Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

i posted the link you posted the source its not irrefutable it was the result of a researchers math that doesn't mean it can be done in adults after birth.

'Adults after birth'???

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Is your '2700 times' claim a load of shit?

[husaberg]

'Adults after birth'???

What the fuck are you trying to say?

Is your '2700 times' claim a load of shit?

No in humans after birth i removed the adults as it was confusing. plus not the correct term what i should have said was humans post birth. long before you replied
Its not a load of shit its basic math. for people who have more than a Boy Scout first aid badge and a B2 in School cert english
Because if one can calculate how much it takes to accomplish it in gestation its pretty easy to establish that 2700 the times smaller ammount that is present in vacines isnt going to accomplish it post birth

ps i still have yet to see your explanation of why your paper you linked would be injecting food grade materials rather than using exclusively using pharmaceutical inject-able grades

nor have you commented how your credential stack up vs the the stuff i posted

So Science Mom Academic Scientist who isan infectious disease researcher employed by an academic institution.
Vs Steve from Taupo B2 in School cert English with a boy scout badge in first aid

or undergraduate degree in Biology from a top US research university and a graduate degree in Biochemistry/Endocrinology from a major US research university
Vs Steve from Taupo B2 English School Cert with a boy scout badge in first aid

Or DAVID H. GORSKI, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the Medical Director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center, Professor of Surgery and Oncology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine.
Vs Steve from taupo B2 English School C with a boy scout badge in first aid


Nor have you mentioned why it is you continue to troll on about Autism in a vaccine thread when it has been comprehensively proven there was never a link other than Wakefeilds idea to make a few million dollars out of making up one.

[Katman]

No in humans after birth i removed the adults as it was confusing. plus not the correct term what i should have said was humans post birth. long before you replied
Its not a load of shit its basic math. for people who have more than a Boy Scout first aid badge and a B2 in School cert english
Because if one can calculate how much it takes to accomplish it in gestation its pretty easy to establish that 2700 the times smaller ammount that is present in vacines isnt going to accomplish it post birth

So are you admitting that the '2700 times less' claim is just one persons opinion and isn't supported by any actual fact?

[FJRider]

Not to take you out of Context - but I feel these 3 comments are part of the same argument ...

Your opinion ... not mine.

I believe that on all points, there is sufficient evidence to backup these claims

I don't believe there is.

based on the above premises, there is a clear logical and causal chain between Katman promoting his anti-vax opinion, and people opting not to vaccinate based on repeatedly disproved lies.

Is this is a case of law breaking or morals ...

so what are we left with ?

Whats this "We'' bit ... ??? you are the one making claims about Katman's opinions. Entirely LEGAL opinions.

Can you claim any particular number of people (anywhere in the world) that he has coerced into adopting his views ... Thus endangering children ... ???

Can you point out where I've encouraged other people to speed? Show me doing that for a start, then we can pick apart why the above argument is BS without the massive fallacy.

I didn't even ask or suggest that. I just asked how often do you choose to exceed the posted speed limit. Your answer would (perhaps) show the validity of your own morals ...

That's an Appeal to the Law - If that's the case, then Slavery wasn't morally wrong or evil as there was no risk of Prosecution for owning slaves when it was Legal.

An activity that was perfectly legal at the time. A change of attitudes and opinions caused a change in the law. As will probably the law regarding smoking in public places. (watch this space) ...

No, the point (and by evading the question, you show you know the answer and where it leads) is to show that we can accept people doing something stupid if they alone suffer the consequences of their stupidity, but when it's not them, but other people that suffer - this becomes a different issue, one that in many instances mandates an intervention (whether that be at the Personal, Societal or Governmental level).

How many people get injured by that one persons stupidity is always the question ... in most cases it's just a matter of luck. It is difficult to limit injuries to that one stupid person. Especially in activities that outside the bounds of the law. Deaths resulting from activities that are not usually seen to be life threatening do happen as well. COULD happen is not ... WILL happen.

I wish people would be able to separate the objective facts from the BS, but alas, the world is not perfect.

Nor are you. So forget world issues out and concentrate on obeying the LAWS of this country. Much safer for all of us.

Would need to switch careers and get a few decades of experience under my belt to have sufficient credentials to honestly start one.

No commitment. That's your base issue. You can only argue world issues here on KB (and it's everybody else's fault).

