Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[husaberg]

Well you might be discussing the MMR vaccine specifically but I'm discussing them in general.

or are you going to yet again pull a bait and switch?

Proof, Pudding.

He wouln't really want to mention MMR esp so soon after going on about the vaccine compensations

94,815,650 individual dosses 119 of MMR Vaccine administered under VICP yet only 119 claims found worthy out of Compensation out of only 234 claims made.
or 1 in 400,0000 result in a claim of which 1 in about 800,000 were compensated.

it makes you wonder why Katamans mentioned autism or autistic or responded about either over 100 times in this thread.

[FJRider]

So Slavery was all okay when it was legal? Nothing Immoral about it? Cause that's the position you are arguing from...

Funny how slavery was legal but was outlawed on moral grounds. Now Prostitution is legal but was outlawed on moral grounds ... does this mean public morals are getting better or worse ... ??

The law is a written codification of our deepest set of Principles. Principles we can't always articulate accurately. Principles which may not always translate perfectly from one situation to another.

If you think you have a case ... prove it in court.

Low risk? Well, that depends

If it were a high risk issue ... the law would be changed. But it's low risk and vaccination is optional.

It's called parental choice.

What is the principle behind Incitement to Violence? It's that by holding and espousing an opinion, you encourage other people to take actions that result in Harm to innocent people/the wider community.

You have no idea what opinion I have. I have never stated an actual opinion that I hold. Yet you say I incite violence. Talk about wild accusation ...

I put it to you that promoting an Anti-Vax viewpoint, based on Fraudulent 'studies' meets every single one of those criteria.

I have never promoted any such thing. Your wild accusations are starting to piss me off.

See the above post to Katman to show the difference between arguing from an actual Libertarian position and arguing from the Anti-Vax position that masquerades as such.

I waste enough time reading the dribble and slander you post in reply to my posts.

Well shit - if that's the case why do we need Psychologists and Sociologists... Unless people may not know themselves as well as they think.

You'll have your's on speed dial ...

See above.

See above ...

Your critique is comparing the actions of Katman to my actions and with a rather notable difference being you agree I've never engaged in promoting the idea that other people Speed - which means your attempt to draw an equivalency between what Katman does and what I do was entirely Fallacious.

I never stated you promoted the idea that speed is OK ... But I know you do speed. Therefore you support the idea that it IS ok to speed.

Sometimes, but not always:

But always ... when the shouting gets too loud to ignore. And a Politician wants to get elected.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

No such thing as Heaven ... just the world as we knew it will change. Not always for the better. But that is how it will be claimed ...

What a brilliant articulation of the argument for Mandatory Vaccination - so you agree with my point then?

Now just prove (in a Court of Law) Who harmed Whom ... and where/when. Simple if the problem is as huge as you claim ...

Is it 1 in 1,000?

Is that the minimum ratio before you take issue with the deaths of children ... ???

But if it makes you happy - Domestic Violence in NZ is utterly Shocking

Domestic violence does not make me happy. I think it irritating you thought it would ... another wild accusation from you.

But alas it isn't. It's a subject I've often thought long on

Stop thinking about it. Save kids in our part of the world.

Of Zealots? None. Of people that have seen the half-truths presented by the Anti-vax crowd and been tempted without hearing the other side? Several.

And so long as it's greater than 1, I'll keep furiously typing rebuttals.

So ... that would be two.

[TheDemonLord]

Funny how slavery was legal but was outlawed on moral grounds. Now Prostitution is legal but was outlawed on moral grounds ... does this mean public morals are getting better or worse ... ??

The moral has always been the conflict between letting people live the lives they wish to choose and protecting them from harm.

Both of those judgements have the same fundamental underpinnings.

If it were a high risk issue ... the law would be changed. But it's low risk and vaccination is optional.

It's called parental choice.

Again, with that dishonest argument. You can't divorce the risk from the protections against that risk.

