Anti-vaccine attitudes based on that false claim still exist

[Eric Arthur]

Not sure why alternative medicine is being brought into this?

 

I'm not having any vaccinations. I'm 47, what vaccinations are even on the horizon? (other than the flu jab, which I have no intention of having).

 

You wonder why people can't take you seriously? Just the one instance,

I've not done anywhere near enough research to have an opinion on whether MMR does/doesn't cause MMR. As I said in post #250

 

I accept that the Cochrane Collaboration came out against a link. Personally I've not done enough research to have an opinion one way or the other. My gut feeling is that, personally, I won't be having vaccinations.

[SnailyBoy]

Not sure why alternative medicine is being brought into this?

 

I'm not having any vaccinations. I'm 47, what vaccinations are even on the horizon? (other than the flu jab, which I have no intention of having).

 

Did you receive vaccinations as a child?

[onewheeldave]

You wonder why people can't take you seriously? Just the one instance,

 

I'd expect nothing else from sceptic/pseudo-rationalists.

 

My gut feeling is that, personally, I won't be having vaccinations

In the absence of sufficient research to come to a decision based on rationality, then going with gut-instinct (or intuition) is perfectly valid.

 

I'm not saying it will necessarily give the objectively correct answer, but, given that my sub-conscious mind is processing huge amounts of data that I'm not consciously aware of, it's preferable to tossing a coin.

 

If it mattered to me, I would of course simply do lots of research, but, as the only vaccines I'm likely to take for the rest of my life are either compulsory (for travel) and therefore not my choice, or, the flu vaccine, which I won't be taking, then there's no reason to spend the necessary hundreds of hours doing research.

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 09:41 ----------

 

Did you receive vaccinations as a child?

 

Yes. Can't say for sure what they were. Pretty sure it would have included measles- also vaguely remember tetanus. As I'm 47 it wouldn't have included MMR as that didn't exist back then. Any reason you're asking?

[sgtkate]

Dave, can I ask what evidence would it take to convince you of the benefits of vaccinating people in general? (Not specifically you as your case is different now being an adult) I'm asking as I often wonder what evidence it would take to make me change my mind to being against vaccines. For me it would need to be at least 3 independent, peer-reviewed, wide scale studies (at least 50000 people) and demonstrate not only a clear link between vaccines and ill-health, but also to show that the risks of that ill-health outweigh the benefits of the vaccine. So to put it more simply, if you could prove that a polio job decreased the odds of polio by 95% but increased the odds of aids (this is a stupid example, but not intended to be a strawman!) by 50% then the risks would probably outweigh the benefits. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at here. If any anti-vaxer could provide that kind of information, even more wooley than what I'm asking for, but still needs to be an accepted peer-reviewed study (like the Cochrane Group produce) then I'm prepared to change my mind.

 

Equally, no-one was saying that video weren't evidence (well I probably did, but I was getting grumpy with MAC33) but that they need to be taken in context. A video interview with a parent who is saying their kid got autism after a vaccine is not evidence on it's own. A video of a leading professor who has just released a medical study could be as there is more data and proof to back up his words. Does that make sense? It's not the video per se that's the issue, but it's the lack of ability to question it or to find out the details behind the words and that's the key part.

[Obelix]

You would also have to show why all the previous studies about the effeciacy of vaccination were flawed and why they gave incorrect results. That is not exactly a small issue. If I had three sound peer reviewed studies showing that vaccination was not effective, my first response would be to consider them flawed as it would be contra to the many many studies over many years that do show vaccination to be a success.....

[SnailyBoy]

Yes. Can't say for sure what they were. Pretty sure it would have included measles- also vaguely remember tetanus. As I'm 47 it wouldn't have included MMR as that didn't exist back then. Any reason you're asking?

 

If you went through the full programme of vaccinations in the 70/80s, You'll have been covered for polio, measles, tuberculosis, mumps. There's probably some I've missed.

 

The only reason I ask is that on a couple of occasions you've made the point that you wouldn't take vaccinations. But it appears you're coming from a point of already being protected.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if you were going to an area of the world where vaccinations were strongly advised to protect you from the diseases that were routinely killing the population, would you have them?

[Eric Arthur]

I'd expect nothing else from sceptic/pseudo-rationalists.

You don't even know what that means, and you demonstrate it time and time again. I'm done with you.

[onewheeldave]

If you went through the full programme of vaccinations in the 70/80s, You'll have been covered for polio, measles, tuberculosis, mumps. There's probably some I've missed.

 

The only reason I ask is that on a couple of occasions you've made the point that you wouldn't take vaccinations. But it appears you're coming from a point of already being protected.

Yes.

 

(Though, given this is a thread where people are, in part, debating the efficacy/otherwise of vaccines, the word 'protected' is not the one I'd use (it kind of assumes what you're trying to conclude).

 

But, yes, I have likely had most of the vaccinations you list as a child, and, assuming vaccines are efficacious, that would mean I'm protected.

 

The point I actually made was that I won't be having vaccinations- obviously that means from this point onwards, the ones I had as a child are in the past and, even if I wanted to 'take them back', it would not be possible.