There's a difference between not being proved and false accusations.

Throw enough mud and some will stick ... right ... ??

To use the low rate of death to portray that the risk of measles is low, therefore the vaccination is unnecessary, whilst using the low figures that are due to Vaccination is dishonest.

Who is dishonest ... the person distributing the numbers ... ?? Would that be ... Katman ... ???

Fair point - answer me this: even with a high level of uncertainty, you can still make draw a conclusion as to which way the trend is going.

Even with the rough numbers and calculations provided - does it point more towards the position that I hold or more towards the position that Katman holds?

People jump to conclusions all the time. If it even just seems like a good idea (at the time) people get hurt or die. Which conclusion is drawn can and will always vary. Depending on circumstance ... and a large degree of luck.

[husaberg]

So are you admitting that the '2700 times less' claim is just one persons opinion and isn't supported by any actual fact?

I see you are talking shit again
Imagine my surprise to see you trying to manipulate stuff in the vaccine thread......
hows about you go to the link i posted then dig deep and pay your $33 US and read the paper in full.
Then you can get a time machine smoke less pot, eat less lead paint, stop sniffing petrol at school reach a triple digit iq and obtain some real degree in biological science or medicine beyond your curent B2 in School cert english and a Boy Scout first aid badge and then you can argue the point on an even footing with Pardridge WM. Who wote the paper or Azmin MN, Stuart JF, Florence AT. who researched and who calculated that a dose of polysorbate-80 of 3-30 mg/kg will cause BBB disruption in mice.
Seeing as humans are both bigger and less permable after birth explain how its not going to take at 2700 times more than the dose of polysorbate-80 thats contained in a vaccine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...73247819461536
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3995684

[Katman]

I see you are talking shit again
Imagine my surprise to see you trying to manipulate stuff in the vaccine thread......
hows about you go to thelink i postedr pay your $33 US and read the paper in full.
Then you can get a time machine smoke less pot eat less lead stop sniffing petrol at school and obtain some real degree in biological science otr medine beyond your curent B2v in School cert english and a Boy Scout first aid badge and then you can argue the point on an even footing.

I'll take that as an admission your claim is a load of shit.

[husaberg]

I'll take that as an admission your claim is a load of shit.

Gee, what gave it away your sudden need to edit the Authours out my post.
Quick post about 5 more posts so the page changes like you normally do.
then maybe you can pretend we dont know what a human weighs when they are vaccinated or how much polysorbate 80 is in vaccines gee if only there was a way of figuring those two out with a School cert B2 in English
or if only we could calculate the rate required of Polysoybate 80 that produced the statistic difference as being 90mg/kg and compare it to the amount contained in vaccines ie 0.1mg per dose. and divide it by the weight of a new born ie 3 kg.then i could make up a number that looked like it would take 2700 times more polysoyate 80 than is contained in a vaccine before it would even stand a mathematical chance. but seeing as we know the barrier shuts prior to birth thats all it would be but then why bother
just go post some further misinformation in the hope of scaring some poor sap into not vaccinating their child based on your compulsive need to troll and post false information so people dont stop their children from suffering needlessly from preventable diseases.

[Katman]

Gee, what gave it away your sudden need to edit the Authours out my post.
Quick post about 5 more posts so the page changes like you normally do.

So where do those links support your '2700 times less' claim?

[TheDemonLord]

Primarily number 1.

Then drop all the other nonsense then. And I'm not being entirely facetious here - if you want to honestly argue the libertarian point of view - forget Wakefield, Forget Greer, forget the disproven links between Vaccines and Autism.

Argue that case purely on it's own merits and using the most vigorously tested science.

Because I'll let you into a little secret - you CAN make a reasonable argument from that position, and if you drop all the other Anti-Vax BS and misinformation - you might find it a bit more persuasive...

But I also believe that we need to get to the bottom of what is causing the massive increase in the number of cases of autism.

Although Husa pointed it out: Japan. There is your test for your theory and it is a conclusive refutation, even if there was no other scientific evidence to the contrary.

(And yes, I'm aware that you will claim that there hasn't been an increase and that it is simply down to improved diagnosis - but I don't buy that).

Okay - why don't you buy it? Serious question - do you have a reason (other than it provides a refutation for your Anti-Vax position) or is this simply an Argument for Incredulity?

