 2016, 21:21

I didn't know that Brazil was part of the United States.....

It seems your knowledge of Geography is as good as your knowledge of Physics....

"Microcephaly may result from ANY insult that disturbs early brain growth"

It seems you're got the cephaly, it's effecting your reading comprehension.

And it's kinda odd that Brazil had around 150 cases before the out break vs the US with 25,000.

TheDemonLord

14th February 2016, 21:30

"Microcephaly may result from ANY insult that disturbs early brain growth"

It seems you're got the cephaly, it's effecting your reading comprehension.

Le Sigh.

Look at the figures - for 4 years, the numbers were relatively stable, Then we see an upsurge - that tends to suggest that something changed to cause an increase. Most of the factors cited in the Drivel you posted:

That could mean a highly toxic pesticide, for example. It could mean severe and prolonged malnutrition of the mother. It could mean a toxic substance injected into the mother—a street drug or a vaccine. It could mean a physical blow. It could mean a mother’s chronic high fever. And so on.

Most of these will remain fairly constant for a given population size in a given geographic and social area.

More research is required, but certainly a mutated form of a virus (Viruses like to Mutate yah know) could be the something that has changed.

But anyways - The point still stands that talking about the US when the issue is in Brazil is a Massive strawman and is fucking Retarded.

yokel

14th February 2016, 21:38

Le Sigh.

Look at the figures - for 4 years, the numbers were relatively stable, Then we see an upsurge - that tends to suggest that something changed to cause an increase. Most of the factors cited in the Drivel you posted:

Most of these will remain fairly constant for a given population size in a given geographic and social area.

More research is required, but certainly a mutated form of a virus (Viruses like to Mutate yah know) could be the something that has changed.

But anyways - The point still stands that talking about the US when the issue is in Brazil is a Massive strawman and is fucking Retarded.

No. not strawman at all when you actually look at the numbers.

And going by the numbers people could be in more danger travailing to the US than Brazil.

TheDemonLord

14th February 2016, 22:00

No. not strawman at all when you actually look at the numbers.

And going by the numbers people could be in more danger travailing to the US than Brazil.

When the issue is in country X, talking about Country Y is a Strawman, The rates of Microphaly (from what I can gather) in the US have been fairly consistent, whereas Brazil has seen a distinct change in the rates.

mashman

15th February 2016, 06:33

I deserve a promotion.

Well you can't have it, coz we gave it to someone else on account of him having more money and therefore betterer than you. Maybe next time.

Katman

15th February 2016, 07:02

Why don't you just like not think about shit?

And become one of the sheep?

flyingcrocodile46

15th February 2016, 16:36

Le Sigh.

Look at the figures - for 4 years, the numbers were relatively stable, Then we see an upsurge - that tends to suggest that something changed to cause an increase. Most of the factors cited in the Drivel you posted:

Says who? You are ignoring the research carried out for that last 4 years by the doctor cited in the video. No! I ain't posting the original quoted article. Find it independently like I did or carry on with your poorly informed (MSM) opinion.

Most of these will remain fairly constant for a given population size in a given geographic and social area.

More research is required, but certainly a mutated form of a virus (Viruses like to Mutate yah know) could be the something that has changed.

But anyways - The point still stands that talking about the US when the issue is in Brazil is a Massive strawman and is fucking Retarded.

It's not retarded at all. But you appear to be, when you deny the relevance in the face of simple logic such as the fact that it highlights the absurdity of WHO and MSM hyping an epidemic (simply because a third world country is catching up with the western worlds infection rates?? wtf?).

A third world country where such investigations weren't carried out until a cover story was needed to deflect attention away from the speculation around recent pesticide use by Monsanto after some nosy doctor disclosed the fact that she had collected evidence that suggested a recent spike in the problem and that it coincided with the massive jump in pesticide use. IOW The reason for the spike is that there has been a similar spike in the amount of testing undertaken.

bogan

15th February 2016, 16:43

Find it independently like I did or carry on with your poorly informed (MSM) opinion.

Why do you see fit to spread your blither, but keep the scientific works hidden?

Woodman

15th February 2016, 16:47

And become one of the sheep?

