Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional

[ananda]

...so unless you were there and actually witnessed it happen, it's all hearsay....gotcha.......

Well, that's the dictionary definition.

Whether this or that "hearsay" are trustworthy & believable (or not) is another story, of course.

I am agnostic towards the Bible's hearsay, and of the Vedas' and the Koran's. I am also agnostic regarding Keith99's hearsay about his Minnie Royal tree. I believe that some scientists and scientific papers are worthy of trust based on my own personal experiences, but not all.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I believe I have experienced "friendship" as I define it, but I also know that I have directly experienced that "friendship" too.

Not that part, this one
"Well, be my guest and become a scientist and study the effect of a vaccine. Otherwise, if you refuse to "believe" in its effectiveness and refuse to examine for yourselves, it really smells of ignorance. Wait, it is ignorance."

Ad hominem much?

I'm sorry but I genuinely think this. Anyone with such trust issues either is a troll or needs help. Do you also "believe" that countries you have not visited exist?

 

[Go Braves]

I regret to say that I just don't have the time to devote to this thread. I am passionate about the topic and have learned so much through the years.

Well Saricharity, nobody asked you to devote yourself to this thread. Looks to me like you took it upon yourself to come here, post what you did. All anybody asked you to do was support what you claimed. That's just a basic courtesy. It's one if you were as passionate as you say you are, have learned as much as you say you have, should have been something you were real glad to do.

My family loves to fish. It's a big hobby of ours. If you've got the time to go fishing, you need to make the time to do more with the fish than just throw it on the kitchen counter, to let it stink up the whole house. You came, you posted a whole bunch of dramatic anti-vaccination stuff, a whole bunch of claims, then you just left it all on the counter. Folks gave links to sources showing that what you insisted was true was just flat out false. You said your university had a plethora of periodicals, books, implying there was ample research to back up what you said. Well, you took the time to reply to posts, to give a link in this post I'm quoting of yours. If what you said really is correct, it would have taken a lot less time & been a whole lot more logical to just list at least one of those books, periodicals, ect, that supported your claim. When I'm passionate about something, have put in the effort to learn about it, shoot, I'm going to be glad to put that to use. I'm just having a hard time seeing the logic of your posts. I think Keith here nailed it when he said you either don't have the sources or they're not credible.

Someone asked if my university has a vaccine policy...yes, it does. Most do, depending on your program. Vaccines are not mandatory in my province so I just declined them. Believe it or not, more and more students are declining them. It's refreshing to see how many students are doing their own research and not blindly accepting what the mainstream says is the right thing.

As opposed to just blindly accepting what anti-vaxxers have to say? You said that medical studies make your brain hurt, so my guess is that instead of reading them for yourself, you just rely on anti-vaxxers to interpret them for you just like they did in that blog you've posted trusting they're being accurate. On that blog there's just a pageful of links to studies, when there's tens of thousands of studies so obviously there's been a lot of cherry picking. They've writing about the studies but won't even put their names by it. I just don't see it as refreshing or noble to trust some anonymous bloggers over the many professionals who've published their names by their work in peer reviewed journals.

Now I don't know where you live but since you say province I'm guessing you're up in Canada. They do have immunization requirements for schools in some provinces up there for the kids. Over 5,000 elementary school kids suspended in Toronto for out-of-date immunization records | Toronto Star Of course I can believe that there's some college kids who'd decline vaccines if they could, on account of how if they've already gotten that far without already having gotten them, in all likelihood they've either got some medical reason for why they can't be vaccinated or they've got anti-vaxxer parents.

Eta - just wondering what you study?

Anyway, I do understand that internet forums are not a place to change minds. Most posters are just concerned with proving themselves correct.

Well now, that seems to be the case for you, but you can't speak for everybody else. There are plenty of folks who are willing to change their minds on account of what is posted here. Logical folks need logical reasons to, not just a bunch of claims that aren't backed up by anything credible.

I don't think the gal who started this thread, put together a really great OP, was trying to prove herself correct. I think she did it on account of caring about folks. Plenty of others have posted for that reason, not to please themselves.

Anyone interested in doing some genuine research for themselves, a good website to spend some time reading is: VaccinePapers.org - An objective look at vaccine dangers.

Well, how much time have you spent there? Asking on account of not seeing anything that backs up your original claim here. I did a search, got nothing. You said you don't like to do online research, but the one source you've given is not to any of those periodicals or books you said you've read for your passionate research. It's to a blog. It's got a video from an infamous anti-vaxxer crank. It's anything but objective like the title claims.

 

[ananda]

Not that part, this one
"Well, be my guest and become a scientist and study the effect of a vaccine. Otherwise, if you refuse to "believe" in its effectiveness and refuse to examine for yourselves, it really smells of ignorance. Wait, it is ignorance."

Have you done any of these studies for yourself?

I'm sorry but I genuinely think this. Anyone with such trust issues either is a troll or needs help. Do you also "believe" that countries you have not visited exist?

I "believe" that other countries exist, even though I haven't visited them. I have great belief in this matter because of my personal, direct experiences which includes the following: 1. I have heard testimonies from people I trust that such countries exist, and because 2. I have personally observed no evidence on the contrary to contradict that belief.

On the other hand, I hold very little "belief" in vaccines because of my personal, direct experiences which include the following: 1. I have heard testimonies from people I trust regarding this issue, and 2. I face evidence contrary to the evidence presented from the orthodox position.

As I stated, there are degrees of belief and trust.

Now, if there is a troll here, it is the one with only 89 posts to his name - not me with 12,000+ posts.

 

[Skreeper]

2. I face evidence contrary to the evidence presented from the orthodox position.

Why do you trust this "evidence" but not the overwhelming amount of evidence showing the usefulness of vaccines?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never said that it was a secret. The Bible's claims aren't secret, and can be "looked up" by anyone, but reading it doesn't turn any of its claims into direct personal knowledge.

The difference is, off course, that the bible is hearsay and anecdotal.
While the data concerning vaccinations are not. They are statistical evidence. And, more importantly, verifiable. Whatever research or experiments were done to obtain those stats, can simply be done again.

OK, I accept that you have your direct experiences which gave you your knowledge and understanding. I do not share those same experiences, so I do not share that same knowledge, but instead possess a different knowledge which stems from a base consisting of different experiences.

The data that backs my statements, is at your disposal as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Documented and scientific" is irrelevant, when I speak of direct experience.

Please....
This is a really lame excuse, tbh.

Have you ever "experienced" a nuke exploding?
No? Does that mean that you don't believe that nukes explode?

I submit that you are holding on to double standards. And I have no idea why.

E.g. I have no direct experience regarding Jesus' death/resurrection (I didn't see that event for myself, it's hearsay). Or, I have no direct experience regarding vaccine findings (I didn't witness those alleged "scientific" experiments for myself, they're hearsay).

As an extension of this lame excuse....

Let's say you are vaccinated against smallpox.
And then you never get smallpox.

It sounds as if you would then still claim "who says it's because of that vaccine? perhaps I was just lucky"

Again: all the (verifiable and demonstrable) information concerning vaccines is out there. You could easily look it up.

Instead, apparantly, you prefer not to and just continue claiming unreasonable scepticism.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I disagree:

• Christians would claim that the Bible contains "well documented facts".
• Muslims would claim that the Koran contains "well documented facts".
• Jews would claim that the Torah contains "well documented facts".

Then those christians, muslims and jews would equally be confusing "hearsay" with "well documented facts".

• Likewise, many scientists claim that their Scientific Papers contains "well documented facts".

And then peers review those papers to see if that claim is actually true. And when they don't find problems, it is published. And then scientists reading it, build on those ideas or even simply repeat the experiments to see if they get the same results.

In short: if a science paper claims "well documented facts", while they aren't that - it will be found and spit out.

I also have no direct knowledge of any of the claims made in those Scientific Papers

You could, if you would educate yourself to the point where you would be qualified to review those papers.
And you also can, by looking at the results.

ie: you can know that atomic theory is rather accurate, because nukes explode and nuclear power stations generate electricity. You can know that relativity theory is rather accurate, because GPS works. Etc.

ps: in the exact same way, you can know vaccinations work, because in those countries where vaccines are applied en masse, the amount of infections goes down drastically (or even completely vanishes). It's not exactly rocket science.....

(I cannot and have not directly observed their tests, results, etc.)

False.
Take a quick scan of the surroundings of the place you find yourself at this very moment. Including a scan of the device you are reading this on. Now, assuming you are in a building or in a city, it's pretty safe to say that +90% of all the stuff you see, is the DIRECT result of scientific progress, of scientific theories, that was accomplished in the past century.

