onewheeldave

Does that extend to TED talks- are they worthless and not to be trusted? If a scientist you had high regard for did a lecture and it was put on youtube- is that also worthless?

I dispute the figures and their sources due to the corruption of the pharmaceutical companies interests. I also notice that a major reason given for under 5 flu jabs is, protection of the elderly. Yet guidelines advise keeping newly vaccinated children away from the elderly, as their is a chance they could catch flu from a newly vaccinated child. It doesn't add up. I prefer the old days, when people got flu etc, the vast majority recovered completely, and a measure of immunity was instilled, as nature intended (by which I mean, as humans and animals had evolved to deal with such diseases). Is no one concerned that that natural protective factor is disabled by mass vaccination programs?

Absolutely. And the pharmaceutical companies clearly have an vested interest in selling more of their products, one of which is vaccines. If every study is corrupted in a similar way, as we'd expect, given that such large, unwieldy systems as the pharmas and the national health services depend heavily on very robust and rigid procedures to even operate, then it remains entirely plausible that their results are not broadly correct. It's very much in all their interests, that the corruption is kept hidden as long as possible. During the decades it took for some scientists to take down the tobacco companies and their lies, it was not the case that one of the competing tobacco companies exposed the lies of another company, because, it was in all their interests to not expose the routine lies and corruption they were all partaking in. Same with cycling and the PED/steroid scandal. For an entire decade, all partaking industries conspired to issue a solid front claiming that doping was not taking place. Deep systemic corruption= closed ranks. And bear in mind, that a lot of the people involved, did not realise they were perpetuating lies, because they had faith in their particular part of the system, and believed what the experts were claiming

??? No. like I said- a printed list of ingredients to be given to patient or their guardian, for each vaccination.

A lot of those labelled as 'anti-vaccine' are not against vaccines per se. A lot of them probably approve smallpox vaccine, single measles vaccine, etc- yet oppose compulsory vaccines, giving of close to 50 vaccines to under 6's, giving flu vaccines to under 5's etc, etc. Some of these people do not have an issue with vaccines- they have an issue with the extent of modern vaccination programs. They are strong on personal liberty, and so oppose compulsory vaccines. They mistrust quoted pro-vaccine studies because they are aware of pharmaceutical company corruption/influence of such sources. Now, with veganism growing stronger, some are going to have an issue with lack of vegan vaccines. You've got a lot of people opposing these aspects, who are not necessarily anti-vaccine per se ---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 11:34 ---------- If you're not trying to educate those who you see as being 'ignorant', what are you trying to achieve on this thread? ---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 11:37 ---------- Yes. As far as possible, of course the ingredients of drugs should be available to patients (with exceptions where that's not possible e.g. emergencies etc). A simple printed list would suffice- just as prescribed drugs contain printed lists of potential side effects etc. Just as ingredients are legally required on foods- it enables people to make important decisions about what they eat. ---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 11:38 ---------- You do realise that there's also a lot of genuine stuff on youtube? Or do you just dismiss any youtube video as worthless, regardless of it's actual content?

Fair enough. Fact remains that, if you give them helpful links to orthodox/establishment info, the time they spend looking at said info, is time not spent getting info from anti-vaccine sources. Also, your approach comes across, to 'conspiracy types', as being aloof/arrogant/egotistical to them.

Thanks. Some vegans are not going to use vaccines that contain animal ingredients. Veganism is about to explode (IMO). If that happens, in terms of encouraging vaccine uptake, it would be wise for health services to offer vegan versions of all vaccines. ---------- Post added 02-03-2016 at 11:21 ---------- Like I specifically pointed out in my quote- I've put it in bold this time, to help you spot it.

Very helpful, thanks (not). Which article? How much earlier? For anyone who is actually interested in info and debate, here's an 'official' link to details about vaccinations- http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/vaccine-ingredients.aspx and, here's another one I stumbled across in the process- http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/01/27/mercury-in-vaccines-was-replaced-with-something-even-more-toxic.aspx those skeptic types distressed by the fact that a lot of anti-vaccinators get their info from 'unofficial' sources might start to understand that if they focused more on giving out helpfull info, rather than trying to get off on putting people down, then said people may spend less time stumbling across the internet getting their ideas from wherever?

