• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Canada vaccine awareness programs

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by ThatRobGuy, Sep 20, 2018.

  1. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    How about we don't want either?
    Contrary to the pharma industry claims, Polio can be cured.
    They just can't make money off of the cure.
    They make money treating symptoms, not by curing diseases.
    Study: High-dose vitamin C saves lives (again)
     
  2. Trogdor the Burninator

    Trogdor the Burninator Senior Veteran

    +1,230
    Christian
    So was America a 3rd world country in the 1950s when thousands died from polio each year before the vaccine was released?


    Which is probably why you're an anti-vaxxer. Maybe ask your grandparents or parents what life was like before vaccines.

    Meanwhile, here's some "no-ones" who died or were rendered ill by preventable diseases:-

    The anti-vaccine couple facing prison over the death of their toddler from meningitis

    B.C. measles outbreak reveals vulnerability of unvaccinated children | CBC News

    Unvaccinated child in Ontario develops dangerous tetanus infection

    Grieving mum's powerful vaccination message to parents after baby's tragic death
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. Go Braves

    Go Braves On semi-hiatus here. Y'all take care.

    +7,770
    United States
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    Great post!

    ETA-

    I suspect you're going to wind up with a response along the lines of this, when somebody who is clearly an anti-vaxxer claims they're not, lol
    anti vax meme.jpg

    Anti-vaxxers have funded their own studies to find that vaccines don't cause autism. They like to keep moving the goal posts around.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2018
  4. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Have you researched the history of Chiropractic to understand that the entire practice was a created by a man who has failed at creating a form of alternative healing (twice), and that Chiropractic was his third attempt and based solely on a supposed story about him curing a mans deafness with an "adjustment", and that most modern day chiropractors still believe that "subluxation" is the root of all human ailments?

    That's why I was mentioning before...people who want to reject mainstream medicine and embrace alternative medicine don't spend nearly the amount time researching their own stuff that they spend trying to disprove mainstream medicine.
     
  5. USincognito

    USincognito Milk-Bones for Cerberus is a cool album name Supporter

    +13,571
    United States
    Atheist
    Private
    I saw one for a year or so in my early 20s due to lumbar pain. It did nothing. These days I have ankylosisng spondylitis and an "adjustment" would break my neck.
     
  6. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    You're misrepresenting what's happening here.

    You're speaking as if you guys are these poor victims who can't be heard and are being bullied just for having different ideas or going against the grain.

    That's not the case at all...it's purely because you've chosen to go against the grain on something that's already been definitively settled.

    All ideas are worth consideration...not all ideas are worth the same amount of consideration when considering the arguments from both sides. Understand what I'm saying here?

    There's a difference between:
    "I have this great new formula for maximizing efficiency for shipping routes across the US"
    and
    "The earth is flat"

    Both are ideas that go against established principles, however both ideas don't warrant the same level of consideration. ...and while a refusal to entertain the former may make one closed minded, a swift refusal to give the latter serious consideration does not make one closed minded.

    There's a difference in the level of consideration to be given to "different" ideas based on whether or not this different idea is newly introduced, or if it's one that's been refuted multiple times over a period of decades.



    Allow me to word it another way: If the anti-vaccine movement never existed up until present day, and today, for the first time ever, an established physician hypothesized publicly that "I think there's indicators that the preservatives used in vaccines may be causing certain disorders", that would be a different story. But that's not the case, this is something that was presented years ago and disproved multiple times. As time goes on, it warrants less and less consideration.
     
  7. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Exhibits 1 and 2: False statements.

    It has never been "refuted or disproved" that multitudes of vaccines, separately or together, may have adverse effects on the health of individuals, which is the premise at inquiry.

    Very narrow slices have been studied. It has been authoritatively stated after some studies that no one can prove that the MMR causes Autism. Period. Hannah Poling, notwithstanding. Nothing more generally applicable than that.

