Apparently, vaccination is rape

[Wolfbeckett]

What would your objection be?

I don't understand what you're asking me here.

 

[Rashiminos]

I don't understand what you're asking me here.

Suppose an anti-vaxxer is asserting (with evidence) that injection of arsenic and injection of many modern vaccines are similarly iatrogenic? Describe your process of objecting to their position.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Suppose an anti-vaxxer is asserting (with evidence) that injection of arsenic and injection of many modern vaccines are similarly iatrogenic? Describe your process of objecting to their position.

If their evidence was solid, backed by peer reviewed studies that used a reasonable sample size and blinded for variables properly, then I wouldn't object to their position at all. But I'm not sure what that hypothetical question has to do with reality, since no antivaxxers are doing that, on account of the fact that absolutely no studies exist proving anything even remotely like this.

 

[warpus]

I'm sure you can restate that in a way that's less of an appeal to authority.

I'm sure you can understand my position without trying to wrap it up in catch phrases.

 

[Rashiminos]

If their evidence was solid, backed by peer reviewed studies that used a reasonable sample size and blinded for variables properly, then I wouldn't object to their position at all. But I'm not sure what that hypothetical question has to do with reality, since no antivaxxers are doing that, on account of the fact that absolutely no studies exist proving anything even remotely like this.

How thoroughly have you checked 'all' of these studies on your own personal account?

I'm sure you can understand my position without trying to wrap it up in catch phrases.

I can understand it fine. You have a clear bias towards (medical) authority. That doesn't mean I accept it (the absoluteness of the 'any set' remark is a sticking point). I was hoping the typical description of the fallacy would aid you in understanding my rejection.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

My point is just that if the medical establishment can't be trusted to make these decisions, then neither can any set of parents.

My point is that, like most decisions, someone has to make it, even if no one is actually "qualified". In this case it is the parents who are going to bear the brunt of the consequences, so it is the parents who are stuck with making the decision. If someone else is going to take over making the decision, are they going to take over being at the brunt of the consequences? Not hardly.

Again, I have already stated earlier in the thread, on this same page no less, that medicine is not perfect. Individual cases of patients can have differing results, medicine does not know everything, and even that which we do know for sure is administered by humans, and humans make mistakes. But taken over the whole population, the truth is undeniable. Those who embrace western medicine have longer and better lives than those who do not. For every person I can name that has had their life worsened by western medicine, I can name 20 that have had their life improved by it, not least of which is myself.

I know you said this before, and I didn't disagree with it when you did. I also don't disagree now. The medically correct decision is objective and quantifiable. That has nothing to do with whether it is right. You toss in "longer and better lives" as some sort of given. How does longer figure into better? Who gets to argue better v worse, when we only have one actual outcome and the other is a myriad of hypothetical roads not traveled?

I argue for the decisions that have to be made to be made by people who will deal with the consequences...not a doctor who will be just moving on to the next case.

 

[warpus]

I can understand it fine. You have a clear bias towards (medical) authority.

Yes, when it comes to medical matters, I turn to medical professional consensus.

When it comes to astronomy, I turn to astronomers.

When it comes to gaming, I turn to gamers,

etc.

I have a "bias".

My point is that, like most decisions, someone has to make it, even if no one is actually "qualified". In this case it is the parents who are going to bear the brunt of the consequences, so it is the parents who are stuck with making the decision.

This affects society as a whole and not just individuals. That's the whole point of vaccination and how it works.

This is a health issue first and foremost, not a "personal liberty" issue or whatever.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Teh vaccine may have complications!!!!!

Teh unvaccinated put us all at risk! A HUNDRED cases last year alone! Only a few thousand more and we should expect a FATALITY!!!!

Why do so many people find it hard to see the available space between these two positions?

 

[Rashiminos]

Yes, when it comes to medical matters, I turn to medical professional consensus.

When it comes to astronomy, I turn to astronomers.

When it comes to gaming, I turn to gamers,

etc.

I have a "bias".

I wasn't saying the bias was strictly a bad thing, but consensus is by nature subjective, and when consensus is objectively wrong, it can still appear to be "right."

Spoiler :

Especially if you have a group of powerful people in the hobby of molding consensus.

This affects society as a whole and not just individuals. That's the whole point of vaccination and how it works.

This is a health issue first and foremost, not a "personal liberty" issue or whatever.

So how ready are you to enshrine the state and its backers in determining what everyone's health should be?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

How thoroughly have you checked 'all' of these studies on your own personal account?

