Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

Also Hypothetically - what would you tell YOUR child as they literally cough themselves to death (where the force of the Coughing is so strong that it rips the lining of the lungs, filling them with blood, slowly drowning your child in their own blood).

You're still struggling to tell the difference between asking questions of certain vaccines and being 100% anti-vaccine, aren't you?

[TheDemonLord]

How's the view up your own arse?

“That’s the deal . . ., that’s what I keep seeing again and again and again . . . where these senior people [at CDC] just do completely unethical, vile things and no one holds them accountable.”

See, I can play that game too.

[TheDemonLord]

You're still struggling to tell the difference between asking questions of certain vaccines and being 100% anti-vaccine, aren't you?

No, I'm really not - We are talking about the MMR vaccine, Measles being the biggest vaccine preventable killer of children, even in the developed world the mortality rate is 1-2 in every 1,000.

Two children in the UK have died of measles since 2006; neither had been given the MMR vaccine.

You seem to struggle with the concept that we give Children vaccines so they don't die of horrible and preventable diseases.

[Katman]

No, I'm really not - We are talking about the MMR vaccine, Measles being the biggest vaccine preventable killer of children, even in the developed world the mortality rate is 1-2 in every 1,000.



You seem to struggle with the concept that we give Children vaccines so they don't die of horrible and preventable diseases.

I'm simply of the opinion that it would be wiser to err on the side of caution and revert to the three individual shots administered over a period of time.

You know, sort of like Andrew Wakefield recommends.

[mashman]

See, I can play that game too.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... a beat up piece, priceless. A man who has overseen decades of research is now a nutter coz he's changed his story . Your arse is a dark place... but doesn't look out of place on your shoulders.

[TheDemonLord]

I'm simply of the opinion that it would be wiser to err on the side of caution and revert to the three individual shots administered over a period of time.

Based on what evidence?

Your extensive medical training?

Even by that Logic - the erring would STILL be on mandatory vaccination. Autism is a better prospect than Death.

You know, sort of like Andrew Wakefield recommends.

Yes, I always follow the recommended actions of proven fraudsters.

[TheDemonLord]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... a beat up piece, priceless. A man who has overseen decades of research is now a nutter coz he's changed his story . Your arse is a dark place... but doesn't look out of place on your shoulders.

It may be a Beat up peice, it may even be a Gish-Gallop for me to post it, however it does link to actual research (that I know you will ignore) to make it's point.

And of course, it's not a possibility that someone would change their story because the Anti-Vaccine community would pay them to do it.....

Also of interesting to note is that Dr. William Thompson's doctorate isn't in Immunology or Eipidemiology or Virulogy (you know - fields relevant to Vaccination) - but in Psychology.

[Katman]

Even by that Logic - the erring would STILL be on mandatory vaccination. Autism is a better prospect than Death.

Have vaccinations suddenly become mandatory in New Zealand?

Or is that just your Autie logic on display again?

[TheDemonLord]

Have vaccinations suddenly become mandatory in New Zealand?

Or is that just your Autie logic on display again?

Here is how Logic works:

You suggest that we should err on the side of Caution
I take your suggestion and then use the following principles:

Even if your position is true and vaccines cause autism, Death is a worse outcome than autism.
Using your logic then, since Autism is preferable to Death - Vaccines should be enforced (erring on the side of caution)

[Katman]

Vaccines should be enforced

[TheDemonLord]

A Picture of Katman's Mistress

I'd like to draw everyones attention to the person who calls everyone Autistic when they disagree with him, comaplains about Autistic logic - but when presented with a simple explanation of said logic - he can't refute it, and so posts pictures of Sheep.

[idb]

I'm still wondering how vaccines reduce the body's 'external protection'.
You said it...and I know you're a thoughtful poster who wouldn't post anything without good research.

[Swoop]

We should start our own local register of paranoid delusional morons!

Suckmycock can be it's founding entry!

Careful. Widdle pwecious is a bit sensitive to being called that. After all the chimpanzee shit-throwing that Stephen has done, he doesn't like it being returned to him...

I'd like to try and simplify this discussion.

If you choose not to be vaccinated against diseases that can be vaccinated against, and you contract a preventable disease and come into contact with people with depressed immunity such as transplant patients and people on chemotherapy, and you pass that preventable disease onto them, they usually die. Even 'healthy' children and adults can die or get seriously damaged - see, measles encephalitis.

Not all vaccines are 100% effective, but when enough people are vaccinated then through herd immunity we avoid circulation of the most likely preventable pathogens. People who decide not to take the individual risk of vaccination but nevertheless take advantage of herd immunity, are more than usually selfish.

An interesting point.

In legal terms, "accidental", "manslaughter" and "deliberate homicide" could be used in those situations.
Choosing not to immunise and then knowingly exposing...

Seriously, if "I can't remember the details and can't be arsed looking it up" is the best you've got to offer, what the fuck are you even doing in this thread?

Here's a concept. Actually answer questions which are posed of you.
Don't avoid the difficult questions, or the simple questions either.

Basically - you believe and trust Corrupt Big Pharma 'research' when it suits your agenda, and discount Big Pharma research as corrupt when it doesn't.

No surprises there. Steve only believes in what suits his agenda. Completely the opposite of what intelligent, academic research looks for. (should I even mention "Peer Reviewed" here?)

So it wouldn't be fair to say you decide to trust the view of sources based on whether you think they support your view or not? ie: you trust sources that support your view, but distrust those that conflict with it?

That's not hypocrisy, but it is confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

This is why Steve will not answer a question put to him.
The only response is in the form of a link (to a site of little credibility like "the superdupertruthstuff.com) that jokingly supports his drivel.

[Katman]

I'm still wondering how vaccines reduce the body's 'external protection'.
You said it...and I know you're a thoughtful poster who wouldn't post anything without good research.

You should probably go back and read post #1223 a little more carefully - paying particular attention to the use of the word 'could'.

[Virago]

My understanding of how immunisation works is that a weakened or dead pathogen is introduced into your body and your body naturally develops an immune response.
Isn't that natural?

Except that the defences on the outside of the body have been rendered redundant.

Which external defenses are rendered redundant by immunisation?