|
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 |
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm curious if these people who keep coming back are doing something fishy with their IP to fool the MODS or the MODS don't care.
I equally wonder why someone who has been banned so many times would keep coming back over and over and over again. It's really funny.
Anyway, back on topic. I've seen a lot of evidence that leads me to believe that this HPV vaccine is a good idea.
To me, the fascism/anti-vaccine camp appears to be relying mostly on scare tactics and unreliable sources. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| 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. |
My bad...Got a little confused there... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I notice Northway has failed to respond to my fascism question. |
Nor has he responded to any of the facts in my documentation except to attack the messenger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| 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. |
What makes it fascism is that it is required and is given by the force of the state. It makes no difference that the vaccine or other medical treatment might be beneficial and might cause no harm whatsoever. It is an act of fascist-socialism to require and impose such a treatment in all cases - no matter what the outcome.
Fascism does not have to target specifically identified individuals to be fascism. In fact this would be silly. Even Hitler's most extreme form of fascism did not target a named list of individuals. It targeted groups.
The fascist-socialist-health care requirement that all individuals are forced and required to obey either targets everyone in certain groups - by age and sex, for example for some state laws - or targets everyone by requiring universal vaccination or treatment of some kind. Like Hitler's fascist-socialism, there is no list of names.
It is quite obviously a fascist law. But I can understand that those who like the idea of thinking that they are superior to everyone they don't agree with, and believe that that gives them the right to violate the rights of those individuals who want to make their own free, independent choices, would object to the fact that their world view, when exposed to the light of day, reveals that they hold the same principles as others who are universally reviled. Unfortunately, the shoe fits.
Forced medical care is how the Holocaust got started. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I notice Northway has failed to respond to my fascism question. |
Nor has he responded to any of the facts in my documentation except to attack the messenger. |
Attacking the source is entirely legitimate when the source is:
1) A source that clearly has an agenda. If vaccines are the public health disaster you claim they are, provide a source from a source that's not dedicated to keeping people from getting vaccinated.
2) Not peer reviewed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
Anyway, back on topic. I've seen a lot of evidence that leads me to believe that this HPV vaccine is a good idea.
To me, the fascism/anti-vaccine camp appears to be relying mostly on scare tactics and unreliable sources. |
There are numerous possible camps here, not two. For example:
a) Those who think vaccination in general is good.
b) Those who think vaccination in general is bad.
c) Those who think forcing people to have medical treatment against their will is acceptable.
d) Those who think that forcing people to have medical treatment against their will is an unacceptable violation of individual rights.
Many posters are confused because they have not taken time to discern the distinctions nor to observe that in addition to those focused on only one of the above, there are combinations as well.
So, in addition to being: a, b, c, or d it is also possible to be ac, bc, ad, or bd.
Including more elements and more subtile differences along with more individuals would make the number of positions nearly infinite.
We could add:
e) Those who believe that the state has the right to prevent individuals from obtaining certain medical treatments and medications of their own choosing, or to restrict, limit or ban their production, testing or distribution.
f) Those who believe that the individual must be allowed to choose and obtain medical treatments and medications without the approval of the state, and that the state may not restrict, limit or ban their production, testing or distribution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
^This is a good point.
Just because I completely disagree with northway on this issue doesn't mean I completely agree with ontheway.
There are many angles to this issue...though I feel ontheway is at least being open minded about this conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| Do you ever read anyone who doesn't have an agenda? |
You're right, Gary Null does have an agenda. It is called "public health advocacy." And he backs up all his claims with documentation from peer-reviewed professional literature.
Now what was your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| Do you ever read anyone who doesn't have an agenda? |
You're right, Gary Null does have an agenda. It is called "public health advocacy." And he backs up all his claims with documentation from peer-reviewed professional literature.
Now what was your point? |
But as I pointed out, it's absolutely awful public health advocacy if he's saying you shouldn't get vaccinated because there's currently enough of a critical mass of vaccinated individuals so that you will be safe either way. If everyone were to take his advice, it would immediately be rendered really, really bad advice.
