|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 7:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Now all you need to do is show that those who received the vaccine were prevented from getting cervical cancer. What I defy you to find is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study showing this. Please do look, but you won't find it. |
Like this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Now all you need to do is show that those who received the vaccine were prevented from getting cervical cancer. What I defy you to find is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study showing this. Please do look, but you won't find it. |
Like this? |
owned
/thread? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Now all you need to do is show that those who received the vaccine were prevented from getting cervical cancer. What I defy you to find is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study showing this. Please do look, but you won't find it. |
Like this? |
owned
/thread? |
No. Clearly Big Pharma funded that study and it is therefore biased and manipulated. 
Getting my tinfoil hat ready for his response.
But seriously, Merck did fund and carry it out as requested by the FDA. So he will use that to discredit it, although it is clearly obvious it was done on the up and up.
Last edited by jrwhite82 on Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Every parent has the right to refuse to give his/her child the vaccine. But if such a choice is made, the parent cannot send the child to school with the other children. This isn't fascist. Hell, ontheway, don't you disagree with public education, anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| UknowsI wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_modelling_of_infectious_disease
Read the part about "Mathematics of mass vaccination". I might have simplified it slightly, but basically a disease is eliminated when mass vaccination exceeds the herd immunity level of a disease. The needed % of immune people in a population to achieve herd immunity (and eliminating the disease) depends on how contagious the disease is, incubation time, mortality rate and so on, but it can be below 50%.
An other interesting part in the article is that a partial vaccination of a population may in fact INCREASE the mortality rate in a case where complete vaccination would have eliminated the disease because of the perverse effects of vaccination.
| ontheway wrote: |
| UknowsI wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Quote: |
| More lives are saved than lost |
What can you present to prove this? The truth is that vaccines are neither safe nor effective. I have given data to support both of those claims.
|
If a vaccine is not effective, that's a very strong argument for forced vaccination. A critical mass of the population has to be immune to stop an epidemic. Let's say 50% has to be immune to prevent major outbreaks and the vaccine is 70% effective (random numbers for the sake of the example). If more than 29% of the population chose not to take the vaccine, it is no longer effective at controlling the spread of the virus which will cause large outbreaks among the people who didn't take the vaccine and among the 30% which the vaccine did not work effectively for. If everybody was forced to take the vaccine there would be few outbreaks in any part of the population. As you can see there is clearly a case where the behaviour of people who chose not to get a vaccine effects the health of people who chose to take the vaccine in a negative way.
In the case of HPV, I don't know anything about that vaccine in particular or the disease, but if it is a disease which is worth fighting I can see purpose of forced vaccination. |
Forced vaccination is fascism. It is evil. There is no argument to justify such evil.
But, if it is needed for society you insist .... right ... fascist-socialism ...
and why not then ...
... forced sterilization to control overpopulation or to eliminate undesireable genetic material from the population ...
... forced impregnation to prevent underpopulation and increase preferred genetic material in the population ...
Yep.
Fascist-socialism.
We've been down this slippery slope before. |
... When I am talking about forced vaccination, I don't necessarily mean to force people who strongly oppose of any injection to get one,
but any form of child vaccination is a sort of forced vaccination because they hardly understand what is going on.
In practice, it hasn't been necessary to force people against their will to prevent most deadly epidemics because most people understand that such a vaccine would be good for them.
The case of HPV is more difficult because the casualties are relatively low and consequences are not sudden nor obvious to see.
But I think it's important that people who chose not to take vaccines knows that the actions of people who chose to not take a vaccine might indirectly kill people who chose to take a vaccine.
|
Now you are starting to get it.
In practice, as you say, it has not been necessary because people are smarter than government. You can convince them, use your best science and persuasive skills, and enough of them will freely choose to be vaccinated so as to achieve an effective level of aggregate immunization.
If a vaccine is safe and effective then enough people will choose freely to be vaccinated.
If advocates of any medical treatment or vaccine cannot convince enough people through voluntary means, then it is necessary to improve the treatment or improve the message or reconsider its necessity. Zealots in the medical community should not be allowed to overcome the wishes of the individual. It is this wrongheaded zealotry that leads many people down the path to becoming advocates of fascist-socialism.