Nope, a sheep would not think about shit because thats what all the other sheep do, but when it is an informed choice to be ignorant then that is far from sheeplike.

bogan

15th February 2016, 17:11

Willful ignorance isn't in my make-up.

:laugh: self censored that one for being willfully self-ignorant eh katty :killingme

Woodman

15th February 2016, 17:20

Where did Katmans quote go?

scumdog

15th February 2016, 17:45

Ah hell it's just the desease de jour.:rolleyes:

Like bird-flu was
and mad cow disease was

Get over it, another 'new, debilitating easily spread disease' will be in a town near you soon enough.'<_<

TheDemonLord

15th February 2016, 17:56

Says who? You are ignoring the research carried out for that last 4 years by the doctor cited in the video. No! I ain't posting the original quoted article. Find it independently like I did or carry on with your poorly informed (MSM) opinion.

Let me break this down for you:

You are claiming that there is Research that indicates there was a problem for 4 years.
I provide you with a Link to a Medical Journal that shows the reported cases over the last 5 years, which shows that the rates were fairly constant until 2015.
You then ignore the Medical Journal, yet "No! I ain't posting the original quoted article."

That which is submitted without Evidence....

And besides - what is MSM about a Medical Journal, or are you going the Full Katman route - where everything is a Conspiracy?

It's not retarded at all. But you appear to be, when you deny the relevance in the face of simple logic such as the fact that it highlights the absurdity of WHO and MSM hyping an epidemic (simply because a third world country is catching up with the western worlds infection rates?? wtf?).

Half of your premise is based on a supposed Study that you can't cite, so I'm going to ignore it until you post up the original Article. I want to focus on the last comment - because it shows how truly small your mind is:

simply because a third world country is catching up with the western worlds infection rates??

Do you think, that if we have a group that has previously not had this problem and suddenly developed that problem, that perhaps we could identify a cause? And if we can identify this cause in our group, it might help address the Western infection rates (or at least, help us rule out possible causes in the western world)?

A third world country where such investigations weren't carried out until a cover story was needed to deflect attention away from the speculation around recent pesticide use by Monsanto after some nosy doctor disclosed the fact that she had collected evidence that suggested a recent spike in the problem and that it coincided with the massive jump in pesticide use. IOW The reason for the spike is that there has been a similar spike in the amount of testing undertaken.

Blah Blah Blah

CITATION NEEDED

Katman

17th February 2016, 12:49

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/02/16/its-not-the-zika-virus-doctors-link-monsanto-pesticides-to-birth-defects/

flyingcrocodile46

18th February 2016, 17:54

Let me break this down for you:

You are claiming that there is Research that indicates there was a problem for 4 years.
I provide you with a Link to a Medical Journal that shows the reported cases over the last 5 years, which shows that the rates were fairly constant until 2015.
You then ignore the Medical Journal, yet "No! I ain't posting the original quoted article."

That which is submitted without Evidence....

And besides - what is MSM about a Medical Journal, or are you going the Full Katman route - where everything is a Conspiracy?

Half of your premise is based on a supposed Study that you can't cite, so I'm going to ignore it until you post up the original Article. I want to focus on the last comment - because it shows how truly small your mind is:

Do you think, that if we have a group that has previously not had this problem and suddenly developed that problem, that perhaps we could identify a cause? And if we can identify this cause in our group, it might help address the Western infection rates (or at least, help us rule out possible causes in the western world)?

Blah Blah Blah

CITATION NEEDED

You can toss glitter into the air and pedal your fan as hard as you want, but all the glitter in the world ain't going to change the fact that you're just another mindless turd.

bogan

18th February 2016, 17:57

You can toss glitter into the air and pedal your fan as hard as you want, but all the glitter in the world ain't going to change the fact that you're just another mindless turd.

Needs more pro-nouns dude...

flyingcrocodile46

18th February 2016, 17:58

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2016/02/16/its-not-the-zika-virus-doctors-link-monsanto-pesticides-to-birth-defects/

You know he won't read it and that even if he did, he would proclaim it to be a lie because in hasn't been sanctioned through the MSM as a bonafide believable lie.

Katman

18th February 2016, 17:59

You know he won't read it and that even if he did, he would proclaim it to be a lie because in hasn't been sanctioned through the MSM as a bonafide believable lie.