I have been following this issue for years. I would never claim to be familiar with everything that has even been published on it. But what I will claim is that if such a study existed, it would certainly have been headline news on every anti-vaccine website on the Internet, and since I've never seen it on any of those, I have to assume it does not exist. If they had studies that scientifically validated their position, hell, they'd have people on rooftops with megaphones shouting it to the world. They haven't done so. The reason they haven't done so is because those studies don't exist.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

I know you said this before, and I didn't disagree with it when you did. I also don't disagree now. The medically correct decision is objective and quantifiable. That has nothing to do with whether it is right. You toss in "longer and better lives" as some sort of given. How does longer figure into better? Who gets to argue better v worse, when we only have one actual outcome and the other is a myriad of hypothetical roads not traveled?

I argue for the decisions that have to be made to be made by people who will deal with the consequences...not a doctor who will be just moving on to the next case.

I think you and I mostly agree. If we're talking about consenting adults, I agree with everything you said. Adults have the right to decide what is "right" for themselves, even if what is "right" for them inevitably leads to their death. The only place we differ in on the subject of children. I maintain that children, being legally unable to make these decisions for themselves, must have the right to the best "medically correct" care possible, so that they can maximize their chances of living to an old enough age to start deciding for themselves. If upon turning 18, a person decides that they really shouldn't be alive any more after all and wants to end it, that is their decision. But a child who dies at the age of 8 because of decision their parent made will never even get the opportunity to choose for themselves. That is the tragedy that we must prevent wherever we can. Every child should have the right, to the best of our ability, to grow up healthy and survive to become an adult so that they can start to choose for themselves.

 

[warpus]

Especially if you have a group of powerful people in the hobby of molding consensus.

Fortunately I'm not one of those crazy people who believe in "big pharma" conspiracy theories.

 

[Rashiminos]

I have been following this issue for years.

on account of the fact that absolutely no studies exist proving anything even remotely like this. I would never claim to be familiar with everything that has even been published on it.

Please understand that from my POV, you just did exactly that.

But what I will claim is that if such a study existed, it would certainly have been headline news on every anti-vaccine website on the Internet, and since I've never seen it on any of those,

Quite a few academic studies are paywalled.

I have to assume it does not exist.

Is an assumption a fact?

If they had studies that scientifically validated their position, hell, they'd have people on rooftops with megaphones shouting it to the world. They haven't done so. The reason they haven't done so is because those studies don't exist.

Alternatively, there are ways of restricting megaphone usage and altering the hearing of the target audience to garble the message. Cassandra trope is possibly applicable.

Fortunately I'm not one of those crazy people who believe in "big pharma" conspiracy theories.

Speaking of perception management...

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Please understand that from my POV, you just did exactly that.

Quite a few academic studies are paywalled.


Is an assumption a fact?


Alternatively, there are ways of restricting megaphone usage and altering the hearing of the target audience to garble the message. Cassandra trope is possibly applicable.

Again, if you know of such a study, please do tell. I'm done with this particular aspect of this conversation unless you have something more than "what ifs" to bring to the table.

 

[warpus]

One study doesn't change anything either - you need peer review and broad consensus. A study can very well be flawed - many are.

 

[Wolfbeckett]

One study doesn't change anything either - you need peer review and broad consensus. A study can very well be flawed - many are.

Yes, but at least if there was even one, it would be a starting point for a conversation. We don't even have that. Of course I'm ignoring the Wakefield study here since it was found to be 100% fraudulent and Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license over it.

 

[Rashiminos]

Again, if you know of such a study, please do tell. I'm done with this particular aspect of this conversation unless you have something more than "what ifs" to bring to the table.

It wouldn't be as simple as a one particular study, but I can start linking sources and you can decide you if want continue or stop looking, or maybe reconsider if vaccines should be mandatory without exception.

So here's a place to start:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...ce-is-weaker-than-the-marketing/#.VUpdCfDuq3s

Should Boys Be Given the HPV Vaccine? The Science Is Weaker than the Marketing

Merck’s promotion of Gardasil, its vaccine against the human papilloma virus (HPV), has a complicated history. First there was the exuberant claim about its reputedly great effectiveness in preventing cervical cancer. Now comes the recommendation last month from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that all 11- and 12-year-old boys should be given the vaccine.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

One study doesn't change anything either - you need peer review and broad consensus. A study can very well be flawed - many are.

Many get peer review and broad consensus...and are still flawed.

 

[warpus]

Many get peer review and broad consensus...and are still flawed.

Yes, but these mechanisms are the only ones at our disposal. In some cases they don't work, but in most they do.

Washing your hands isn't perfect, it doesn't get rid of all of the germs - but it's still a good idea.

You can't just point to 1 study and say: "Aha! Look! I'm right". You've got to look at that study in the context of peer review. You've got to see if the study has been reproduced by others elsewhere - and if their results were the same as well. One study by itself tells you nothing.

 

[Rashiminos]

Washing your hands isn't perfect, it doesn't get rid of all of the germs - but it's still a good idea.

Getting rid of all the germs is not exactly a great idea. The body benefits from maintaining its own populations of microbes (particularly gut flora), and the immune system does require some stress to develop and stay active.