I can write whatever I please and "back it up" with peer-reviewed professional literature. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying is right, or that I'm using those sources properly. That's why we have peer review. Sources that aren't peer-reviewed are absolutely unreliable (and more or less akin to a paper one might write in uni). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What makes it fascism is that it is required and is given by the force of the state. It makes no difference that the vaccine or other medical treatment might be beneficial and might cause no harm whatsoever. It is an act of fascist-socialism to require and impose such a treatment in all cases - no matter what the outcome. |
Oh please, just because something is required and given out in force by the state does not make it fascism. All forms of government have such measures. What makes it fascist is in its aims.
You are using the term fascism in an exaggerated manner, not according to its definition.
| Quote: |
| Fascism does not have to target specifically identified individuals to be fascism. In fact this would be silly. Even Hitler's most extreme form of fascism did not target a named list of individuals. It targeted groups. |
If this is designed to "repress women" or some such by forcing a vaccine, that's about the lamest repression possible.
Is is it entirely possible that rather than targeting, this law was enacted in a shameless attempt to pull in votes and in response to campaign contributions from the drug companies?
That's corrupt, but it is not fascism.
| Quote: |
| It is quite obviously a fascist law. But I can understand that those who like the idea of thinking that they are superior to everyone they don't agree with, and believe that that gives them the right to violate the rights of those individuals who want to make their own free, independent choices, would object to the fact that their world view, when exposed to the light of day, reveals that they hold the same principles as others who are universally reviled. Unfortunately, the shoe fits. |
Pffft, again you are not comprehending distinction. Just because this shares a few characteristics with fascism, does not make it fascism. The fact that the people making these laws are elected and can easily be thrown out of office is one. The fact that MAJOR politicians objected to this law and have campaigned in opposition to it makes it not fascist. If it was fascism they would be doing so.
The shoe does not fit. The shoe is a bad analogy. I say you are calling American Football and soccer the same thing. Both have a ball and 11 men on a side, but they are vastly different.
| Quote: |
| Forced medical care is how the Holocaust got started. |
And how every one of us was able to grow up without polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. Things that 100 years ago would probably have killed about 5-10% of us, possibly you.
First off the well known answer to Where was Hitler born?
"At Versailles"- Lady Astor.
The Holocaust got started by people responding to an incredibly militarized ideology and engaging in brutal wars and targeting certain populations as scapegoats for their problems as a result of extremely punitive measures and a bad economy, primarily because of the Treaty of Versailles.
Not forced Medical Care.
Instead of looking for Holocaust:The Next Generation in your Dark World Fantasy, try looking at things for how they truly are and see that our government is a pandering, money-influenced circus, while at times nefarious, is so driven by interests (which may ally on some things but which also fight each other on other things) that its like a rudderless ship, stopping only to plunder gold and search for buried treasure on the island and occasionally raiding passersby. Pirates maybe, but not fascists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| northway wrote: |
| But as I pointed out, it's absolutely awful public health advocacy if he's saying you shouldn't get vaccinated because there's currently enough of a critical mass of vaccinated individuals so that you will be safe either way. If everyone were to take his advice, it would immediately be rendered really, really bad advice. |
That is not what he is saying at all. If you are not going to read his literature, there is no point in discussing it with you, and you certainly have no right to judge it. Again, he is not recommending vaccination because vaccines have been proven neither safe nor effective.
From the STATEMENT of the ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives RE: Submitted by Jane Orient, M.D. June 14, 1999:
| Quote: |
| In testimony before Congress in 1999, Dr. Jane Orient read a statement on behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in which she stated: "For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B." |
| Quote: |
| When my son was set to begin his routine vaccination at age 2 months, I didn�t know there were any risks associated with immunizations. But the clinic�s flyer contained a contradiction: my child�s chances of a serious adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were one in 1750, while his chances of dying from pertussis were one in several million. |
- Phillips A, �Dispelling Vaccination Myths: An Introduction to the Contradictions Between Medical Science and Immunization Policy, � May 2001.
| Quote: |
| I can write whatever I please and "back it up" with peer-reviewed professional literature. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying is right, or that I'm using those sources properly. That's why we have peer review. Sources that aren't peer-reviewed are absolutely unreliable (and more or less akin to a paper one might write in uni). |
No, you can't. What a ridiculous statement. There are any number of ideas for which one will not find support in professional literature. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| But as I pointed out, it's absolutely awful public health advocacy if he's saying you shouldn't get vaccinated because there's currently enough of a critical mass of vaccinated individuals so that you will be safe either way. If everyone were to take his advice, it would immediately be rendered really, really bad advice. |
That is not what he is saying at all. If you are not going to read his literature, there is no point in discussing it with you, and you certainly have no right to judge it. Again, he is not recommending vaccination because vaccines have been proven neither safe nor effective.