I blame his autism.

TheDemonLord

18th February 2016, 20:19

You can toss glitter into the air and pedal your fan as hard as you want, but all the glitter in the world ain't going to change the fact that you're just another mindless turd.

Now Kiddies - this is a classic Ad Hominem attack. As you can see - the Poster has made a number of unsubstantiated claims - when asked for a source, No source is provided. Ad Hominems are almost entirely used when the person making the unsubstantiated claims know that they are peddling a load of retarded Horse shit and so try and attack the person calling them out on their BS to divert attention away from the fact that they are full of shit.

TheDemonLord

18th February 2016, 20:36

You know he won't read it and that even if he did, he would proclaim it to be a lie because in hasn't been sanctioned through the MSM as a bonafide believable lie.

I did read it - it was interesting, however both the original article posted by Katman and the Source article that it plagiarizes both do a very subtle but convincing hoodwink (which is why Gullible Conspiracy twits like you and Katman gobble it up so easily):

It talks about the effects of Pesticides, Vitamin deficiency etc. on a Fetus - and claim these as alternatives for the outbreak. Now, I'm not going to back-check whether these are factually correct because it doesn't actually address the cause of concern, which is the sudden increase in cases, even when we take into account incorrect diagnosis, False positive etc. as a result of the panic, there still had to be an increase to cause the panic in the first place. Neither article addresses this. It is a fair and reasonable assumption that the Pesticide use for a given area and the general health of a given population would remain fairly static (unless there was something to change this), We can make this assumption because neither article mentions a sudden increase in Pesticide use around the time of the increase in cases nor a change in the Pesticides used.

The source article does make a casual nod to the upsurge in numbers - suggesting the TDAP vaccination program could be to blame, but when I looked at the source used to claim that this was not safe for Pregnant Women, it linked back to an article on its own website (gotta love a circular reference)

This is the Smoke and Mirrors trick - Neither article addresses the original cause for concern (which is the upsurge in reported cases)

And that doesn't even address the concerns from the source website being a lovely blend of 'The Evil Pharma companies tell you that you are sick - They are Lieing! Buy my natural products to make you better' - Surely you can see the massive hypocrisy here?

TheDemonLord

18th February 2016, 20:39

I blame his autism.

Even if I were full Autistic - I'd still be able to point out the glaring holes in your Conspiracy Cult without breaking an intellectual sweat.

But it is nice to know that you have a Doctorate in Mental conditions and can accurately diagnose through the Internet, just like you can diagnose how people died by looking at 70 year old Photographs, or those degrees in Metallurgy, Physics, Chemistry and Structural Engineering that you hold......

Katman

18th February 2016, 20:46

.....there still had to be an increase to cause the panic in the first place.

Not necessarily.

It could be something as simple as a hidden agenda.

bogan

18th February 2016, 20:59

Not necessarily.

It could be something as simple as a hidden agenda.

You should push your own limits, try to read and respond to the whole sentence so you don't look like such a fool by cutting out the very bit that shows you to be wrong. Ie, the sudden increase in cases...

Sound out the words if you need to, phone a friend to get help... you can get there though, just put on your big boy pants and go for it!

Now you may think that's an ad-hominem, but you'd be wrong (still).

TheDemonLord

18th February 2016, 20:59

Not necessarily.

It could be something as simple as a hidden agenda.

Yes, but with you EVERYTHING is the result of a Hidden Agenda, and more importantly - What Proof do you have of this other than other Conspiracy and 'Hidden Agendas'

Katman

18th February 2016, 21:02

Yes, but with you EVERYTHING is the result of a Hidden Agenda, and more importantly - What Proof do you have of this other than other Conspiracy and 'Hidden Agendas'

Dude, if someone told you they'd found a vaccine that stopped you feeling the cold, you'd line up for your shot rather than putting a jacket on.