Science..... it works.

 

[ananda]

Why do you trust this "evidence" but not the overwhelming amount of evidence showing the usefulness of vaccines?

It follows from my personal, direct experiences as I stated, which includes: 1. I have heard testimonies from people I trust regarding this issue, and 2. my own personal experiences after vaccines.

Why do you trust your preferred "evidence" over what I presented in that link?

 

[ananda]

The difference is, off course, that the bible is hearsay and anecdotal. While the data concerning vaccinations are not. They are statistical evidence. And, more importantly, verifiable. Whatever research or experiments were done to obtain those stats, can simply be done again.

Both the Bible and the "data concerning vaccinations" are, strictly speaking, both hearsay and thus dogma for me until personally verified. Whether either are verifiable is another story.

The data that backs my statements, is at your disposal as well.

I don't disagree with that. What I likely disagree with are your conclusions based on your personal experiences and examination of the data; I can examine the same data, and based on my personal experiences, can come to a completely different conclusion.

 

[Skreeper]

Why do you trust your preferred "evidence" over what I presented in that link?

Because what you presented in your link is a bunch of conspiracy nonsense.

I can only recommend the following bit on Vaccines:

 

[ananda]

Please....
This is a really lame excuse, tbh.

Have you ever "experienced" a nuke exploding?
No? Does that mean that you don't believe that nukes explode?

I submit that you are holding on to double standards. And I have no idea why.

What double standards are those?

• I "believe" to a great degree that a nuke can explode, because, faced with a plethora of positive reports towards that conclusion, and little to no negative reports against that conclusion, my personal experience or lack thereof tends to concur with the positive side.
• I "do not believe" in the Bible, because, faced with both positive and negative evidence for and against the Bible's message, my personal experiences tends to concur with the negative side.
• Likewise, I "do not believe" in forced vaccinations, because, faced with both positive and negative evidence for and against vaccines, my personal experiences tends to concur with the negative side.

As an extension of this lame excuse....

Let's say you are vaccinated against smallpox.
And then you never get smallpox.

It sounds as if you would then still claim "who says it's because of that vaccine? perhaps I was just lucky"

Again: all the (verifiable and demonstrable) information concerning vaccines is out there. You could easily look it up.

Instead, apparantly, you prefer not to and just continue claiming unreasonable scepticism.

Do you disregard all of the negative information and evidence against vaccines?

Put simply: I agree that there are positive reports about vaccines. I am also faced with negative reports about vaccines. Faced with both, I must examine both sides in light of my direct personal experiences, and come to a reasoned belief system that includes all evidence from both sides.

What is so unreasonable about that?

 

[ananda]

Then those christians, muslims and jews would equally be confusing "hearsay" with "well documented facts".

And then peers review those papers to see if that claim is actually true. And when they don't find problems, it is published. And then scientists reading it, build on those ideas or even simply repeat the experiments to see if they get the same results.

In short: if a science paper claims "well documented facts", while they aren't that - it will be found and spit out.

You could, if you would educate yourself to the point where you would be qualified to review those papers.
And you also can, by looking at the results.

ie: you can know that atomic theory is rather accurate, because nukes explode and nuclear power stations generate electricity. You can know that relativity theory is rather accurate, because GPS works. Etc.

ps: in the exact same way, you can know vaccinations work, because in those countries where vaccines are applied en masse, the amount of infections goes down drastically (or even completely vanishes). It's not exactly rocket science.....

False.
Take a quick scan of the surroundings of the place you find yourself at this very moment. Including a scan of the device you are reading this on. Now, assuming you are in a building or in a city, it's pretty safe to say that +90% of all the stuff you see, is the DIRECT result of scientific progress, of scientific theories, that was accomplished in the past century.

Science..... it works.

I am not against "science".

The stuff I see is the stuff I've personally experienced, and I embrace that "science".

The stuff I have not seen or directly experienced, I hold a generally agnostic stance with a tendency towards negativity or positivity based on what I have personally experienced.

 

[ananda]

Because what you presented in your link is a bunch of conspiracy nonsense.

What brings you to that conclusion? I would appreciate it if you could please address each point.

 

[Skreeper]

What brings you to that conclusion? I would appreciate it if you could please address each point.

Would you change your view if I show you that most of your points are exaggerated?

 

[ananda]

Would you change your view if I show you that most of your points are exaggerated?

