Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Woodman]

Considering such deaths are wholly preventable, considering every risk-benefit calculation ever carried out for mass childhood vaccination is hugely in favour of vaccinating the pediatric population, and considering that increased efforts to persuade people not to vaccinate their children will result in more dead children, it's hard to see what motivates anti-vaccination advocates, other than anecdote, hearsay, superstition, paranoia, and primitivism.

You forgot fuckwitism.....

And here he is now..

[Katman]

You forgot fuckwitism.....



And here it is......

So what do you make of the claim that the CDC destroyed documents relating to their study into the possible link between the vaccine and autism?

[Drew]

So what do you make of the claim that the CDC destroyed documents relating to their study into the possible link between the vaccine and autism?

It's an unsubstantiated claim man. Pretty hard to make anything of it.

[Katman]

It's an unsubstantiated claim man. Pretty hard to make anything of it.

Are you saying Dr. William Thompson is lying?

[TheDemonLord]

There's that Autie 'logic' again.

No, here is your hypocrisy you idiotic Twat:

I imagine back in the days of Edward Jenner there was a high degree of integrity maintained in the field of medicine manufacture.

Since then it has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry - with all the corruption you would expect to find in an industry of that size.

Well a few points spring to mind.

Andrew Wakefield isn't anti-vaccine. He has concerns over the safety of one particular vaccine.

There might be a whole lot more to Brian Deer's 'investigation' than we're aware of. http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/01/k...the-fraud.html

John Walker-Smith (a co-author of Andrew Wakefield's paper) won his High Court appeal to be reinstated after the GMC struck him off.

Andrew Wakefield's paper is by no means the only controversy surrounding the MMR vaccine.

These 2 posts are the epitome of Hypocrisy.

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.

Pick one.

[Katman]

These 2 posts are the epitome of Hypocrisy.

I don't think you really understand the definition of hypocrisy.

[Drew]

Are you saying Dr. William Thompson is lying?

If it walks like a duck...

Either he is lying, or a shit ton of other doctors are.

[WristTwister]

I don't think you really understand the definition of hypocrisy.

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.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't think you really understand the definition of hypocrisy.

"the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel"

So, it would be like someone telling other people that Big Pharma is corrupt and to not trust them, and then trusting a corrupt research paper paid for by Big Pharma.

Oh Wait!

That is EXACTLY what you just did.

So I'll counter with - I don't think you really understand ANYTHING.

[Katman]

So, it would be like someone telling other people that Big Pharma is corrupt and to not trust them, and then trusting a corrupt research paper paid for by Big Pharma.

Really?

I thought it was the UK Legal Services Commission that he was billing for his time.

[Katman]

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?

I'm not quite sure why you've underlined the word 'of' (are you autistic by any chance?) but your definition of confirmation bias fits just as easily for those on the other side of the argument.

[Woodman]

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.

Thats katmans m.o. It used to be amusing.

[Katman]

Thats katmans m.o. It used to be amusing.

[mada]

Big pharma are also behind condoms...... how can we trust them?

[Virago]

Are you saying Dr. William Thompson is lying?

There's countless doctors who will confirm that there's no link between immunisation and autism. Are you saying they're lying?