Immunisations, In Specific Polio

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

My point is - educate yourselves. Give me reasons for people being pro vaccine? Most people I talk to have no clue about the dark side of it.

What caused polio to become an issue in the first place? Was it the vaccine that halted the spread of polio or the banning of poisonous and toxic metals that finally allowed for the populace to heal from it?

Do you realize that polio has mutated to breach the current vaccination protocol? Measles and chicken pox have mutated as well. That the current vaccine doesn't work on it? That's what viruses and bacteria do, they mutate to survive.

I really question what you are using to "educate " yourself. Google can be a very dangerous tool in the wrong hands.......

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by play.soccer

Silverdoctor = not actually a doctor.

That's very obvious.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Scott h

I really question what you are using to "educate " yourself. Google can be a very dangerous tool in the wrong hands.......

Yes Scott, you demonstrate that to us often.

While I don't agree with everything silver says, I have a feeling the vast majority of you are no more qualified than he is to speak on the subject.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

I'll chomp on that one - here's a fact for you. Most people know that methylmercury is unsafe at even very low levels. That's the mercury you find in fish and such.

Thimerosal is ethylmercury. When I read stuff like this from our own governments - makes me nervous. The true effects of thimerosal has NEVER been studied.

This is from the Government of Canada. Public health agency...

Here's a link to a literature review of ethylmercury effects. The fact that this paper exists means that the effects of thimerosal have, in fact, been studied.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....2855/abstract

Also, you're link is to a page that explicitly states it will not be updated after 2007.

Beyond those specifics though, you've made mention that people need to be educated - yet you're discounting the opinions of researchers who have dedicated their entire lives to being educated on this specific matter.

I'm not an immunologist. I know my understanding of that field is somewhat limited and, therefore, I defer to experts.

Somehow, you've twisted the notion of deferring to expert opinion as some kind of blind following. It's not. It's simply a willingness to accept that I can't possibly know every nuance of every field of study and that maybe - just maybe - I should listen to those people who actually do.

[Weedy1]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

I'll chomp on that one - here's a fact for you. Most people know that methylmercury is unsafe at even very low levels. That's the mercury you find in fish and such.

Thimerosal is ethylmercury..............

Thanks again but I pointed that all out in the link in post #41.

Originally Posted by Weedy1

Digger, Thimerosal in vaccines:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/co...sal/index.html

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes Scott, you demonstrate that to us often.

While I don't agree with everything silver says, I have a feeling the vast majority of you are no more qualified than he is to speak on the subject.

I guess what they say about common sense being not very common is true.
I'm not to worried about you or silver as Darwin will work that out, but unfortunately your views may cause harm to young children and that just seems abusive.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by silverdoctor

here's an interesting piece of Alberta history. Catalo - cross between Buffalo and cattle, supposed to be immune to all disease that affect cattle. From Farmers Magazine, year 1920.

Do think that maybe, just maybe, science has advanced since that article from 98 years ago?

Just maybe?

[silver]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Silver, try to search your entire post history and bring up an example of when you yielded to anyone in a debate over anything. .

When I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong.

I'm just not sure why I am being dragged into this.

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by silver

When I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong.

I'm just not sure why I am being dragged into this.

He was obviously referring to silverdoctor

[silver]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

He was obviously referring to silverdoctor

Then obviously he should tighten up his terminology.

[260 Rem]

I wonder how many anti-vaxers with pets make sure all the shots are up-to-date?

[Okotokian]

Safest route is to not immunize your children, as long as everyone else continues to immunize their's. The problem is that other people start to think and do like you, and then we are all screwed, and have kids in iron lungs again.

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Safest route is to not immunize your children, as long as everyone else continues to immunize their's. The problem is that other people start to think and do like you, and then we are all screwed, and have kids in iron lungs again.

I don't mean to sound like I am being flippant about this, but it doesn't make sense. If you are immunized, you can still absolutely be a carrier for the diseases and viral infections you are immunized against even though it may not directly make you sick, so really, the people who choose not to get immunized are a danger to themselves and not you if you have been immunized. People seem to think that because they have gotten a flu shot, that they are immune from spreading the flu virus, which is completely untrue. The virus gets passed by touch and you could very well be carrying it and spreading it even though you are not getting sick.

P.S. - I am not an anti-vaxer at all. I am just not an overboard vaxxer.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by tirebob

I don't mean to sound like I am being flippant about this, but it doesn't make sense. If you are immunized, you can still absolutely be a carrier for the diseases and viral infections you are immunized against even though it may not directly make you sick, so really, the people who choose not to get immunized are a danger to themselves and not you if you have been immunized. People seem to think that because they have gotten a flu shot, that they are immune from spreading the flu virus, which is completely untrue. The virus gets passed by touch and you could very well be carrying it and spreading it even though you are not getting sick.

