semaphore
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 18,634
- Reaction score
- 9,720
Swa has a very meagre understanding of immunological response mechanisms.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Google Maps vs Waze vs Apple Maps vs physical paper maps?
Any Anti-Vaccine People on MyBB?
- Thread starter BCO
- Start date
Swa has a very meagre understanding of immunological response mechanisms.
Solitude
Executive Member
I've got a question for you PhleeBag and I'm not going to go through all the posts to see if it has been asked or answered before. Do the benefits of vaccinations not outweigh the cons?
I look forward to reading your reply.
I look forward to reading your reply.
ISP cash cow
Executive Member
oh i know that and the fact that he keeps coming back with just how arrogant I am because I misunderstand what he says although he keeps changing his notion from "flu vaccines cause flu virus" to "Vaccines cause viruses in the body" to "vaccines cause secondary viruses" is astonishing and then he wonders why I don't understand what he is on about.
At least if he posts the articles I can see what he is on about
porchrat
Honorary Master
It is one-sided because it isn't actually a debate. To have a debate both sides need to have a valid argument. In this case however one side has valid science, well over a century of the strongest epidemiological evidence ever assembled, while the other side has Youtube videos and blog articles written by known charlatans.
So you see there aren't 2 sides to this coin. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community has made its mind up over 100 years ago and the evidence just continues to grow in favour of how effective and safe vaccines are. Deal with it loon.
Last edited:
Out of how many vaccines administered? On its own 117 doesn't mean much. They also fail to take into account that Guillain–Barré syndrome has been linked to getting influenza and that influenza itself can be deadly.
Ultimately the article is the usual baseless whinging about the vaccine court. The real agenda here is not to tackle any genuine failings of the vaccine court, if they exist, but rather to cripple vaccine manufacture through lengthy, expensive court trials. Even though these campaigners will also claim that vaccines are big business, they know they're really not that profitable, and thus the attempt to bypass the vaccine court. When it comes to autism of course they're just unhappy that the vaccine court has unreasonable requirements, like evidence.
porchrat
Honorary Master
They most definitely outweigh the cons. The stats have been posted multiple times already for several different vaccines in this thread already. (heck Phleebag himself by accident posted some of those stats). Vaccines usually have negative reactions in a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people who receive them. They in turn have kept us safe from some of the most destructive diseases mankind has ever encountered. Diseases that, without vaccines, we can't practically treat.
Solitude
Executive Member
Yeah you and I know that but I want to see what PhleeBag says. Because I can't see how someone can be anti vaccines when you look at the amount of lives that it saved. I'd love to see his reasoning.
porchrat
Honorary Master
I doubt he has read a single one of those studies. The last time I dealt with one of these anti-vaxxer loons he posted an article from Naturalnews saying that a study proved that a certain vaccine caused autism in monkeys. You know, because mankind can actually test monkeys for autism (hint: we can't and the study said no such thing, not surprising that the article was a lie as it came from Naturalnews). The study also had a control group of only 2 monkeys. TWO MONKEYS. Did the guy posting the article know this? Nope, he had never even looked at the abstract of the study, that didn't matter. All that matters to these goons is trying to spread as much FUD as they can in an attempt to cloud the waters. The problem is that for some people, those who apparently have a woefully low standard for what constitutes evidence and what doesn't, are actually fooled by this tactic.
porchrat
Honorary Master
This is the same guy who considers a negative reaction rate of 0.05% (self-reported and so many will be unrelated to the vaccine and simply be a coincidence, and only a tiny fraction are serious negative reactions) to be too high, but at the same time has no problem with aspirin. So considering we've already established that he is biased and irrational I'm pretty sure he thinks the cons outweigh the pros.Yeah you and I know that but I want to see what PhleeBag says. Because I can't see how someone can be anti vaccines when you look at the amount of lives that it saved. I'd love to see his reasoning.
Solitude
Executive Member
porchrat
Honorary Master
As far as I'm concerned any serious discussion with him, any weight that might have been given to anything he has to say, was lost conclusively when he insisted that a negative reaction rate of 0.05%, a truly stellar figure for anyone even remotely familiar with negative reactions to medications, was unacceptably high.We need him to say it though. It will end all discussion.
