Vaccine/autism CT discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clayton Moore said:
Antivaxxers?

Is questioning the wisdom of OVER vaccinating babies anti vaccine?

Is wanting to spreading vaccinations over period of time anti vaccine?
Click to expand...

Without a specific scientific reason to do so, and just tossing autism around as an excuse, yes it is.

But more importantly, many antivaxxers use the "just asking questions" approach to make their views more palatable.

And I'm still waiting for your response on immunizing infants against Rubella.
 
Tomblvd said:
Without a specific scientific reason to do so, and just tossing autism around as an excuse, yes it is.

But more importantly, many antivaxxers use the "just asking questions" approach to make their views more palatable.

And I'm still waiting for your response on immunizing infants against Rubella.
Click to expand...

I already did, twice maybe three times. Ask someone else.
 
Here's another question you've ignored. It was from 000063 (if that is his/her real name):

I'm curious, what are your falsifiability conditions? What evidence would you need to see to accept that vaccines do not cause autism? Can you give just one example of what you would accept?
Click to expand...

I reviewed the thread and you never attempted to answer the questions.
 
Clayton Moore said:
So what internet source would you recommend as a source? theman.com? NIST.com? Bigpharma.com Baptist.com? Cheney.com? Rumsfeld.com

If JoAnn started a site for ideas to make money would it be likely that most would be bogus?
Click to expand...

You don't actually care about whether vaccination causes autism. You've just latched onto this bogus issue as a club to beat "Big Pharma" (whatever the hell that is, anyway) with. That's the only rational explanation as to why a mountain of evidence and answers to every question asked (within the reasonable parameters of comprehensible English) has been waved off as propaganda and "lies". As has been pointed out, you've got a belief and you're not interesting in learning anything or educating yourself in the least. We pay attention to facts and evidence here, we don't divine our ideas based on hunches pulled out of our own rectums. What purpose does any of your participation in this thread serve?* It's certainly not to educate (not that a position of invincible ignorance is ever going to teach anybody anything except how not to do something.)

This person is a perfect example of that bizarre school of thought among some left-wing simpletons that considers it ok for profit to be made on some goods and services (food, automobiles, sheetrock, etc.) but not on others (medicine, armaments, etc.). The reasoning behind this seems to be as basic as "I just don't like it."





*This is a rhetorical question. Look it up.
 
Polaris said:
You don't actually care about whether vaccination causes autism. You've just latched onto this bogus issue as a club to beat "Big Pharma" (whatever the hell that is, anyway) with. That's the only rational explanation as to why a mountain of evidence and answers to every question asked (within the reasonable parameters of comprehensible English) has been waved off as propaganda and "lies". As has been pointed out, you've got a belief and you're not interesting in learning anything or educating yourself in the least. We pay attention to facts and evidence here, we don't divine our ideas based on hunches pulled out of our own rectums. What purpose does any of your participation in this thread serve?* It's certainly not to educate (not that a position of invincible ignorance is ever going to teach anybody anything except how not to do something.)

This person is a perfect example of that bizarre school of thought among some left-wing simpletons that considers it ok for profit to be made on some goods and services (food, automobiles, sheetrock, etc.) but not on others (medicine, armaments, etc.). The reasoning behind this seems to be as basic as "I just don't like it."





*This is a rhetorical question. Look it up.
Click to expand...

I don't care a freaking tinker's damn about whether Autism causes vaccines.

I care about the children.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Travis said:
Babies can be born with all sorts of potential reactions to things. Of course we only find out about them when they actually have these reactions. But I suppose we should go the safer course and just keep all babies in a plastic bubble just in case.
Click to expand...

Woman's lib eliminated much of what was left of that bubble.
Click to expand...

There never was a bubble and the idea of a bubble is a bad one.

You don't raise your kids in some protective bubble "just in case" unless you want to screw them up. And, if your contention is accurate, and feminism is keeping that bubble away then good.
 