P.S. - I am not an anti-vaxer at all. I am just not an overboard vaxxer.

I'm not an expert on every type of possible virus (or even any type for that matter LOL) But if there are no known cases of polio or smallpox around you, I think you are pretty unlikely to catch it. I wasn't referencing things like the flu, etc.

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I'm not an expert on every type of possible virus (or even any type for that matter LOL) But if there are no known cases of polio or smallpox around you, I think you are pretty unlikely to catch it. I wasn't referencing things like the flu, etc.

No I get that, but I think the point stands the same no? Like I said... I agree with getting vaccinated with the big ones. What I am more speaking against this new thing where there are vaccinations for everything under the sun, and vaccinations that you have to get annually or you are "being an irresponsible citizen" blah, blah... Honestly I feel this aspect of immunizations are more about marketing and profit generation than it is about public safety.

[the11fisherman]

I just wish that people debating about this type of nonsense would do a few thigs......

1) Stop quoting articles that are not peer-reviewed..........because if it isn't it is basically not trustworthy. If you don't know what peer-reviewed means or how to tell if it is......go and educate yourself even though it will probably hurt your brain.

2) Stop jumping on the bandwagon. Do your research (from peer-reviewed articles) and get the facts rather than what your pot head friend said. I have seen many instances on this site and members youtube channels where they do not even properly identify a fish....why should you believe what they say about something like vaccines if they can't even differentiate species properly????????

3) Once you have gone through the mentally painful process of reading peer-reviewed articles and gotten facts that are studied by REAL SCIENTISTS and not some hippy crack-addict, then feel free to share your opinions, but by that point, there would only be one opinion and that is the true one.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by the11fisherman

but by that point, there would only be one opinion and that is the true one.

That sounds right along the lines of what the Catholics told Galileo. Not a perfect comparison, but as soon as questions stop being asked and doubts are not raised, we will have a major problem.

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by Newview01

That sounds right along the lines of what the Catholics told Galileo. Not a perfect comparison, but as soon as questions stop being asked and doubts are not raised, we will have a major problem.

I would rather listen to the opinion of scientists that has been working on the studies for their whole working careers than a person that can't even run a PCR (polymerase chain reaction)................which I doubt you even know what it is...........

It would be better to compair the people that are against vaccines as being the catholics....because they are stuck in stupid ideas that are not sceintifically backed in any degree..........

And it would be better to compare the scientists that work on immunizations because they are the ones that go forward using science (like Galileo did) and search for the truths and develop the understanding of society to take in facts that are true in science rather than the stupidity of what some of the world population says like the Catholics did during Galileos time.......

Did it even occur to you that the whole career of scientists is to question everything and anything?????????? That is why they NEVER go into an experiment without atleast 2 hypothesises (if you don't know what that means go educate yourself).......

Today's scientists are today's Galileos and the people that are not willing to accept the facts that they find are today's Catholics (stupid and unwilling to progress with the progression of knowledge).

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by the11fisherman

I would rather listen to the opinion of scientists that has been working on the studies for their whole working careers than a person that can't even run a PCR (polymerase chain reaction)................which I doubt you even know what it is...........

It would be better to compair the people that are against vaccines as being the catholics....because they are stuck in stupid ideas that are not sceintifically backed in any degree..........

And it would be better to compare the scientists that work on immunizations because they are the ones that go forward using science (like Galileo did) and search for the truths and develop the understanding of society to take in facts that are true in science rather than the stupidity of what some of the world population says like the Catholics did during Galileos time.......

Did it even occur to you that the whole career of scientists is to question everything and anything?????????? That is why they NEVER go into an experiment without atleast 2 hypothesises (if you don't know what that means go educate yourself).......

Today's scientists are today's Galileos and the people that are not willing to accept the facts that they find are today's Catholics (stupid and unwilling to progress with the progression of knowledge).

Yes I agree with you, but do you realize that science is at least as much as a religion to some as Catholicism is to Catholics?

I'm not going to continue down the road to a suspension, but my point is that as soon as pharmaceutical companies became more interested in the bottom line than putting themselves out of business, scientists should have been distancing themselves from such.

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes I agree with you, but do you realize that science is at least as much as a religion to some as Catholicism is to Catholics?

I'm not going to continue down the road to a suspension, but my point is that as soon as pharmaceutical companies became more interested in the bottom line than putting themselves out of business, scientists should have been distancing themselves from such.

That is why I love working amongst the scientists at the University that I am at because they are not swayed to find answers that would make pharmaceutical companies happy or make anyone happy. They are here to just make discoveries and question everything rather than be swayed by the agendas of others.

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes I agree with you, but do you realize that science is at least as much as a religion to some as Catholicism is to Catholics?

I'm not going to continue down the road to a suspension, but my point is that as soon as pharmaceutical companies became more interested in the bottom line than putting themselves out of business, scientists should have been distancing themselves from such.

