You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How Modern Vaccination Practices Are Destroying True “Herd Immunity”
And, of course, another non reply to what the CDC claimed about a direct correlation back in 2008.
When you are ready to discuss ideas and make non-personal, cohesive arguments, I'll be here.
I wasn't being personal. I was using irony and sarcasm as a form of humour to try to close the conversation. It's British humour. (I was actually laughing as I wrote it as I thought it was quite good).
If you took it to mean something else, then I apologize. It was not meant to be a personal attack.
(And no, I'm not continuing further with the argument.)
You haven't yet made a pertinent argument or addressed the CDCs claims which are contrary to your own.
Again, thanks.
"You haven't yet made a pertinent argument or addressed the CDCs claims which are contrary to your own."
Really? The CDC says this:
CDC - "Many studies have looked at whether there is a relationship between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To date, the studies continue to show that vaccines are not associated with ASD."
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/research.html
You want to argue without stating your position. To prove this to your standard, I would need to prove that,
1.Vaccines work.
Your argument seems to be that this coincides with general health and well-being of the population, that people are protected from disease and its effects naturally. Do you want me to go back to Louis Pasteur’s experiments? This is part of history. Obviously, I can’t even prove that he existed.
https://www.historyofvaccines.org/timeline#EVT_100512
Here is an article which shows, through data, that your arguments regarding mortality and general health are either misguided or disingenuous.
https://vaccinateyourchildren.wordpress.com/graphs-and-data/
2.The illnesses they protect against do harm.
The above article gives some information on this. The effects of polio are well documented. If you are claiming that polio doesn’t affect healthy people, it is up to you to prove this. Even if I prove it for one vaccine, I obviously can’t do it for all. Are you really saying that, when something is generally accepted as true by the population and backed up by the vast majority of scientific experts, for me to state it as true I need to go through the years of research and show how all the data links together into one general conclusion, just for you to find one study or a piece of data that is not correct? This is obviously unreasonable.
3.The harm these illnesses bring is more than that of the side effects. One only has to look at Arthur C. Clarke, who had Post-polio syndrome (PPS, post-poliomyelitis syndrome, post-polio sequelae). But again, If I do show that 1. Vaccines work and 2. The illnesses they protect against do harm, it is impossible to ‘prove’ that 3. The harm these illnesses bring is more than that of the side effects because that is subjective. Therefore I find it pointless arguing with you on this topic.
I haven't argued this. This post relates to herd immunity, as I have stated multiple times now. I have simply pointed out that vaccines such as the MMR vaccine, do not, as is claimed by the CDC, confer what can be construed as "lifelong immunity" in any way, shape, fashion, or form. The vaccine package inserts themselves corroborate this. Thus, vaccines cannot provide true herd immunity.
When did I make this claim?
"If you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
~Julie Gerberding, then Director of CDC, 2008, CNN, Sanjay Gupta's House Call
When asked what is the difference between autism and "autism-like symptoms" Gerberding chooses not to answer.
A double-blind experiment with careful controls producing empirical data would be "subjective?" That's a first for me. That must be why such experiments are not being done, I guess. By that standard, the whole scientific community should call it quits, since by your standard, all science would be "subjective."
Excellent. Then stop.
You do believe that there was a moon landing, don't you?
"I haven't argued this. This post relates to herd immunity,"
You may remember that my very first reply agreed that this was true. However, I went on to say that vaccination is beneficial. You then wanted me to prove this and now you are claiming that I am the one who is going off topic. You should read my first reply again.
"A double-blind experiment with careful controls producing empirical data would be "subjective?" That's a first for me. That must be why such experiments are not being done, I guess. By that standard, the whole scientific community should call it quits, since by your standard, all science would be "subjective.""
I never mentioned a double-blind experiment. A double blind experiment concerning what exactly? Advantages/disadvantages of vaccination for individuals, for communities, for the human race?
The whole point of scientific experiments is that they are objective. They cannot discern whether loss of 'herd immunity', say, to give your example, is a worthwhile price to pay for the benefits of vaccination.
I have given you ample data to work with, with links. You, however, have only given the odd quote, which I have answered, and never answered my questions. So much research has gone into vaccines, but you only seem to be able to find an odd bit here and an odd bit there.
"If you are claiming that Polio doesn't affect healthy people...
When did I make this claim?"
You earlier cited that decreases contraction of diseases and in mortality correlated with with statistics on better living condition, etc, in the very least 'suggesting' that vaccinnes had nothing to do with it. As I pointed out, this is a red herring as, morbidity is also very important.
As I said, you have done very little answering. It is as if you are afraid to state your point of view. So,
Should people vaccinate their children?