    Many of the studies, like the one I cited by Merck that you ignored (unless I just missed it in this forum) are just junk studies. You can't compare the effects of one vaccine against the effects of two other vaccines, and state that your first one is safe if no worse problems are caused than the second combination causes. Either or both may be unsafe for different people. We have no idea unless they are studied against an actual control group.

    Nothing has been "disproved multiple times". Nothing.
     
  8. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    Do you smoke?

    Maybe you remember that cigarettes were tested for a long
    time by the tobacco industries, who found them safe. Why
    should we have doubted them? They had the data to prove
    what they said.

    They also had the motivation to lie, to change test results.
    That motive? Billions of dollars. Just like big Pharma, who
    also tests their own products and tells the FDA how good
    they work, and pay them to shut up.
     
  9. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    The comparison to the smoking industry is one for a couple of reasons, and I can explain why.

    A) The "smoking is safe" was never a widely accepted consensus among researchers and actual scientists. The RJ Reynolds company used creative wording to give that impression. However, that wasn't the case. There were some token doctors on the payroll of the tobacco that they used for advertising purposes. However, there was peer reviewed research going back as far as 1920's showing causal links between smoking and various lung conditions.
    This link goes into greater detail about why the "comparing vaccines to smoking" example is illogical: Science mistakes – debunking a trope loved by pseudoscience

    **********************************
    By the late 1800’s, when real evidence-based medicine was in its infancy, many British journals were publishing articles warning about some of the negative health effects of smoking. An article in The Lancet in 1913 warns “that tobacco smoking can give rise to constitutional effects which diminish the resisting power of the body to disease” (see citation below since this 1913 article lacks an inline citation).

    By the 1930’s, real science observed the increase in lung cancer from smoking. The Nazis banned cigarette smoking in the 1930’s because of the known health effects (and that will be the last time I will mention Nazis in any positive sense in anything I ever write again).

    In 1950, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article by Martin Levin that linked smoking and lung cancer. By the mid-1950’s, numerous epidemiological studies showed a profound increase in lung cancer risk for smokers. The Royal College of Physicians (UK) warned against smoking in 1962. The Surgeon General of the USA warned against smoking in 1964. The CDC has warned against smoking for over 50 years.

    Yes, tobacco advertisers used to make ads that showed doctors smoking, or worse, endorsing cigarettes. But that wasn’t the “science” of the time. Big Tobacco (a truly evil lot of characters) said just about anything to get people to smoke, whether it was showing doctors smoking or that smoking made you sexy. But they weren’t using peer-reviewed science, these ads were worse than anecdotes because they were outright lies and mischaracterizations. Science had already concluded that cigarettes were unhealthy a half century before those ads. And don’t forget that most of those “doctors” endorsing cigarettes were, in fact, actors.

    **********************************


    B) Even if there were doubts about the smoking/lung disease connection, they're easily confirmed under controlled settings and peer reviewed research. You can take 100,000 smokers, and 100,000 non-smokers, evaluate them over a period of decades, and definitely reproduce certain results (pertaining to increased disease rates) with a very high confidence level time and time again. The same can not be said for the supposed vaccine/autism link. There have been 4 large scale studies conducted (The largest being the Denmark study I've linked 3 times already in this thread involving half a million people and strict monitoring over a period of years, 2 in Germany, and 1 in the Philippines), and not a single one of them demonstrated an increased risk in any sort of ASD. In every single case, the rate of ASD between vaccinated and non-vaccinated were identical. Of course, the vaccine skeptics always find reasons why they can't accept any of those studies on these supposed grounds of having this impeccable standard for research and study purity...yet most of their "evidence" stems from anecdotes and blogs that are affiliate marketing sites for "natural healing supplements".
     
  10. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    What you're saying simply isn't true.
    As I noted before, there have been 4 large scale studies (1 in Denmark, 2 in Germany, and one in the Philippines) that have taken large (not small slices as you claim) sample sizes, and directly compared vaccinated to non-vaccinate.