It is the fascist minority that is attempting to force the unwilling to be vaccinated that is wrong.
Every dictator in history has arrogated this idea of his edicts being superior to the desires of individuals. Treating people as a herd to be managed instead of respecting them as individuals is a hallmark of fascist-socialist dogma.
Those who are not willing to let the people choose, individually, and who instead want use the power and force of government to require immunization and resort to forced immunization, have adopted a fascist-socialist model of government. They have created a disease much worse than whatever illness they were proposing to treat - the disease of fascist-socialist reasoning and government - which kills more people than any other disease.
Fascism is evil. Forced vaccination is fascist-socialism. It's advocates are evil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Forcing people to vaccinate is fascism. |
No its not. |
Of course it is.
You are obviously not aware of the origins of Hitler's final solution. He did not originate the idea of eliminating undesirable groups through murder and cremation.
This idea came from the American medical establishment before Hitler rose to power. It was a popular notion in the US psychiatric community that defective individuals should be sterilized to prevent them from breeding. Programs were set up in many states to do exactly that. It started out with the mentally ill and mentally retarded. It spread to those with low IQ scores, especially certain minority racial groups. Thousands were sterilized. Euthanasia was advocated as well, but no programs were adopted at the time. The idea of "the good of the herd" was the reasoning.
The medical establishment in Germany was quite taken with the US model. They set up operations to not only sterilize but to euthanize the undesireable members of the herd. Thousands were killed before Hitler ever came to power. They were killed and incinerated. Hitler was aware of this program and used their reasoning and logic. He expanded the number of undesirable groups and the size and scope of the operation - he did not originate the concept. This is one reason so many were willing to go along with Hitler - they had already accepted the concept of the "herd" and the use of the power of the state to force medical treatment on the population - even euthanasia - to manage the herd.
Interestingly, and frighteningly, after the war had ended, in 1946 (I can't recall the exact date), one of the original medical establishments that had been killing the "undesirable" members of the German herd before Hitler ever came to power was found to still be in operation, killing and cremating its victims - and was finally shut down. The doctors there didn't see that what they were doing was wrong - it was for the good of society.
Fascist-socialists rarely see themselves for what they are.
Government forced vaccination, sterilization, euthanasia or medical treatment of any kind is an evil, fascist-socialist use of government power and must be opposed by anyone who supports liberty and the rights of man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Vaccines aren't effective? Smallpox? Measles? Polio? This is why I can't take any of these arguments seriously, as they're posited in a way that fails to acknowledge that vaccines have been one of the biggest forces for societal good to come about within the last two centuries. |
So you haven't even read what I linked to or posted then? The epidemiologic data show that these diseases had declined to 1-2% of their former incidence PRIOR TO the implementation of the vaccines. The declines were due to improved hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition and not to any vaccines. |
Alas, you've posted nothing of the sort, unless you're suggesting I read entire websites that you've linked to. |
Actually, I did post it, but on another thread so here's the repost for your convenience:
| Quote: |
| From 1900 to 1963, when the measles vaccine was introduced, death rates from measles had declined from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 � a 98% decrease. From 1900 to 1949, death rates from whooping cough declined from 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5 per 100,000 � a 96% decrease. From 1900 to 1949, death rates from diphtheria declined from 40.3 per 100,000 to 0.4 per 100,000 � a 99% decrease. These graphs demonstrate clear and major changes in the severity of diseases well before any vaccines were introduced.22 |
http://www.garynull.com/home/dr-gary-null-phd-and-nancy-ashley-ms-vmd-the-myth-that-vacci.html
| UknowsI wrote: |
| complete vaccination would have eliminated the disease |
That would be true only if vaccines were effective, but unfortunately they are not:
7. Gustafson TL, New England Journal of Medicine, 316: 717-774, March 26, 1987, Measles Outbreak in a Fully Immunized Secondary School Population
Like this?
| Quote: |
| But seriously, Merck did fund and carry it out as requested by the FDA. So he will use that to discredit it, although it is clearly obvious it was done on the up and up. |
That is not enough for me to criticize it; I'll have to find the specifics. Give me some time to analyze it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
Forcing people to vaccinate is fascism. |
No its not. |
Of course it is.