A valid debate would be about possible failings in vaccine safety testing and reporting and suggested useful improvements. A valid discussion would involve looking at researching ways to identify those who will have a bad reaction, so we can avoid giving them the particular vaccine. It would require hard work and spending time wrapping your head around numbers, not lazily running around with stupid placards and reading bad fiction on sites like natural news.
porchrat
Honorary Master
You forgot the part about living in denial with regards to how safe and effective our current vaccines are. When one isn't even prepared to admit that the current stock of vaccines are pretty damn incredible they appear somewhat foolish, unreasonable and biased.
"It isnt a debate" - your [flawed] opinion
"...while the other side has Youtube videos and blog articles written by known charlatans." - name calling and claiming youtube cannot possibly have a legitimate article posted on it automatically makes you the genius. I dont think so.
"So you see there aren't 2 sides to this coin." - oh yes, my great god of all knowledge... meh.
"The overwhelming majority of the scientific community has made its mind up over 100 years ago " - amazing!
"Deal with it loon" - highest form of argument
"...while the other side has Youtube videos and blog articles written by known charlatans." - name calling and claiming youtube cannot possibly have a legitimate article posted on it automatically makes you the genius. I dont think so.
"So you see there aren't 2 sides to this coin." - oh yes, my great god of all knowledge... meh.
"The overwhelming majority of the scientific community has made its mind up over 100 years ago " - amazing!
"Deal with it loon" - highest form of argument
ok, open challenge to you all.
You offer up yourselves to be vaccinated by a doctor with 10 vaccines in one go and then another 10 in two months after that. I will arrange to press to come document the event.
8 vaccines are given to children routinely in the US. 10 is a round number. Then we can document your dealing with it going forward.
Any serious takers, open a new thread and lets make it happen!
ps the vaccines will be the ones which do (or dont) cause the most damage, like MMR / HPV etc etc.
You offer up yourselves to be vaccinated by a doctor with 10 vaccines in one go and then another 10 in two months after that. I will arrange to press to come document the event.
8 vaccines are given to children routinely in the US. 10 is a round number. Then we can document your dealing with it going forward.
Any serious takers, open a new thread and lets make it happen!
ps the vaccines will be the ones which do (or dont) cause the most damage, like MMR / HPV etc etc.
porchrat
Honorary Master
Not according to the overwhelming majority of the scientific and medical community.
Unfortunately so far you've presented little that makes me reevaluate this view. You constantly cite sources like Naturalnews despite their terrible reputations and the studies you've posted have been demonstrated by those prepared to read through the drivel you keep linking to to either not say what you claim they say or to be woefully flawed. It seems half-truths and lies are the norm and not the exception when it comes to anti-vaxxers.
Again, the overwhelming majority of experts say this, it isn't just me.
Amazing that you are over 100 years behind with regards to your understanding of the topic despite having ready access to the Internet? Yes I know, it is amazing. A more appropriate word would probably be "sad" though.
You're an ignorant muppet telling a worldwide incredibly well informed body of experts that you know better, and then citing sources that demonstrate that you don't. I think "loon" is, if anything, underselling your behaviour.
Last edited:
porchrat
Honorary Master
I've had my vaccinations moron. We all have (because our parents aren't muppets like you) and none of us are dead or have autism. You think suddenly a second time around people are going to get autism magically?!?! Is that honestly the level of your understanding on the topic?!?
I call chicken!
If it is safe and effective then you can only be better off by having more...
http://www.wddty.com/the-most-dangerous-vaccine.html
for you I am starting the list with : DTP, MMR, HPV and flu shot
so you have had your HPV shots... yeah riiiiight
If it is safe and effective then you can only be better off by having more...
http://www.wddty.com/the-most-dangerous-vaccine.html
for you I am starting the list with : DTP, MMR, HPV and flu shot
so you have had your HPV shots... yeah riiiiight