The NHS disagrees with you on that one- http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/vaccine-ingredients.aspx (They're not disagreeing with your assertion that they're part of the manufacturing process- that's part of the info on the page, but, clearly they consider that they are actually 'ingredients').

Does this mean you have got a link to explanations for ingredients, or, you haven't? Personally I've got not idea why vaccines contain fetal bovine serum, Vero (monkey kidney) cells, calf serum, aluminum hydroxide, detergent, formaldehyde etc. That's why I'm asking for a link to the official reasons, if such links exists.

Anyone got a link to some kind of official source which explains why vaccines contain things like aluminum hydroxide, detergent, formaldehyde etc? I expect that many of these ingredients are not as suspicious as they sound, but, I think an explanation would be very useful when it comes to deciding. I especially notice the amount of animal derived substances- fetal bovine serum, Vero (monkey kidney) cells, calf serum etc occur in the ingredients- again, I'd be interested to hear what functional purpose they serve.

My ideas are born from facts, experience and logic. They'll change according to future facts and experience (+ logic). Other human beings attacking them will not affect them. Always open to decent arguments and reasons from others, but, no- attacks and accusations of idiocy, do not have a chance of affecting my beliefs, and that is the way it should be. The way you phrase it- sounds as if you're under the impression that I care about my ideas being attacked, and that combining that with an offer that 'it can stop', is a valid form of debate? I don't, and, it's not. Debating vaccinations is about coming to the truth, those on your side seem more focused on building the numbers of pro-vaccinationers, by, whatever means necessary? Though I guess that, as you all genuinely believe that vaccines are good for health, and, that vaccinations need majority compliance to actually work, then, based on those beliefs, it's easy to see why you're pro-disingenious (but effective) debating techniques, and, why many of you are in favour of legal enforcement/compulsory vaccination.

Looking at the wiki page for the 'National Vaccine Information Center" a US charity anti-vaccination advocacy group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Vaccine_Information_Center that a big criticism by pro-vaccine groups, is that- i.e. that it 'sounds like' an official, and, therefore trustworthy (!?!) organisation. No concerns whatsoever about the wisdom of a culture that 'judges' an organisation to be giving out sound information, on the basis of it's name sounding 'federal/official'. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 20:35 ---------- You're also happy to use Ad Hominem attacks

What defines an attack as 'ad hominem' is that it is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. So, yes he's not attacking me, but, he's attacking other people, and, not the position they are maintaining, so, it's an ad hominem attack, which skeptics are supposed to be against. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 20:24 ---------- That settles it then There have been no double-blind scientific studies on the corrupting influence of the pharmaceutical companies, therefore, there is no corruption. Position proved, pharma is good and trustworthy- excuse while I nip and and try and get as many vaccines injected into me as I possibly can, cos more is always better, and, I want to be as well as I can be. Am I part of 'the Herd' now? What will happen to my individual mind- will I still remember it?

I thought you skeptic types didn't do Ad Hominem? [(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.] ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 17:15 ---------- You think that pharmaceuticals aren't involved in the decisions?

Fair enough- that's a coherent positon. Actually, if we had schools where only vaccinated children were allowed, and, schools where only un-vaccinated children were allowed, after a few years some very useful stats could be obtained concerning the relative merits of vaccination. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 14:10 ---------- No- I'm good. No kids, therefore vaccinations don't affect me that much (I'm assuming I'll be dead from old age before they start enforcing vaccinations on the adult population as well).