You are obviously not aware of the origins of Hitler's final solution. He did not originate the idea of eliminating undesirable groups through murder and cremation.
This idea came from the American medical establishment before Hitler rose to power. It was a popular notion in the US psychiatric community that defective individuals should be sterilized to prevent them from breeding. Programs were set up in many states to do exactly that. It started out with the mentally ill and mentally retarded. It spread to those with low IQ scores, especially certain minority racial groups. Thousands were sterilized. Euthanasia was advocated as well, but no programs were adopted at the time. The idea of "the good of the herd" was the reasoning.
The medical establishment in Germany was quite taken with the US model. They set up operations to not only sterilize but to euthanize the undesireable members of the herd. Thousands were killed before Hitler ever came to power. They were killed and incinerated. Hitler was aware of this program and used their reasoning and logic. He expanded the number of undesirable groups and the size and scope of the operation - he did not originate the concept. This is one reason so many were willing to go along with Hitler - they had already accepted the concept of the "herd" and the use of the power of the state to force medical treatment on the population - even euthanasia - to manage the herd.
Interestingly, and frighteningly, after the war had ended, in 1946 (I can't recall the exact date), one of the original medical establishments that had been killing the "undesirable" members of the German herd before Hitler ever came to power was found to still be in operation, killing and cremating its victims - and was finally shut down. The doctors there didn't see that what they were doing was wrong - it was for the good of society.
Fascist-socialists rarely see themselves for what they are.
Government forced vaccination, sterilization, euthanasia or medical treatment of any kind is an evil, fascist-socialist use of government power and must be opposed by anyone who supports liberty and the rights of man. |
So it is your claim that this girl was an undesirable element of the population and was deliberately targeted?
You mean the government had some sort of prior knowledge that she would have an allergic reaction?
Because unless those are true, then what you have is someone having an allergic reaction, not fascism.
There is a word in the English language called "distinctive" we use it because some people out there see things that are similar in some aspects and then conclude that they are the same. Fortunately there are "distinctive" characteristics to each thing that make them not the same.
Have you ever read the book "Seven Blind Mice"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Vaccines aren't effective? Smallpox? Measles? Polio? This is why I can't take any of these arguments seriously, as they're posited in a way that fails to acknowledge that vaccines have been one of the biggest forces for societal good to come about within the last two centuries. |
So you haven't even read what I linked to or posted then? The epidemiologic data show that these diseases had declined to 1-2% of their former incidence PRIOR TO the implementation of the vaccines. The declines were due to improved hygiene, sanitation, and nutrition and not to any vaccines. |
Alas, you've posted nothing of the sort, unless you're suggesting I read entire websites that you've linked to. |
Actually, I did post it, but on another thread so here's the repost for your convenience:
| Quote: |
| From 1900 to 1963, when the measles vaccine was introduced, death rates from measles had declined from 13.3 per 100,000 to 0.2 per 100,000 � a 98% decrease. From 1900 to 1949, death rates from whooping cough declined from 12.2 per 100,000 to 0.5 per 100,000 � a 96% decrease. From 1900 to 1949, death rates from diphtheria declined from 40.3 per 100,000 to 0.4 per 100,000 � a 99% decrease. These graphs demonstrate clear and major changes in the severity of diseases well before any vaccines were introduced.22 |
http://www.garynull.com/home/dr-gary-null-phd-and-nancy-ashley-ms-vmd-the-myth-that-vacci.html |
Do you ever read anyone who doesn't have an agenda? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| UknowsI wrote: |
| t;]complete vaccination would have eliminated the disease |
That would be true only if vaccines were effective, but unfortunately they are not:
7. Gustafson TL, New England Journal of Medicine, 316: 717-774, March 26, 1987, Measles Outbreak in a Fully Immunized Secondary School Population
|
How do you define a vaccine to be effective? As I already mentioned, a vaccine does not have to be 100% effective to eliminate a disease, it only has to be more effective than the level where you achieve herd immunity. It will however take time before the disease is eliminated because you will have small scale outbreaks, but the number of infected people will steadily decrease until it is gone. This process will however go a lot slower (or not even work) if enough people chose not to take the vaccine.