You have no idea what opinion I have. I have never stated an actual opinion that I hold. Yet you say I incite violence. Talk about wild accusation ...

Wait - do you think when I used the word 'you' in the context of outlining the principle - that I was referring to you personally? If so, I apologize for the confusion, but I did not mean you specifically.

Since I was referring to an abstract concept, the usage of the word was to be taken also in the abstract sense.

I have never promoted any such thing. Your wild accusations are starting to piss me off.

I never said you did - see above - perhaps a different way of phrasing it: I consider the principles that underpin why incitement to violence is a crime to be equally applicable to publicly spreading anti-vax viewpoints.

I waste enough time reading the dribble and slander you post in reply to my posts.

If it's slander - as you say:

If you think you have a case ... prove it in court.

You'll have your's on speed dial ...

Sounds awfully like you are trivializing Mental Health. Does the epidemic of suicide not warrant you to take issue?

I never stated you promoted the idea that speed is OK ... But I know you do speed. Therefore you support the idea that it IS ok to speed.

Do I? Do I support the idea that it is OK for everyone to speed? Do I support the idea that other people should be encouraged to question the speed limit and the data around crash survivability?

You've got nothing to prove what I believe in regards to Speeding.

It's therefore still a false equivalence, - since I don't actively promote the idea.

But always ... when the shouting gets too loud to ignore. And a Politician wants to get elected.

Then where do you factor Legal Precedent in?

Now just prove (in a Court of Law) Who harmed Whom ... and where/when. Simple if the problem is as huge as you claim ...

Sure - when you present the same data, with the degree of accuracy you expect from me, for the second hand smoke ban.

Is that the minimum ratio before you take issue with the deaths of children ... ???

Not at all, but you're the one trying to make the appeal to bigger problems, I'm just putting things into perspective.

Domestic violence does not make me happy. I think it irritating you thought it would ... another wild accusation from you.

Are you willfully misreading what I'm saying or?? That's the 3rd time this post...

I'm agreeing with you that it's a serious problem (that's what the "If it makes you happy" is in reference to) - hence why it's a subject I've thought about often.

Stop thinking about it. Save kids in our part of the world.

And how would you suggest I accomplish that? The list of well-intentioned knee-jerk governmental policies that ended up exacerbating issues is long and storied.

As a serious question: Do we even know why in NZ, in arguably one of the most beautiful, peaceful and free countries in the world, that we have this issue at a higher rate than anywhere else?

I don't. I've got some ideas, but they are at best ill-formed and fuzzy. An issue of such importance needs action for certain, but it also needs thought - you can't solve a problem if you don't understand it.

Hell - I'd say you can't even understand a problem if you can't define exactly what the problem is - I'm not sure we even have that figured out.

So ... that would be two.

Even if that were true - that would still be reason enough to continue.

[Katman]

I'm just putting things into perspective.

A very distorted perspective.

Even if that were true - that would still be reason enough to continue.

Dude, the mere opportunity to argue appears to be reason enough for you to continue.

[Katman]

I'd be more than happy to see a pre-vaccination check to see if there were any undiscovered auto-immune disorders or any unknown allergies.

Now there's something we can both agree on.

Have you ever wondered why they haven't bothered to instigate a far more rigorous screening program?

[Ocean1]

Have you ever wondered why they haven't bothered to instigate a far more rigorous screening program?

Because cunts like you would be even more bitter and twisted about the cost involved?

Just a thought...

[TheDemonLord]

Now there's something we can both agree on.

Have you ever wondered why they haven't bothered to instigate a far more rigorous screening program?

So, if you really cared about what you claim to care about - you'd leave all the debunked crap aside and you would focus on that.

I'd suggest a start of recording any familial history of adverse effects, any populations with a high preponderance of adverse effects and placing them in a high-risk group that alerts the GP/Administering nurse to run a pre-check.

That way, you don't waste time and money in superfluous testing - but still mitigate the risks.

[Katman]

So, if you really cared about what you claim to care about - you'd leave all the debunked crap aside and you would focus on that.