I mean the annals of British history is filled with various people who based on contemporary descriptions of them and their mannerisms would likely be referred to as 'Autistic' - which suggests to me that there has always been a signigicant enough Baseline.

But lets just assume your position for a minute - some possibilities could be around the social environment that kids are brought up in:

One thought (that I'll grant you is pure speculation) could be to do with the decline of rigid social etiquette. What I mean by this, if you assume that Autism (as a condition) exists at a fairly standard rate throughout time, then what has been the change that has made the behaviour noticeable to the point where it has a condition associated with it. First would be advances in behavioral sciences, but if you consider one Autistic trait of doing things in a very set way - then having a rigid social etiquette may actually help an Autistic person cope in a social situation. Autistic people tend to flourish in situations set rules (Such as IT or Engineering or other fields where they are over-represented), and so it could be that as our Society has become less and less formal (with set rules and conventions of acting) - the Autistic members of the population have become more and more visible by contrast.

[Katman]

Then drop all the other nonsense then. And I'm not being entirely facetious here - if you want to honestly argue the libertarian point of view - forget Wakefield, Forget Greer, forget the disproven links between Vaccines and Autism.

Argue that case purely on it's own merits and using the most vigorously tested science.

I'm not only arguing from a libertarian point of view.

I'm arguing from a moralistic point of view as well.

If a parent has a child who suffers an adverse reaction from a vaccine, should that parent be forced to gamble with their second child as well?

[TheDemonLord]

I don't believe there is.

Okay - which point do you not believe the evidence for?

Is this is a case of law breaking or morals ...

Morals first, and possibly law second (but as stated - would need a test case)

Whats this "We'' bit ... ??? you are the one making claims about Katman's opinions. Entirely LEGAL opinions.

You're the one critiquing me, yet curiously - apart from a simple denial, appeal to law and a false equivalency - I see nothing in your posts that is an actual rebuttal. I've outlined my chain of Logic - You've said you don't buy it, fair enough - what don't you buy?

Can you claim any particular number of people (anywhere in the world) that he has coerced into adopting his views ... Thus endangering children ... ???

Coerced? who said Coerced? Stop with the bait and switch.

I know what you are trying to do - which is to say because I can't point to a specific example - then the charge is null and void.

However - that's a variant of the Nuremberg defence - which is to say not guilty due to only playing a small part - but every person who actively promotes an Anti-Vax viewpoint is responsible for giving the movement the air of legitimacy, which in turn results in some parents not vaccinating their children due to misinformation and thus endangering them and others in Society. Need I (again) remind you of the Death rate before and due to the Anti-Vax movement? You keep not wanting to acknowledge that part - which is rather telling...

I didn't even ask or suggest that. I just asked how often do you choose to exceed the posted speed limit. Your answer would (perhaps) show the validity of your own morals ...

For it to be equivalent for the accusation I'm levelling at Katman, you'd need to show that I repeatedly post things that encourage people to Speed. You can't do that, because I don't - therefore the whole comparison is fallacious.

An activity that was perfectly legal at the time. A change of attitudes and opinions caused a change in the law. As will probably the law regarding smoking in public places. (watch this space) ...

I didn't ask if it was Legal - I asked whether or not it was Moral or Right.

But let's cut the BS shall we: You're refusing to answer because to say Slavery was immoral or wrong when it was Legal is to validate that something can be wrong whilst not yet being illegal, so your appeal to law falls flat (which is, interestingly, why it's a fallacy), to try and argue the Slavery was right and Moral - well, I would never think so low of you.

How many people get injured by that one persons stupidity is always the question ... in most cases it's just a matter of luck. It is difficult to limit injuries to that one stupid person. Especially in activities that outside the bounds of the law. Deaths resulting from activities that are not usually seen to be life threatening do happen as well. COULD happen is not ... WILL happen.

Let me change that for you: Measles in a sufficiently unvaccinated population (less than 90-95%) WILL be fatal to someone. May not be you, may not be Me, but it WILL be fatal to someone. It's not a case of Could.

Who is dishonest ... the person distributing the numbers ... ?? Would that be ... Katman ... ???

You ask me to provide data, I provide it and do some rough calculations (and show them) to backup the point I'm making. Then you try to make an implication that Measles isn't that dangerous - ignoring the fact that the data for that conclusion comes from somewhere that has a high vaccination rate. That, is a Dishonest argument.

[Katman]

One thought (that I'll grant you is pure speculation) could be to do with the decline of rigid social etiquette. What I mean by this, if you assume that Autism (as a condition) exists at a fairly standard rate throughout time, then what has been the change that has made the behaviour noticeable to the point where it has a condition associated with it. First would be advances in behavioral sciences, but if you consider one Autistic trait of doing things in a very set way - then having a rigid social etiquette may actually help an Autistic person cope in a social situation. Autistic people tend to flourish in situations set rules (Such as IT or Engineering or other fields where they are over-represented), and so it could be that as our Society has become less and less formal (with set rules and conventions of acting) - the Autistic members of the population have become more and more visible by contrast.

As you're well aware though, autism goes well beyond just quirky mannerisms.

The prevelance of more severe neurological disorders has been on the increase as well.

[husaberg]

As you're well aware though, autism goes well beyond just quirky mannerisms.

The prevelance of more severe neurological disorders has been on the increase as well.

Academics have long pondered if the pumice soils of Taupo are the cause of narcissistic personalty disorders and paranoia that run rampant in their region the only hope is the decrease in fertility that goes along with the disorders keeps the traits highly localised from spreading to the wider population.

[FJRider]

Okay - which point do you not believe the evidence for?

Morals first, and possibly law second (but as stated - would need a test case)

Any/all your "Points" ... Those that take the moral high ground ... usually find it a difficult climb up. Some do make it up there ... but few stay there long.

No possibility of law helping if it's perfectly legal. Wait for a law change (For how long was slavery allowed before the laws were changed ... ??)

If the issue is so important ... why has there NOT been a test case .. ?? Are you the only one that cares ... ??

what don't you buy?

All your bullshit.

Coerced? who said Coerced? Stop with the bait and switch.

Well ... if he hasn't coerced anybody into adopting HIS views ... his opinions are only his opinion. Accusations of wrongdoing require proof. And you have none.

I know what you are trying to do

You aren't even close to knowing what I'm doing. Guess again ...

However - that's a variant of the Nuremberg defence - which is to say not guilty due to only playing a small part

So far ... you admit all Katman has done is held and stated his opinion. And now you're comparing it to the Nuremberg trial ... get real fella ...

you'd need to show that I repeatedly post things that encourage people to Speed. You can't do that, because I don't - therefore the whole comparison is fallacious.

I never said you did. But if you want to take a moral and/or legal high ground ... you shouldn't pick and choose which legal or moral high grounds that suits that you try to support.

But let's cut the BS shall we: You're refusing to answer because to say Slavery was immoral or wrong when it was Legal is to validate that something can be wrong whilst not yet being illegal

Opinions and attitudes change. And they cause change. But until those opinions change ... nothing will.

In the years of smoking in public buildings and transport ... how many (in NZ) contracted or died of cancer .. ??? But it was legal at the time. Do you smoke .. ???

That, is a Dishonest argument.

You accuse ME of dishonesty ... ??? Why don't you actually stop talking/arguing and do something positive (and constructive) to help with your perceived issue ... ???

[TheDemonLord]

I'm not only arguing from a libertarian point of view.

You don't say... That was kinda my point. You wrap your arguments in the clothing of the Libertarian argument, then when that is ripped to shreds (because you neither have the principles nor the belief in that position to actually argue it) we see the jealous conspiracy underneath.

I'm arguing from a moralistic point of view as well.

What Morals - ah yes, the one where you are uncomfortable with any action that results in Death, even if inaction results in significantly more Death.

If a parent has a child who suffers an adverse reaction from a vaccine, should that parent be forced to gamble with their second child as well?

If only I'd made exceptions for cases with a pre-existing condition (and a family history of severe adverse reactions would certainly qualify)

If only...

(so no pre-existing auto-immune conditions or any verified medical conditions where a vaccination wouldn't be appropriate)

And that, is where the facade of "I'm a Libertarian" and "I'm for the Moral choice" falls down - because when presented with an acknowledgement of the fringe cases where it would be appropriate not to vaccinate (the 5% of the population) - you ignore it, because you don't actually give a shit about that, you give a shit about your debunked Autism link and your hatred of Big Pharma.