You know- if you didn't push it, the problem wouldn't exist. Sufficient of the population are pro-vaccine enough that enough of them would go for it. (After all, the sceptics are quoting past successes with vaccinated populations, so enough clearly have done in the past). But no- that's not enough, they have to go on to- 1. more, more, more vaccinations- against any concievable infection- to the extent that under 5's are getting flu jabd!!! 2. compliance- legislate! Force parents to allow their child to be injected with vaccines, that, at least occasionally, will cripple 3. FUD & guilt- get the propaganda out that anyone not vaccinating is letting society down and personally responsible for others getting ill, and even 'baby killing' 4. Suppress- allow no discussion over pharmaceutical financial interests in pushing ever increasing vaccine (and general drug use) onto the population. Go no further than admitting the pharmas are 'flawed' (implying far less than 'outright criminal corruption') ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 13:57 ---------- Not disputing your point, but, that still amounts to children not being allowed into school, and, is therefore enforced vaccination, which you say you are against. Maybe, maybe not. Schools tend to end up adopting one consistent policy on issues like this- all it takes is for the 'best practice' committees to have an excess of sceptics who, unlike you, do support enforced vaccination, or, who fall for the arguments of such. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 13:58 ---------- Couldn't you guys just move over to the USA? That's the place to be if you want enforced vaccinations.

How is a child being denied access to a school (because, if all schools in the area refuse un-vaccinated children, and, are legally entitled to do so, that child will not be able to go to school) not enforcing vaccinations? ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 13:42 ---------- That's useful. I love the sceptic movements friendly recruitment tactics ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 13:46 ---------- if propaganda is defined- "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." then I think it is propaganda. Herd immunity- the backbone of the sceptical movements drive for enforced vaccinations. I guess more and more of the population are sick of being presumed to be part of 'a herd', or a 'host population'- they're starting to remember that they were once individual human beings, and, could be once again?

To summarise my position- 1. I'm not anti-vaccine- have not done enough research to dismiss or support vaccines per se 2. I am anti-enforced vaccination ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 13:31 ---------- My opinion- yes they should.

I'm totally against enforced vaccinations. Pretty much was before this thread, and now I'm decided. As for FUD, while the anti-vaccination lot could be accused of that, I see just as much FUD being issued by the sceptic movement.

That's anecdotal. In the absence of a study demonstrating that "scientists.......are a gobby lot and you couldn't keep them quiet if you wanted to" then you've not a shred of evidence (by your standards) for your assertion.

That's usefull. Sadly, this pretty much sums up the sceptic movement. If the public don't agree with their 'reason', then roll out the propaganda, sensationalist statements and, ultimately, laws to force compliance. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 13:21 ---------- Read my quote- I said "American children are typically having up to 49 vaccinations before their 6th birthday"- didn't say "49 separate vaccinations ", cos I wasn't under the impression they were separate. I'm appalled to find out that American children are typically having up to 49 vaccinations before their 6th birthday- separate or otherwise.

Of course, if they were false, that would also account for the difficulty in proof.

In turn, I wonder what that actually means? ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 11:16 ---------- I agree 100%. Though, apparently, we're both virtually benefit fraudsters ourselves, simply for holding such a view Yes, unfortunately, a lot of those who put the boot in when it comes to benefits claimants, are clearly far from happy with their own lives, and only feel better when attacking others, and, believing in some bizarre media-fueled conspiracy theory that benefits claimants are mainly malingering fraudsters, living a life of luxury at the taxpayers expense. If benefits is such a free and easy life, how come those moaning don't simply sign on and also enjoy the high-life? They'll say it's cos it's immoral, yet, every single one of them, if they won £5m on the lottery, would take it in a shot. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 11:18 ---------- Which is pretty much what you'd expect if the accusations (of fraud) were false. ---------- Post added 01-03-2016 at 11:21 ---------- Why not quit on it then. Put the immense amount of cash currently going towards benefit fraud investigation back into the system- after all, they're clearly not providing value-for-money (as it's so difficult to detect and prove).

None. Nor do I trust the sources of such data, as I believe it likely to be compromised by the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies. I most certainly oppose the making of flu vaccine compulsory for under 5's, whether that compulsion is legal, or, via un-vaccinated children being excluded from schools. I'm appalled to have found out, via this thread, that American children are typically having up to 49 vaccinations before their 6th birthday.