From the STATEMENT of the ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives RE: Submitted by Jane Orient, M.D. June 14, 1999:
| Quote: |
| In testimony before Congress in 1999, Dr. Jane Orient read a statement on behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in which she stated: "For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B." |
| Quote: |
| When my son was set to begin his routine vaccination at age 2 months, I didn�t know there were any risks associated with immunizations. But the clinic�s flyer contained a contradiction: my child�s chances of a serious adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were one in 1750, while his chances of dying from pertussis were one in several million. |
- Phillips A, �Dispelling Vaccination Myths: An Introduction to the Contradictions Between Medical Science and Immunization Policy, � May 2001.
| Quote: |
| I can write whatever I please and "back it up" with peer-reviewed professional literature. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying is right, or that I'm using those sources properly. That's why we have peer review. Sources that aren't peer-reviewed are absolutely unreliable (and more or less akin to a paper one might write in uni). |
No, you can't. What a ridiculous statement. There are any number of ideas for which one will not find support in professional literature. |
1) And the reason that's the case of hepatitis B is because we've vaccinated against it.
2) Ideas are not inherently good (or true). Peer review isn't a perfect system, but it's the best we have, and I'm going to trust something that's passed professional muster a lot more than I'm going to trust some guy's blog. Some "ideas" that aren't supported in professional literature include Birtherism, Roswell, and the idea that the HIV virus was created by the CIA to wipe out Africans. There are plenty of bloggers out there espousing these views, and the occasional individual with a pulpit from which to spout, but that doesn't make them factual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ineverlie&I'malwaysri wrote: |
| northway wrote: |
| But as I pointed out, it's absolutely awful public health advocacy if he's saying you shouldn't get vaccinated because there's currently enough of a critical mass of vaccinated individuals so that you will be safe either way. If everyone were to take his advice, it would immediately be rendered really, really bad advice. |
That is not what he is saying at all. If you are not going to read his literature, there is no point in discussing it with you, and you certainly have no right to judge it. Again, he is not recommending vaccination because vaccines have been proven neither safe nor effective.
From the STATEMENT of the ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS to the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform U.S. House of Representatives RE: Submitted by Jane Orient, M.D. June 14, 1999:
| Quote: |
| In testimony before Congress in 1999, Dr. Jane Orient read a statement on behalf of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons in which she stated: "For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk of hepatitis B." |
| Quote: |
| When my son was set to begin his routine vaccination at age 2 months, I didn�t know there were any risks associated with immunizations. But the clinic�s flyer contained a contradiction: my child�s chances of a serious adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were one in 1750, while his chances of dying from pertussis were one in several million. |
- Phillips A, �Dispelling Vaccination Myths: An Introduction to the Contradictions Between Medical Science and Immunization Policy, � May 2001.
|
This was exactly the point we were making.The chances of getting DPT are very small because the disease was eradicated. But because people have stopped taking the vaccine it is now becoming a problem again and the risk is rising:
| http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104523437i wrote: |
While pertussis had been eradicated entirely from the United States, in recent years the disease has made a comeback and resulted in fatalities.
|
If the trend continues the disease will become more dangerous than the vaccine again.
Don't take me wrong, I don't think all vaccines are necessary. For example, I don't think the Hepatitis B vaccine is necessary for children who live in a country with little hep b. I myself just took the vaccine after I came to Korea. My home country does not advocate taking Hep B unless you are travelling to areas with a high infection rate and agree with the person you are quoting. I found it interesting that the first hit I found when I searched for the disease was regarding the problems of people skipping the vaccine. The person you are quoting in the second quote also seem to be a strong believer in homoeopathy... which explains well why his works are not peer reviewed.
Whether a vaccine is worth it or not has to be considered on a case by case basis. For the HPV I feel like it is worth it, and it seems like most of the qualified people involved agrees. But I doubt anybody are pro ALL vaccines, that makes no sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ineverlie&I'malwaysri
Joined: 09 Aug 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaykimf
Joined: 24 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Try reading the story in your link. |
|
| 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