Thanks for your concern but I'll focus on what I feel is important.

I'm against mandatory vaccination not only on constitutional grounds but also due to the fact that there are enough concerns about the safety of vaccines to make it morally wrong to force parents to take the gamble.

You can try to call it debunked crap all you like - but I disagree.

[TheDemonLord]

A very distorted perspective.

If we had a population with a vaccination rate of 0 - that would be the Death Rate. That's not a distortion. If you are critiquing the use of Vaccinations, then you can't cite the low risk of death that is due to the high percentage of vaccinated people to bolster your argument.

Dude, the mere opportunity to argue appears to be reason enough for you to continue.

Only on things I'm interested in.

Same could be said for you...

[husaberg]

Thanks for your concern but I'll focus on what I feel is important.

You can try to call it debunked crap all you like - but I disagree.

Odd that you never have once brought up your desire for increased research into the pre-screening to determine susceptibility to reactions like anaphylactic shock before last night.
Since the start of the thread You were only interested in posting baseless allegations and spreading false and misleading information.
Or could it be you have run out of baseless allegations and are sick of looking like an imbecile for continually posting defending them because you believe them.

[Katman]

So, if you really cared about what you claim to care about - you'd leave all the debunked crap aside and you would focus on that.

And by the way, have you bothered to read the sworn affidavit of Dr Andrew Zimmerman yet? (Paying particular attention to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10).

[TheDemonLord]

And by the way, have you bothered to read the sworn affidavit of Dr Andrew Zimmerman yet? (Paying particular attention to paragraphs 8, 9 and 10).

Would that be the same Dr Andrew Zimmerman who referred to the 'studies' submitted by Wakefield and the Greers as 'Misinformation'?

furthermore IF his premise is to be believed (and a quick skim through his research shows he has a test case of 1 child. One. Uno, Ein Ichi) - that some kids, with certain pre-existing conditions can experience a depletion of their mitochondrial energy reserves, which results in Autism-like symptoms - then we should also take into account his other statements:

He also notes that any infection (including the full blown disease) would also cause the issue, and therefore it was far better to Vaccinate - since the child will encounter pathogens in the critical developmental cycle.

I also note that the court case where he presented his single test case - didn't result in a ruling that there is a link between Vaccines and Autism.

[Katman]

Would that be the same Dr Andrew Zimmerman who referred to the 'studies' submitted by Wakefield and the Greers as 'Misinformation'?

furthermore IF his premise is to be believed (and a quick skim through his research shows he has a test case of 1 child. One. Uno, Ein Ichi) - that some kids, with certain pre-existing conditions can experience a depletion of their mitochondrial energy reserves, which results in Autism-like symptoms - then we should also take into account his other statements:

He also notes that any infection (including the full blown disease) would also cause the issue, and therefore it was far better to Vaccinate - since the child will encounter pathogens in the critical developmental cycle.

I also note that the court case where he presented his single test case - didn't result in a ruling that there is a link between Vaccines and Autism.

I'm referring specifically to his claim that some children who have mitochondrial dysfunction could regress into autism because of vaccination.

And guess what, mitochrondrial dysfunction has been mentioned earlier in this thread. Back on page 207 to be exact.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm referring specifically to his claim that some children who have mitochondrial dysfunction could regress into autism because of vaccination.

And guess what, mitochrondrial dysfunction has been mentioned earlier in this thread. Back on page 207 to be exact.

You're cherry picking.

Not only are you cherry picking that his word is good when it comes to something you agree with, but you're ignoring the part where he refuted other claims you still believe.

but you're also cherry picking his statements - by omitting the part that if true, the regression would be triggered by any exposure to any pathogen and therefore Vaccination was still needed.

Edit:

Also - I think it needs to be pointed out, that this is your classic distraction onto a different point when you've been exposed for the hypocritical statements you make.

[Katman]

You're cherry picking.

Whereas you're steadfastly ignoring.