EDIT: Some vaccines may of course be ineffective to the degree where they should not be used. I'm not saying that all vaccines are good, but to me it looks like the HPV vaccine is one where the pro's outweighs the risks.
| ontheway wrote: |
Now you are starting to get it.
In practice, as you say, it has not been necessary because people are smarter than government. You can convince them, use your best science and persuasive skills, and enough of them will freely choose to be vaccinated so as to achieve an effective level of aggregate immunization.
If a vaccine is safe and effective then enough people will choose freely to be vaccinated.
If advocates of any medical treatment or vaccine cannot convince enough people through voluntary means, then it is necessary to improve the treatment or improve the message or reconsider its necessity. Zealots in the medical community should not be allowed to overcome the wishes of the individual. It is this wrongheaded zealotry that leads many people down the path to becoming advocates of fascist-socialism.
It is the fascist minority that is attempting to force the unwilling to be vaccinated that is wrong.
Every dictator in history has arrogated this idea of his edicts being superior to the desires of individuals. Treating people as a herd to be managed instead of respecting them as individuals is a hallmark of fascist-socialist dogma.
Those who are not willing to let the people choose, individually, and who instead want use the power and force of government to require immunization and resort to forced immunization, have adopted a fascist-socialist model of government. They have created a disease much worse than whatever illness they were proposing to treat - the disease of fascist-socialist reasoning and government - which kills more people than any other disease.
Fascism is evil. Forced vaccination is fascist-socialism. It's advocates are evil. |
I said that forced vaccination is usually not necessary in practice, but I still do not agree with you that forced vaccination is evil. Adding labels such as "fascist" and "evil" is not a good way of arguing. If a new disease emerged where forced vaccination would be necessary to prevent a deadly epidemic, I would be all for it, and I would consider large death tolls worse than a few forceful needle shots. Is adding fluoride in the water supply without properly informing the residents any less fascist than forced vaccination?
One example was if HPV was much more serious than it currently is. It would be very important to not only vaccinate the girls, but also to vaccinate boys to increase the speed of which the disease is being eliminated. It is however likely that very few boys would accept the vaccine because it has no direct health benefits for them.
Last edited by UknowsI on Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:37 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Do you ever read anyone who doesn't have an agenda? |
Do you ever stop trolling and making yourself look like a fool? I have posted documentation for everything I've stated, and all you post are snide remarks. Eff you, I'm through with you. |
I've asked for a legitimate source, not an anti-vaccine website. You haven't provided that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This Dr. Gary Null, PhD seems to be against all the major vaccines and his main argument seems to be that the benefits are small for one person as long as everyone else takes the vaccine, which is of course true but selfish.
http://www.garynull.com/home/gary-null-phd-and-nancy-ashley-vmd-ms-all-vaccines-are-dange.html
He asks " If They Admitted You Had a 99.2% Chance of Never Getting Cervical Cancer, Would You Get this Vaccine?".
I would get the vaccine even though it is 100% sure that I can't get Cervical Cancer since I'm a boy, if that meant it would reduce the chance of my spouse getting Cancer by 0.8%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2011 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| UknowsI wrote: |
This Dr. Gary Null, PhD seems to be against all the major vaccines and his main argument seems to be that the benefits are small for one person as long as everyone else takes the vaccine, which is of course true but selfish.
http://www.garynull.com/home/gary-null-phd-and-nancy-ashley-vmd-ms-all-vaccines-are-dange.html
He asks " If They Admitted You Had a 99.2% Chance of Never Getting Cervical Cancer, Would You Get this Vaccine?".
I would get the vaccine even though it is 100% sure that I can't get Cervical Cancer since I'm a boy, if that meant it would reduce the chance of my spouse getting Cancer by 0.8%. |
And a pretty horrific case for a medical professional to be making. One has to assume he thinks this is good advice, in which case he thinks everyone should follow it, which in turn leads to it being poor advice, as it would expose society at large to diseases that we currently vaccinate against. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I notice Northway has failed to respond to my fascism question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I notice Northway has failed to respond to my fascism question. |
Of course not, as your question was directed at ontheway (you and I have the same dog in this fight). Confusing, I know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