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 11:19 ----------

 

 

Equally, no-one was saying that video weren't evidence (well I probably did, but I was getting grumpy with MAC33) but that they need to be taken in context. A video interview with a parent who is saying their kid got autism after a vaccine is not evidence on it's own. A video of a leading professor who has just released a medical study could be as there is more data and proof to back up his words. Does that make sense? It's not the video per se that's the issue, but it's the lack of ability to question it or to find out the details behind the words and that's the key part.

 

OK. Personally, I get a lot of info from videos- I focus a lot on videos by acknowledged medical experts who are critical of established systems, yet who are part of/experts within those systems.

 

I also know that, 3 years ago, when people posted video links in discussion threads, it annoyed me (as I thought that, if the info was valid, and, they understood it, they should be able to summarise it in words). So I understand that some people don't want video links (also for other reasons, like the ones you point out).

 

Nevertheless- videos work very well for me.

 

One this thread, having pretty much given up on trying to communicate with certain individuals, I tried the approach of introducing some of the established experts who are arguing that the medical trials system is no longer fit for purpose, in the hope that said individuals would take it more seriously if acknowledge experts in the field were saying it.

 

An approach which also seems not to be working.

 

I agree with those experts, that the medical trials system is corrupted and, is producing confusion and untruth.

[SnailyBoy]

Yes.

 

(Though, given this is a thread where people are, in part, debating the efficacy/otherwise of vaccines, the word 'protected' is not the one I'd use (it kind of assumes what you're trying to conclude).

 

But, yes, I have likely had most of the vaccinations you list as a child, and, assuming vaccines are efficacious, that would mean I'm protected.

 

The point I actually made was that I won't be having vaccinations- obviously that means from this point onwards, the ones I had as a child are in the past and, even if I wanted to 'take them back', it would not be possible.

 

Does that mean you'll be sticking to areas of the world that undertake comprehensive vaccination programmes and not venturing to those areas that don't?

[onewheeldave]

Dave, can I ask what evidence would it take to convince you of the benefits of vaccinating people in general? (Not specifically you as your case is different now being an adult) I'm asking as I often wonder what evidence it would take to make me change my mind to being against vaccines. For me it would need to be at least 3 independent, peer-reviewed, wide scale studies (at least 50000 people) and demonstrate not only a clear link between vaccines and ill-health, but also to show that the risks of that ill-health outweigh the benefits of the vaccine. So to put it more simply, if you could prove that a polio job decreased the odds of polio by 95% but increased the odds of aids (this is a stupid example, but not intended to be a strawman!) by 50% then the risks would probably outweigh the benefits. I'm sure you can see what I'm getting at here. If any anti-vaxer could provide that kind of information, even more wooley than what I'm asking for, but still needs to be an accepted peer-reviewed study (like the Cochrane Group produce) then I'm prepared to change my mind.

 

I appreciate what you're asking, and, I appreciate that you're being reasonable (i.e. you're being polite and not flinging out the insults and ad hominem attacks that others on this thread do).

 

However, like I said before, I focus my efforts with research on things that affect me, personally, and directly (such as personal nutrition, the b12 issues etc).

 

Given that I don't really rate the medical trials system, having seen multiple instances of it churning out false results and, knowing just how much corruption is involved, I think that there's no way I could come to a conclusion as to whether vaccines are efficacious.

 

Increasingly, I'm also coming to the conclusion that over emphasis on rationality is perhaps counter productive for me.

 

I've known for some time that personally I really need to limit it. I've had far, far more success with controlling my emotional difficulties (which can be extreme) via spirituality derived sources (meditation etc), whereas trying to 'think myself out of it' is invariably counter productive.

 

Now I've been diagnosed with autism, and, been tested and found to have extremely high abilities with the aspects of IQ that relate to logic/rationality, I've had to face up to the fact that my abilities with logic have caused me great harm, and that those abilities, and, the long-established habits of defaulting to them, need to be seriously self-moderated.

 

That's on a personal level.

 

But, also, when it comes to communication, it's becoming more and more obvious, that IQ scores of 99.9%, do not help, and, very likely, are a major cause of communication issues.

 

It would be very interesting if I could talk with a skeptic, holding the same/similar views of those on this thread, who also had IQ aspects specifically relating to logic/reason at the 99.9% level, and see if communication would be more fruitful.

 

That's unlikely to happen. In the meantime, I'm logic based, and, the others here are medical trials based. The 2 are not easy bedfellows, so genuine productive communication is a bit unlikely

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 11:51 ----------

 

You don't even know what that means, and you demonstrate it time and time again. I'm done with you.

 

Oh, I'm sorry to hear that Eric. Best wishes

 

---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 11:54 ----------

 

Does that mean you'll be sticking to areas of the world that undertake comprehensive vaccination programmes and not venturing to those areas that don't?

 

I'm (newly diagnosed) autistic dude. Traveling the world is somewhat unlikely given my current situation.

 

However, if I were to travel, I'd avoid any areas of the world that require large amounts of compulsory vaccinations to enter.

Edited February 23, 2016 by onewheeldave