    I didn't ignore your study, I simply gave it context. You were portraying this scenario where they were supposedly comparing one substance to two different substances combined in order to make the results look better. I pointed out, accurately, that it wasn't the case and what they were doing is simply comparing results of two different vaccines individually compared to the results of a single shot containing the combination of those same two substances. Getting the exact same results back from both cases is the expected outcome. They weren't comparing it to "two other vaccines" as you claim.

    Much like if a person has no reaction to peanut butter or jelly individually, they're not going to have a reaction to peanut butter + jelly. Simple as that.
     
  11. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    The unfortunate thing is that Chiropractic industry lobbyists have successfully lobbied to get it covered by Medicare/Medicaid, so we're basically (via taxation) paying to have other people be fed a load of baloney.

    That profession, in particular, has been responsible for disseminating some of the most irresponsible medical advice. They fancy themselves the "masters of nutrition information" and give out potentially damaging advice to people.

    They can actually help you lose weight...if you go to one, your wallet will be a little lighter when you leave. ;)
     
  12. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Bingo...kind of like what we've been dealing with in this thread.

    It's really no different than any other conspiracy theory following. The people who embrace it are determined that it's real, and already have contingency plans in place to give themselves justification to refuse any and all evidence that doesn't jive with their position.

    For anti-vaccine proponents, they've already predetermined in their mind that they're bad, and have hedged their bet by preemptively taking the position that any past, present, or future study or research that doesn't match their narrative must be the result of "government cover-ups" or "Big Pharma meddling".

    That's why it's a moving goalpost, as you've mentioned, when it comes to presenting info to prove they're safe, but when it comes to what they'll accept as evidence for vaccines being bad, they'll take just about anything.
     
  13. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Not true.

    The Cigarette Controversy A few relevant snippets from this journal article:

    The tobacco companies knew and for most part accepted the evidence that cigarette smoking was a cause of cancer by the late 1950s. The documents also reveal that the tobacco companies helped manufacture the smoking controversy by funding scientific research that was intended to obfuscate and prolong the debate about smoking and health.

    In 1955, Dr. Clarence Little, the first Scientific Director of TIRC (Tobacco Industry Research Committee), appeared on the Edward R. Murrow show and was asked, “Dr. Little have any cancer-causing agents been identified in cigarettes?” Dr. Little replied, “No. None whatever, either in cigarettes or in any product of smoking, as such.” Dr. Little was also asked, “Suppose the tremendous amount of research going on were to reveal that there is a cancer causing agent in cigarettes, what then?” Dr. Little replied, “It would be made public immediately and just as broadly as we could make it, and then efforts would be taken to attempt to remove that substance or substances” (46). ( I guess you know Ed Murrow died of lung cancer caused by smoking at age 57!)

    From 1964 onward, the TI frequently made reference to the fact that qualified scientists challenged the evidence that smoking caused disease. Yet, many of these so-called independent scientists were recruited and had their research programs supported by the tobacco industry through the TIRC/CTR (55, 56). For example, in 1970, the TI sponsored the “Truth” public service campaign that informed the public that there was a scientific controversy about whether smoking caused disease (57-59). The “Truth” campaign encouraged people to contact the TI to get a copy of a “White Paper” that included quotes from scientists challenging the evidence that smoking caused the disease.

    And yeah, you need to have actual control groups when it comes to potential harmful effects of multiple vaccines too (not only autism), to make any sort of logical assertion at all. You recognize it in your comment bolded above. You keep reverting to autism, but that isn't the only concern. They finally removed thimerosal from most vaccines, except flu vaccines. Guess which vaccine is the most reported to the Vaccine Court?
     
  14. RestoreTheJoy

    RestoreTheJoy Well-Known Member Supporter

    +614
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    This is precisely what you are doing. You are embracing the conspiracy theory that everything is perfectly safe in any combination and one must just "trust the experts", much as Tobacco companies did in former years when the experts said what they wanted to hear. You preemptively take the position that any past, present, or future study or research that doesn't match your narrative must be the result of "quack science" (much like the accusation against Semmelweis). Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

    Billions have been paid out already in damages already and you just ignore this. It's something of which to take note, not ignore. In 2017 alone, 142 million dollars were paid out in 377 cases, as previously cited on the HHS website upthread.
     
