and it definitely shows
thousands of people used to die from diseases that could be caught from say getting cut on a rose thorn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Alexander
Diseases that thanks to Antibiotics are now not fatal
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
well I got a little scratch the other day playing golf (dont ask how the fuck I did it, but managed to finish the last 9 holes)
guess what? no medical attention and I'm still alive!
but if I did it in the cesspool of London in the 1800s then yeah maybe I would've died??
Science bitch. Try to understand it.
Yeah yeah - don't have a problem with all of that! - What I object to is compulsory no questions asked vaccination or mass medication!
Me and mine for some unknown reason get negative reaction to some medications! (whatever)
There are many other people out there that have these problems also. (some with very dire consequences)
So I expect some understanding medical consideration or even testing before receiving same!
If all the mad brained one size fits all compulsory mass medicators on this forum have their way we would not get that consideration!
That is my point!
Vaccination is not medication. It should be compulsory. There should be a documented medical exclusion methodology that is explicit and well understood. It needs to be taken out of the hands of parents. If they think vaccination is optional or particularly dangerous then they've simply paid no attention at school and have obviously decided to take the diminished responsibility Peter Griffin parenting method to heart.
There is no creditable documentation that supports the anti-vax movements assertions of gross changes in the well-being or affect of children. Just anecdotal blather. The odds of a vaccination reaction are far far lower than the cancer risk for the average person and probably similar to that of being injured by a shark. Your Aunty Mabel is more likely to put you in hospital or kill you than a shark.
Allowing people who have no knowledge to back up their uninformed opinion to own the discussion is stupidity. But because of how science works with the whole testing a hypothesis and peer reviewing the results and robustly discussing the outcome BEFORE using a product or vaccine in the wild means that science is seldom able to respond fast enough to untested, unsubstantiated claims about something they tested for decades before you got to see it in action. Then: add Internet. Now people get measles, whooping cough and polio, because a discredited ex-scientist (yes, he was stripped of his qualifications) fudged his test results.
That film is pseudo-science at best. The big problem with pseudo-science is that it takes hours, days, weeks, even months, to refute something stupid that some scientist trying to save their research grant or principled religious person, or simply a misguided opinionated mother says. In the meantime hearsay, unfounded conjecture and outright misinformation become "fact". You're not doing research if you aren't looking at both sides of the equation and vetting the qualifications of those positing an argument.
If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks