Any Anti-Vaccine People on MyBB?

[PhleeBag]

people - naturalNEWS is a NEWS website. not a scientific / medical publisher. They have references below. Refute those references if you are brave enough.

 

[LazyLion]

 

[ISP cash cow]

https://sharylattkisson.com/govt-researchers-flu-shots-not-effective-in-elderly-after-all/
Can you explain that?

How effective is the flu vaccine in the elderly?

Older people with weaker immune systems often have a lower protective immune response after flu vaccination compared to younger, healthier people. This can result in lower vaccine effectiveness in these people.

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

The CDC has already answered that question.

It is not a hidden conspiracy that vaccines are less effective on the elderly.

 

[Lupus]

people - naturalNEWS is a NEWS website. not a scientific / medical publisher. They have references below. Refute those references if you are brave enough.

This must be the funniest thing I've read on this thread. NaturalNews is a news website, what next?

 

[BCO]

people - naturalNEWS is a NEWS website. not a scientific / medical publisher. They have references below. Refute those references if you are brave enough.

I don't see any references. Which article are you talking about? I am looking here: http://www.naturalnews.com/054155_thimerosal_autism_CDC_documents.html

 

[Swa]

http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

The CDC has already answered that question.

It is not a hidden conspiracy that vaccines are less effective on the elderly.

Not the point and not what the article is about. For years they have said that vaccines benefit the elderly when the evidence clearly showed they don't. Now they are forced to admit the evidence but still continue the mantra that the elderly should get vaccinated. How do you explain that and why should we take them seriously on anything when the scientific evidence is clearly against what they are saying?

Also this isn't the study I was looking for. It just reaffirms it again. The other one also shows them ineffective for children under 2 years, another favourite target for the pro-vaxxing pharma companies.

 

[Xarog]

Not the point and not what the article is about. For years they have said that vaccines benefit the elderly when the evidence clearly showed they don't. Now they are forced to admit the evidence but still continue the mantra that the elderly should get vaccinated. How do you explain that and why should we take them seriously on anything when the scientific evidence is clearly against what they are saying?

Also this isn't the study I was looking for. It just reaffirms it again. The other one also shows them ineffective for children under 2 years, another favourite target for the pro-vaxxing pharma companies.

By that standard, because one person once showed you were wrong about one thing, we shouldn't ever take you seriously on anything else.

Being wrong, and even being in denial about being wrong, is never grounds to dismiss everything that person/institution has said.

 

[crackersa]

As long as they send their children to their own anti-vaccine school and keep the plague out of the ones people who choose to live send their children to.

^this so fecking much.

Bet OP would change his tune if he lost a child as a result of not vaccinated.

 

[Swa]

By that standard, because one person once showed you were wrong about one thing, we shouldn't ever take you seriously on anything else.

Being wrong, and even being in denial about being wrong, is never grounds to dismiss everything that person/institution has said.

When the institution is supposed to follow the scientific evidence and it doesn't it certainly is.

As long as they send their children to their own anti-vaccine school and keep the plague out of the ones people who choose to live send their children to.

Missed this. If your children are vaccinated it shouldn't be a problem now should it? But as we've seen even the vaccinated schools aren't immune to outbreaks.

 

[Xarog]

When the institution is supposed to follow the scientific evidence and it doesn't it certainly is.

Citation please.

 

[Lupus]

When the institution is supposed to follow the scientific evidence and it doesn't it certainly is.


Missed this. If your children are vaccinated it shouldn't be a problem now should it? But as we've seen even the vaccinated schools aren't immune to outbreaks.

Vaccines aren't a magic wiping out of the disease entirely, there is still a small percentage of people who can get the disease even if vaccinated, yes it might be a milder form of it but they will still get it. There are also people who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies or other issues related to the vaccine that will get infected thanks to the moronic parent who believes in this anti vaccine BS.
Also notice how the CDC does state that the vaccines aren't as effective on the elderly and children younger than 2, it doesn't go and hide it, it states it. They are also investigating better vaccines for it.
Better than any garlic clove, honey nut pusher who thinks that vaccines are bad mkay cause the big pharma makes them and anything they make is bad. Please don't breed and if you do, please home school your kids.

 

[Swa]

Lurv the assumptions...

 

[Xarog]

Lurv the assumptions...

Lurv the gambler's fallacy you commit.

 

[AlphaJohn]

Dont know if this have been posted in this thread or not Sorry if it has, but I think this kinda sums up my view:

[video=youtube;RfdZTZQvuCo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo[/video]

 

[Pitbull]

The anti-vacine people are the Lazy people in society who can't take a morning off to have their kids get their shots ever few years. Then come up excuses why it should not be done.

I have a responsibility to my kids to make sure I do my utmost best to protect them. Guess some of us just take that responsibility serious and others should never have been parents to begin with.

 

[Swa]

Lurv the gambler's fallacy you commit.

Show it!

 

[Xarog]

Show it!

Already did.

When the institution is supposed to follow the scientific evidence and it doesn't it certainly is.

This is a non-sequitur.

The thing is that even if the CDC is wrong in one instance, that does not imply that their other claims are wrong. They could have a completely screwed up method of proving those claims, and yet the claims themselves could still be legitimate and provable using real scientific evidence.

To assume that they got it wrong once, so thus they will always get it wrong and therefore one doesn't even need to investigate the merits of their claims is classic gambler's fallacy, because you're predicting what will happen based upon what has happened in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

 

[Swa]

Already did.


This is a non-sequitur.

The thing is that even if the CDC is wrong in one instance, that does not imply that their other claims are wrong. They could have a completely screwed up method of proving those claims, and yet the claims themselves could still be legitimate and provable using real scientific evidence.

To assume that they got it wrong once, so thus they will always get it wrong and therefore one doesn't even need to investigate the merits of their claims is classic gambler's fallacy, because you're predicting what will happen based upon what has happened in the past.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy

It isn't about being wrong. It is about not following scientific evidence. Once is already enough but if it's on a continual basis it's more than enough to disqualify them as a credible source. So we discount their opinion and look directly at the scientific evidence.

You are also wrong in your use of the gambler's fallacy. That is something completely different and you're confused with fallacies as usual or just plucking them out of thin air to prove a non-existent point.

 

[Swa]

Vaccines aren't a magic wiping out of the disease entirely, there is still a small percentage of people who can get the disease even if vaccinated, yes it might be a milder form of it but they will still get it. There are also people who cannot be vaccinated due to allergies or other issues related to the vaccine that will get infected thanks to the moronic parent who believes in this anti vaccine BS.
Also notice how the CDC does state that the vaccines aren't as effective on the elderly and children younger than 2, it doesn't go and hide it, it states it. They are also investigating better vaccines for it.
Better than any garlic clove, honey nut pusher who thinks that vaccines are bad mkay cause the big pharma makes them and anything they make is bad. Please don't breed and if you do, please home school your kids.

And when did they issue that warning? Decades ago when the scientific evidence was already there? Because if they didn't then you can't really claim that they didn't hide it. But wait a minute, that isn't what they are saying. By your own admission they are only continuing the mantra that vaccines are not "as effective" but they are not admitting that they are not effective at all as the scientific studies show. They are also still recommending the elderly get vaccinated in contrast to what the scientific studies show.

FYI I have also never pushed garlic cloves and claimed that everything big pharma makes is bad, mkay. So take your dumb **** assumptions elsewhere.

 

[Xarog]

It isn't about being wrong. It is about not following scientific evidence. Once is already enough but if it's on a continual basis it's more than enough to disqualify them as a credible source. So we discount their opinion and look directly at the scientific evidence.

You are also wrong in your use of the gambler's fallacy. That is something completely different and you're confused with fallacies as usual or just plucking them out of thin air to prove a non-existent point.

Even a blind man throwing darts at a dartboard he can't see could still hit the right spot, and that is true of the CDC as well. You still need to take their claims seriously even when you disprove/criticise them. To not take it seriously is to not give it any consideration, which is clearly not what you're doing if you're following the guidelines you described in the first paragraph.

Btw, what counts as "scientific evidence", exactly?