  15. christine40

    christine40 Well-Known Member

    +5,912
    United States
    Christian
    Married

    why is the 80,000 deaths stats from the CDC fake?
    last year's vaccine was not very effective which probably led to the greater increase in flu deaths

    when they announced on local news flu deaths in our state last year, it was usually a healthy person such as a young college student or mother
    also, a friend of my sister died from flu last year (not old, not a baby)
     
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2018
  16. pat34lee

    pat34lee Messianic

    +2,574
    Messianic
    Single
    A) Scientific consensus isn't the issue. Corporate greed is.
    When you get to test your own product, the product
    that makes you billions of dollars, you aren't going to
    tell everyone that it is worthless at best and possibly
    it's going to kill you or cause long-term health issues.
    Depending on the company, they will either spin the
    findings or change them altogether in order to make
    the product seem safe and effective.

    B) Apples and oranges.
    You're comparing a single product to hundreds, if not
    thousands of drug variants labelled 'vaccine'. Some of
    these have a long track record, but more are introduced
    each year and have been minimally tested, if at all.
    This kind of sloppy 'science' is why so many FDA assured
    drugs and other products are recalled after causing
    irreparable harm to who knows how many people.
    Aspartame, for one, should have been banned long ago.
     
  17. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    No, there's key distinction:
    There's a mountain of peer reviewed research and study data for me to support my claim. The same does not exist for the anti-vaccine position. Nor did it exist in the cigarette/doctors example you're references. I posted a link and pretty extensive snippet from an article that addresses the fallacy you're trying to employ here.
     
  18. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    ...and again (we're going in circles here) the courts that have awarded those amounts of specifically said (and some even released later clarifications so that there would be no confusion), merely awarding payment doesn't validate the assertion made by the person making the claim...only that it matches the predefined timelines, and congress even acknowledged that with the loose way they had it written, they were going to end up shelling out money for issues that weren't actually related to the vaccines.

    Please go back and read posts (I've covered this 3 or 4 times already), the courts themselves said their rulings were not a validation of the anti-vaccine position nor were the court ruling a validation of the position that vaccines are in any way linked to ASD.

    This has been covered, you can continue to try to trot out the "but the courts ruled..." argument again and again, I'll continue to have the same (correct) answer for you.
     
  19. Go Braves

    Go Braves On semi-hiatus here. Y'all take care.

    +7,770
    United States
    Catholic
    In Relationship
    US-Republican
    I reckon there's some decent chiropractors out there but there's so many who are quacks. It can cause serious problems.
    A Chiropractor Adjusted Her Neck. Then This Woman's Vision Problems Began

    If grown folks want to see a chiropractor, alright. Maybe they'll luck up, get a good one. I think it's head up the rear end stupid for parents to take kids to a chiropractor in place of a MD for medical care.
     
  20. ThatRobGuy

    ThatRobGuy Programmer Extraordinaire Supporter

    +7,673
    United States
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    I've often heard anecdotes about people getting certain forms of pain relief from seeing them, but statistically speaking, you'e more likely to come across a quack than one who's honest about what chiropractic can and cannot do.

    Within the profession itself there are what's known as "straights" and "mixers", straights are people who purely adhere to the teachings of Palmer (the founder) and believe that spinal misalignment is the lone source of all human ailments and all human ailments can be corrected via "adjustments". Mixers are ones who still do the adjustments for pain relief purposes, but don't make wild claims about what they can offer, reject Palmer's sweeping assertion, and incorporate mainstream philosophies in with their practice.

    Based on an industry survey (I've linked it before on CF, I'll dig through some old posts and see if I can find it), something like ~85% are "Straights". ...and the Mixers are even stigmatized within the profession itself in many cases (especially in the bible belt area of the nation where that particular form of pseudoscience has a really firm stronghold in certain cities). Largely due to the types of rhetoric they use... "God gave our bodies everything they need to heal themselves, they just need to be in proper alignment in order to unlock their healing potential".
     
Loading...