This person is a perfect example of that bizarre school of thought among some left-wing simpletons that considers it ok for profit to be made on some goods and services (food, automobiles, sheetrock, etc.) but not on others (medicine, armaments, etc.). The reasoning behind this seems to be as basic as "I just don't like it."
Click to expand...
This is made even more bizarre when you consider that it's perfectly okay for some people to make money on medical treatments. When "Big Pharma" makes a profit on conventional treatments this is seen as proof that they are not to be trusted, but when private, unregulated alternative practicioners sell their overpriced products to gullible patients and make a fortune, no one lifts an eyebrow because that's for some reason not politically incorrect.

Edit:
I don't care a freaking tinker's damn about whether Autism causes vaccines.
Click to expand...
What caused this sudden change in you?
 
Last edited:
I don't think he's ever expressed concern that Autism creates the vaccines. I'm not sure how that would even happen.

Clayton have you figured out why we vaccinate babies yet?
 
Clayton Moore said:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7239155&postcount=323

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7241746&postcount=352



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7232891&postcount=266
Click to expand...

Let's try this Clayton.

I'll just repost the post you are ignoring, that makes it easier to respond.

Clayton Moore said:
HMMMM. So instead of pushing rubella vaccine for all 10 year old girls who haven't already become immune, all babies get it?
Click to expand...

I don't understand what point you are making here. Where are you getting these "10 year old girls who haven't already become immune"? And how is this an either/or? Are you saying we are withholding vaccines from an at-risk group to immunize infants?

Your statement makes no sense.
 
I don't understand what point you are making here. Where are you getting these "10 year old girls who haven't already become immune"? And how is this an either/or? Are you saying we are withholding vaccines from an at-risk group to immunize infants?
Click to expand...
I think he is saying that it would be better for the children to get the vaccine at a later age, rather than as infants, as they're not likely to get rubella as babies. But I don't see the logic in giving it to "10 year olds who haven't already become immune" (presumably by having a run-in with rubella) -- the whole point of a vaccine is that you give them to kids before they get ill, not afterwards.
 
Travis said:
There have always been exemptions as long as there has been a requirement for vaccination. I think it should be proven that there was ever a time when any state didn't give out exemptions before we start getting hung up on any particular year.
Click to expand...
An exemption is: "The process of freeing or state of being free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."

If an exemption is not universally applied or universally available it is not an exemption it is an exception. NJ allows only 2 "exemptions" 1) medical and 2) religious. Philosophical difference is not an exemption. If you care to nick pick and parse words... great. When exemptions are not allowed just because you don't want your child to take it... it is mandated plain and simple.

http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/documents/vaccine_qa.pdf
 
ladmo said:
An exemption is: "The process of freeing or state of being free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."

If an exemption is not universally applied or universally available it is not an exemption it is an exception. NJ allows only 2 "exemptions" 1) medical and 2) religious. Philosophical difference is not an exemption. If you care to nick pick and parse words... great. When exemptions are not allowed just because you don't want your child to take it... it is mandated plain and simple.

http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/documents/vaccine_qa.pdf
Click to expand...

There is no nit and pick here. Your son is allergic, that is a medical reason for an exemption. You said no exemptions were available. Unless you care to show us these facts you're so adamant about us providing showing no exemption was available, you lied.

If you don't want to vaccinate your kids for philosophical reasons, don't send them to public schools or move to a state that allows it.
 
Last edited:
ladmo said:
An exemption is: "The process of freeing or state of being free from an obligation or liability imposed on others."

If an exemption is not universally applied or universally available it is not an exemption it is an exception.
Click to expand...

That's obviously wrong, by definition. If an exemption is universally applied, then the obligation or liability isn't "imposed on others". An exemption can only exist if it isn't universal. A universally applied exemption is simply the absence of obligation.

ladmo said:
NJ allows only 2 "exemptions" 1) medical and 2) religious.
Click to expand...

Just going back to where this question of exemptions or exceptions started, before your bizarre hissy fit where you claimed you were being ordered to kill your own child, you commented that:

ladmo said:
My child was allergic to certain vaccines due to an anaphylaxis condition.
Click to expand...

Such a case would obviously be covered by exemption 1), medical.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom