Opposition to Vaccination

[Radagast]

Pun?

I meant something like "reduced to fragments not including a valid gene."

 

[Tom 1]

I meant something like "reduced to fragments not including a valid gene."

eggs/scrambled. Thought it might be a pun.

 

[visionary]

Globalization of vaccinations Immunization Agenda 2030: A Global Strategy to Leave No One Behind

 

[TLSITD]

Vaccines can be abused by people who have ulterior motives (like Bill Gates). Unfortunately, medicine doesn't just fall out of the sky; it has to be developed by human beings, who may or may not be ethical or motivated by profit rather than altruism. That's not a conspiracy theory; it's an unfortunate reality.

 

[Ophiolite]

Vaccines can be abused by people who have ulterior motives (like Bill Gates). Unfortunately, medicine doesn't just fall out of the sky; it has to be developed by human beings, who may or may not be ethical or motivated by profit rather than altruism. That's not a conspiracy theory; it's an unfortunate reality.

Just about any invention, product, concept, religion, philosophy, etc. can be abused by people. On that basis we should eschew just about everything, lock ourselves in a cellar and waste away.
You have failed, with singular distinction, to demonstrate in any meaningul way that the potential for abuse of vaccines is significant, or that such abuse would lead to a substantial negative outcome. When you are prepared to do so with serous data and analysis, not fatuous nonsense and empty assertions, then your view will be accorded appropriate respect.

 

[TLSITD]

Just about any invention, product, concept, religion, philosophy, etc. can be abused by people. On that basis we should eschew just about everything, lock ourselves in a cellar and waste away.
You have failed, with singular distinction, to demonstrate in any meaningul way that the potential for abuse of vaccines is significant, or that such abuse would lead to a substantial negative outcome. When you are prepared to do so with serous data and analysis, not fatuous nonsense and empty assertions, then your view will be accorded appropriate respect.

"Appropriate respect" from whom? Yourself?

You constructed a straw man out of my post by implying that I don't believe vaccines should ever be used simply because some of the people who produce them are unethical and profit-driven.

Being pro-vaccination under all circumstances is just as extreme a position as being anti-vaccination under all circumstances. Every vaccine is not the same in quality or in risk, and corruption is real and should be taken into consideration. That cautious awareness applies to more than vaccines.

If you trust Bill Gates' motives and ethics, you take his vaccines. It's your body, your choice and your risk. But if you wouldn't trust a Gate's vaccine for yourself or your child, you have no basis for contending with my post.

 

[Ophiolite]

"Appropriate respect" from whom? Yourself?

I am not speaking for anyone else in this regard. You have expressed an opinion. You have provided no substantive evidence to support that opinion. You have failed to counter the evidence that refutes your opinion. In such a situation your opinion does not merit respect from anyone. I have pointed out the simple actions you could take to turn that around. You can choose to ignore the suggestion and have your views disregarded, if that seems somehow sensible to you. I'm not fussed either way.

You constructed a straw man out of my post by implying that I don't believe vaccines should ever be used simply because some of the people who produce them are unethical and profit-driven.

Nonsense. There is no such implication in my post. You have mistakenly inferred such an implication. My post simply notes that you have failed to support your view with relevant evidence. You can address that by providing such evidence. (It's not rocket science.)

Being pro-vaccination under all circumstances is just as extreme a position as being anti-vaccination under all circumstances.

I haven't noticed anyone make such a claim. Certainly I have not. Is it possible you are guilty of what you just falsely accused me of - constructing a strawman?

Every vaccine is not the same in quality or in risk, and corruption is real and should be taken into consideration. That cautious awareness applies to more than vaccines.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you. Of course it doesn't automatically mean that they are.

If you trust Bill Gates' motives and ethics, you take his vaccines. It's your body, your choice and your risk. But if you wouldn't trust a Gate's vaccine for yourself or your child, you have no basis for contending with my post.

Strawman alert. Bill Gates is not the only person in the world involved in research into vaccines. Spouting conspiracy memes concerning Gates is an example of what I characterised as a fatuous comment.
I have no prima facie justification for doubting (or accepting) the efficacy of a vaccine associated with Gates. I would rely upon the judgement of relevant experts appointed by government. (In my case the governments of the UK and of Scotland.) If they happen to approve a Gates vaccine I have no problem with that. (I would have a problem with people who do.)

 

[TLSITD]

I am not speaking for anyone else in this regard. You have expressed an opinion. You have provided no substantive evidence to support that opinion. You have failed to counter the evidence that refutes your opinion. In such a situation your opinion does not merit respect from anyone. I have pointed out the simple actions you could take to turn that around. You can choose to ignore the suggestion and have your views disregarded, if that seems somehow sensible to you. I'm not fussed either way.

Nonsense. There is no such implication in my post. You have mistakenly inferred such an implication. My post simply notes that you have failed to support your view with relevant evidence. You can address that by providing such evidence. (It's not rocket science.)

I haven't noticed anyone make such a claim. Certainly I have not. Is it possible you are guilty of what you just falsely accused me of - constructing a strawman?

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you. Of course it doesn't automatically mean that they are.

Strawman alert. Bill Gates is not the only person in the world involved in research into vaccines. Spouting conspiracy memes concerning Gates is an example of what I characterised as a fatuous comment.
I have no prima facie justification for doubting (or accepting) the efficacy of a vaccine associated with Gates. I would rely upon the judgement of relevant experts appointed by government. (In my case the governments of the UK and of Scotland.) If they happen to approve a Gates vaccine I have no problem with that. (I would have a problem with people who do.)