My views are always open to the possibility of change.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Both the Bible and the "data concerning vaccinations" are, strictly speaking, both hearsay and thus dogma for me until personally verified.

I just explained to you how that is not the case, in the very post you are replying to.

The way you are using the word "hearsay", EVERYTHING is hearsay.
In your head, these 2 claims are exactly the same in terms of merrit:
- I was watching the Fantastic 4 last night and Jessica Alba crawled out of the TV screen, made love to me and then returned into the movie.
and
- jumping in a lava lake will kill you

Because you "have no direct experience" for either claim.

I shouldn't have to tell you how this doesn't make any sense at all...........

Whether either are verifiable is another story.

It's not.

I don't disagree with that. What I likely disagree with are your conclusions based on your personal experiences and examination of the data; I can examine the same data, and based on my personal experiences, can come to a completely different conclusion.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

What "personal experience" plays any kind of relevant factor in observing a statistic that shows extreme decline in smallpox infections which correlates with widespread availability and application of a smallpox vaccine?

 

[ananda]

I just explained to you how that is not the case, in the very post you are replying to.

The way you are using the word "hearsay", EVERYTHING is hearsay.
In your head, these 2 claims are exactly the same in terms of merrit:
- I was watching the Fantastic 4 last night and Jessica Alba crawled out of the TV screen, made love to me and then returned into the movie.
and
- jumping in a lava lake will kill you

Because you "have no direct experience" for either claim.

I shouldn't have to tell you how this doesn't make any sense at all...........

Yet they all remain "hearsay", according to the dictionary definition for that word.

Nevertheless, I can gather all of my personal experiences to date, and reasonably come to a strong belief that 1. someone crawling out of the TV is likely not possible, and 2. jumping in a lava lake will likely kill.

None of those beliefs can be called directly experienced knowledge.

It's not.

How are they not different subjects? Questions regarding verification of data, and questions regarding sources and reliability of data are clearly two different subjects to me.

This doesn't make any sense to me. What "personal experience" plays any kind of relevant factor in observing a statistic that shows extreme decline in smallpox infections which correlates with widespread availability and application of a smallpox vaccine?

You're attacking a point I never made in this thread.

My personal experience makes me lean against forced vaccinations, which includes personal experiences with vaccines taken by myself, and from hearsay testimony from trusted family and friends; from personal experiences regarding human behavior and tendencies, and how that relates to hearsay evidence regarding bribery involved with vaccines, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What double standards are those?

Your selective and inconsistent use of the word "hearsay", for starters.
As said in the previous post... the way you use it in this particular context, and if you are consistent, then EVERYTHING is "hearsay".

• I "believe" to a great degree that a nuke can explode, because, faced with a plethora of positive reports towards that conclusion, and little to no negative reports against that conclusion, my personal experience or lack thereof tends to concur with the positive side.

And those "reports" aren't hearsay?

• Likewise, I "do not believe" in forced vaccinations, because, faced with both positive and negative evidence for and against vaccines, my personal experiences tends to concur with the negative side.

What negative evidence?

Do you disregard all of the negative information and evidence against vaccines?

I'm not aware of any. I'm aware of conspiracy sites etc, much like I'm aware of climate change deniers.... But I'm not aware of any actual evidence against vaccination.

Put simply: I agree that there are positive reports about vaccines. I am also faced with negative reports about vaccines. Faced with both, I must examine both sides in light of my direct personal experiences, and come to a reasoned belief system that includes all evidence from both sides.

What is so unreasonable about that?

The same thing that is unreasonable about climate change deniers.

 

[ananda]

Your selective and inconsistent use of the word "hearsay", for starters.
As said in the previous post... the way you use it in this particular context, and if you are consistent, then EVERYTHING is "hearsay". And those "reports" aren't hearsay?

Yes, they are all hearsay - I don't know where you got the idea that I'm not calling them hearsay. Everything is hearsay unless I've experienced it for myself. How was I being inconsistent?

What negative evidence?

Here are some negative evidence (also hearsay).

I'm not aware of any. I'm aware of conspiracy sites etc, much like I'm aware of climate change deniers.... But I'm not aware of any actual evidence against vaccination.

The same thing that is unreasonable about climate change deniers.

I was speaking strictly regarding the process of evaluation: What is so unreasonable about weighing hearsay pros and hearsay cons and coming to a reasoned conclusion in light of personal, direct experience?