Fucking moron.

flyingcrocodile46

18th February 2016, 21:08

Yes, but with you EVERYTHING is the result of a Hidden Agenda, and more importantly - What Proof do you have of this other than other Conspiracy and 'Hidden Agendas'

Your "Ad Hominem attack" PKB aside:rolleyes:. As usual you willfully ignore the simple fact that you're are defending an equally unsubstantiated conspiracy. :rolleyes: Baaaaaaaaaaah

TheDemonLord

18th February 2016, 21:14

Your "Ad Hominem attack" PKB aside:rolleyes:. As usual you willfully ignore the simple fact that you're are defending an equally unsubstantiated conspiracy. :rolleyes: Baaaaaaaaaaah

The difference is - I first rebutted your pathetic argument (with sources), THEN called you a fuckwit for believing it. As opposed to just refusing to present evidence to support the retarded claims.

However - I am not defending an unsubstantiated conspiracy - I am simply saying that the Data does not match up with the Hypothesis presented by the Cult of Conspiracy. Especially when you factor in that behind the thin veneer is the same old Conspiracy Claptrap "Vaccines are bad", "Big Pharma is bad", "Science is bad" - just repackaged, ready by swallowed hook line and sinker by its legion of devoted followers.

TheDemonLord

18th February 2016, 21:17

Dude, if someone told you they'd found a vaccine that stopped you feeling the cold, you'd line up for your shot rather than putting a jacket on.

Fucking moron.

Now Kiddies - see the Change of Subject attempt - this is when the person making an Unsubstantiated claim realizes that they are full of Shit and have nothing to back their claims up with. They try and shift the conversation onto a different (but slightly similar subject) in order to avoid having to defend their indefensible BS.

bogan

18th February 2016, 21:18

Dude, if someone told you they'd found a vaccine that stopped you feeling the cold, you'd line up for your shot rather than putting a jacket on.

Fucking moron.

I disagree based on unfounded assumptions that makes; he would clearly look for published studies to figure out if the claims were true or not as he has done here time and time again.

On the other hand however, if you came up with the notion 'big jacket' was 'out to get you', you'd end up a little chilly. The wool you wear as a sheeple would be cold comfort indeed.

flyingcrocodile46

18th February 2016, 21:19

You should push your own limits, try to read and respond to the whole sentence so you don't look like such a fool by cutting out the very bit that shows you to be wrong. Ie, the sudden increase in cases.

Just because shit heads like you and david bowie have a penchant for pouring bucket load after bucket load of shit into your every post doesn't oblige a respondent to wash all of it away. We piss were we choose because we are have the intellect to understand that it is our prerogative as free thinkers to do so. Clean your own shit.

Btw. As you so willfully ignored. I previously pointed out, the most common result of increased investigation is a equal increase in reporting.

As for the article that your sheep-dip sharing buddy is so wont to see me produce. Watch the video, type in the title of the article that the video features (just like a grown up would figure to do) and voila! Fucking morons.

bogan

18th February 2016, 21:23

Just because shit heads like you and david bowie have a penchant for pouring bucket load after bucket load of shit into your every post doesn't oblige a respondent to wash all of it away. We piss were we choose because we are have the intellect to understand that it is our prerogative as free thinkers to do so. Clean your own shit.

Btw. As you so willfully ignored. I previously pointed out, the most common result of increased investigation is a equal increase in reporting.

As for the article that your sheep-dip sharing buddy is so wont to see me produce. Watch the video, type in the title of the article that the video features (just like a grown up would figure to do) and voila! Fucking morons.

You should try mixing your metaphors less...

...and posting actual evidence more, deception is the only reason to make evidence unnecessarily hard to obtain.

Cos the only free thinking you're capable of, is that which is free from rational constraints :laugh:

TheDemonLord

18th February 2016, 21:24

As for the article that your sheep-dip sharing buddy is so wont to see me produce. Watch the video, type in the title of the article that the video features (just like a grown up would figure to do) and voila! Fucking morons.

Wrong - you are the one making the Claim, the Onus is on you to post the Sources.

However - like all the brain Dead Conspiracy Fuckwits - all you ever do is post a video or a Blog article and expect us to listen and believe (like the good little Faithful that you are).

You will note I almost NEVER simply post a Blog article or a Video, because I actually like to use this thing called 'a brain' (you should try it sometime... Actually, No, you might be dangerous if you did) and actually make my own points based off of the relevant data.

And if someone asks for the Data, rather than whining like a little bitch about it - I actually post it up - Because the onus is on my to provide the sources.