If I'm "paranoid" for being skeptical of government, businessmen who advocate population control, and the pharmaceutical industry, are you gullible or overly trusting of the same? You would say no; I would say yes. We disagree, and each of us is free to make our own decisions based on our best judgment, and will live with the consequences of the same. The difference between us (I surmise from that bit about "having a problem with people who have a problem with a Gate's vaccine"---correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can't live easily with other people's choices when you disagree with them and I can.

Go ahead and make some hyperbolic false equivalency from that statement. (I predict from experience in such discussions that will probably follow.)

I'm going to leave it at that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I'm "paranoid" for being skeptical of government, businessmen who advocate population control, and the pharmaceutical industry, are you gullible or overly trusting of the same? You would say no; I would say yes. We disagree, and each of us is free to make our own decisions based on our best judgment, and will live with the consequences of the same. The difference between us (I surmise from that bit about "having a problem with people who have a problem with a Gate's vaccine"---correct me if I'm wrong) is that you can't live easily with other people's choices when you disagree with them and I can.

Go ahead and make some hyperbolic false equivalency from that statement. (I predict from experience in such discussions that will probably follow.)

I'm going to leave it at that.

I'm curious to know what is the perceived problem with vaccines developed with funded from the B&M Gates Foundation. Can you explain?

 

[Tanj]

I'm curious to know what is the perceived problem with vaccines developed with funded from the B&M Gates Foundation. Can you explain?

It's pretty simple

Right wing ultra rich capitalist = Shining Christ like example all good people should follow e.g. Trump
Left wing ultra rich capitalist = baby eating sub human that wants to enslave and kill everyone because reasons. e.g. Soros, Gates.

 

[trunks2k]

I'm curious to know what is the perceived problem with vaccines developed with funded from the B&M Gates Foundation. Can you explain?

The Bill Gates foundation does a lot of work getting vaccines to poor, third world nations. So that gets him the item of anti-vax groups. Combine that with anti-vax groups talking something he said years ago waaaaay out of context, and they are convinced he wants to use vaccines nefarious purposes. That spills over to today.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Bill Gates foundation does a lot of work getting vaccines to poor, third world nations. So that gets him the item of anti-vax groups. Combine that with anti-vax groups talking something he said years ago waaaaay out of context, and they are convinced he wants to use vaccines nefarious purposes. That spills over to today.

I'm curious as to what they think those nefarious purposes are and how the vaccine is involved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's pretty simple

Right wing ultra rich capitalist = Shining Christ like example all good people should follow e.g. Trump
Left wing ultra rich capitalist = baby eating sub human that wants to enslave and kill everyone because reasons. e.g. Soros, Gates.

Oh sure, I know that trope - I want to know the role of the 'Gates vaccines'.

 

[trunks2k]

I'm curious as to what they think those nefarious purposes are and how the vaccine is involved.

They think Bill Gates wants to use vaccines for the specific purpose of preventing people (against their will) from procreating.

This idea largely comes from a talk Gates gave years ago in which he talks about how vaccines can help prevent over population in poverty stricken regions. How basic point was that people in poor regions with bad health care have a lot of kids to ensure some survive into adulthood. But having those large families means more usage of scarce resources, which leads to significantly lower quality of life, shorter lifespans, and difficulty getting out of poverty. Vaccines will help children to survive, so there will be less pressure to have large families. Smaller families means every person gets more of limited resources, and everyone is better off and they can start climbing out of poverty.

Anti-vaxxers have stripped all the context of that to make it appear he wants to secretly keep people from procreating and vaccines are sterilizing people.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They think Bill Gates wants to use vaccines for the specific purpose of preventing people (against their will) from procreating.

This idea largely comes from a talk Gates gave years ago in which he talks about how vaccines can help prevent over population in poverty stricken regions. How basic point was that people in poor regions with bad health care have a lot of kids to ensure some survive into adulthood. But having those large families means more usage of scarce resources, which leads to significantly lower quality of life, shorter lifespans, and difficulty getting out of poverty. Vaccines will help children to survive, so there will be less pressure to have large families. Smaller families means every person gets more of limited resources, and everyone is better off and they can start climbing out of poverty.

Anti-vaxxers have stripped all the context of that to make it appear he wants to secretly keep people from procreating and vaccines are sterilizing people.

Ah, OK; so he's bribing vaccine labs to put contraceptives in the vaccine... ooh those bad vaccine makers!

But if this was true, there should be a correlation between a 'Gates vaccination' and infertility for some period afterwards, but I don't recall ever seeing such stats...

Also, to make it practical, you'd need an injectable contraceptive that would last around a year - that in itself would be a major development and impossible to keep secret - any major pharm company could get a dose of the vaccine and reverse-engineer it without worrying about patent protection. Not to mention whistle-blowers, moles, etc.

Where am I going wrong here?

 

[Junia]

Maybe so in some cases. But abortion kills children virtually 100% of the time (and that in a horrible way), and it's done with the intent of killing the child. If concern for the harm of children was really the source of the contempt that pro-choice people feel toward parents who don't vaccinate their kids, how can they also support the premeditated murder of millions of helpless babies by their mothers?

it does seem an odd kind of hypocrsiy

 

[Kylie]

it does seem an odd kind of hypocrsiy

A fertilized egg is not a child.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A fertilized egg is not a child.

Yup; it comes down to deciding at what point of development after fertilization a person is present.

 

[Kylie]

Yup; it comes down to deciding at what point of development after fertilization a person is present.

I don't think there's any ONE point.

It's like asking at what point the leaves on a tree turn orange as autumn approaches (Fall for those of you in America). Sure you can specify a point, but does that mean an hour prior to that time the leaves are not orange? Of course not. It's something that comes gradually.

 

[Strathos]

I don't think there's any ONE point.

It's like asking at what point the leaves on a tree turn orange as autumn approaches (Fall for those of you in America).

Uh, we use both words here.