Absolutely correct! What is scientific fact today is often discovered to have been misunderstood tomorrow. The fact is, once there is profit to be made, science often gets skewed to support desired conclusions. That is not saying all vaccines are bad or all are good, but it does warrant caution. If you blindly follow anything, whether it is science, religion, philosophy, or whatever, you end up part of the problem...

[darren32]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes I agree with you, but do you realize that science is at least as much as a religion to some as Catholicism is to Catholics?

I'm not going to continue down the road to a suspension, but my point is that as soon as pharmaceutical companies became more interested in the bottom line than putting themselves out of business, scientists should have been distancing themselves from such.

Some still do. GSK offered my sister in excess of a million a year to work for them but she stayed teaching and doing research at Harvard for much much less.

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by tirebob

Absolutely correct! What is scientific fact today is often discovered to have been misunderstood tomorrow. The fact is, once there is profit to be made, science often gets skewed to support desired conclusions. That is not saying all vaccines are bad or all are good, but it does warrant caution. If you blindly follow anything, whether it is science, religion, philosophy, or whatever, you end up part of the problem...

That is why you need to deal with scientists at Universities that are not swayed like those that work for companies and such. They will question everything and anything, that is why most new scientific facts and the papers printed to explain them come out of Universities. Because we are never satisfied with the knowledge of today.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by darren32

Some still do. GSK offered my sister in excess of a million a year to work for them but she stayed teaching and doing research at Harvard for much much less.

Obviously, I am not condemning all scientists. Just the ones who provide pre-determined results.

[TylerThomson]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Yes I agree with you, but do you realize that science is at least as much as a religion to some as Catholicism is to Catholics?

I'm not going to continue down the road to a suspension, but my point is that as soon as pharmaceutical companies became more interested in the bottom line than putting themselves out of business, scientists should have been distancing themselves from such.

You are kidding right? Science is built on facts and hypothesis and conclusions are drawn based on the data.

Religion is about belief in something in the absence of proof and facts. It is about rejecting anything that doesn't fit with its views and preaching dogma. It is solely responsible for a small event in our history known as the dark ages in which scientific knowledge and the betterment of the entire species actually moved backward.

You can argue with a scientist because the work on facts and will adjust their position based on provided evidence.

You cannot argue with a religious person because they base their entire ideology on faith in the absence of evidence.

I have never heard something so asinine in my life.

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by tylerthomson

you are kidding right? Science is built on facts and hypothesis and conclusions are drawn based on the data.

Religion is about belief in something in the absence of proof and facts. It is about rejecting anything that doesn't fit with its views and preaching dogma. It is solely responsible for a small event in our history known as the dark ages in which scientific knowledge and the betterment of the entire species actually moved backward.

You can argue with a scientist because the work on facts and will adjust their position based on provided evidence.

You cannot argue with a religious person because they base their entire ideology on faith in the absence of evidence.

I have never heard something so asinine in my life.

x394832389238943

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

You are kidding right? Science is built on facts and hypothesis and conclusions are drawn based on the data.

Religion is about belief in something in the absence of proof and facts. It is about rejecting anything that doesn't fit with its views and preaching dogma. It is solely responsible for a small event in our history known as the dark ages in which scientific knowledge and the betterment of the entire species actually moved backward.

You can argue with a scientist because the work on facts and will adjust their position based on provided evidence.

You cannot argue with a religious person because they base their entire ideology on faith in the absence of evidence.

I have never heard something so asinine in my life.

So are you saying we should believe what we are told by "Science" 100% of the time?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't doctors used to endorse certain brands of tobacco?

[the11fisherman]

Originally Posted by Newview01

So are you saying we should believe what we are told by "Science" 100% of the time?

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't doctors used to endorse certain brands of tobacco?

Doctors are not scientist........

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by TylerThomson

You are kidding right? Science is built on facts and hypothesis and conclusions are drawn based on the data.

Religion is about belief in something in the absence of proof and facts. It is about rejecting anything that doesn't fit with its views and preaching dogma. It is solely responsible for a small event in our history known as the dark ages in which scientific knowledge and the betterment of the entire species actually moved backward.

You can argue with a scientist because the work on facts and will adjust their position based on provided evidence.

You cannot argue with a religious person because they base their entire ideology on faith in the absence of evidence.

I have never heard something so asinine in my life.

I think what he meant is that to some, science is religion, and really in a similar fashion, many science oriented people cannot think outside of the box, just as religious zealots cannot. I don't think that is completely off base. You said it yourself in that a scientist will adjust his opinion with the interpretation of new facts, which means that discoveries do change and are cannot always be considered fact, hence the need to always be cautious and not charge full headlong into something just because scientists say it is so today.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by the11fisherman

Doctors are not scientist........

Ok, what about the "scientists" who were caught changing temperature readings from around the world?