No need... the pharmas and the government and the doctors and the media have already tagged you.
No need... the pharmas and the government and the doctors and the media have already tagged you.
I totally see your point of view here. However, I don't think that ignoring these arguments is the way forward. Knowledge is developed through intelligent debate. While I agree that some people responding here are repeating subjective opinions or anecdotal experiences, it is their choice to bring this information to the discussion. Failure to respond to it risks being seen as 'backing down' or accepting their position.I'm starting to think we should all just ignore weatMod. He's been arguing for a long time and has yet to produce a drop of evidence to back his claims. The conversation needs to stay civil, and it's starting to feel like we're arguing just for the sake of arguing.
If an anti-vaxxer wants to provide an intelligent argument based on credible sources, I'll be interested again. I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong plenty of times, so maybe I'm wrong about vaccines. I need to see some evidence first though.
I am not asking for faith, but if you'd like here's more pages showing the same data
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2625386/
As for the wiki links, do I really need to get into details about rapidly spreading plagues?
https://www.google.com/search?q=gre...2j69i57j0l2.2087j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Simple history shows the last time we suffered any great plague was before the common usage of vaccines. After vaccines became common practice they just kind of stopped. Sure there still some rapidly spreading diseases, but nothing like before.
Now why should I put any faith in you, I would also like evidence for your claims.
The references are at the end of the article.How was this data collected,
I don't really see how that is relevant if the question you're asking is, 'have life expectancies increased since vaccination was discovered'. The obvious comparison to make is between one culture at a time when it didn't use vaccination and the same culture while using vaccination. It doesn't really matter which culture that is, since we're talking about a quasi-experimental design; the culture you are studying is its own control. Including other cultures would actually skew the results.and how do they account for all those civilizations that the data keepers had not conquered/occupied yet so as to start taking and keeping records of those people's life spans, I.E. the Native Americans?
First, sources are in the links providedHow was this data collected, and how do they account for all those civilizations that the data keepers had not conquered/occupied yet so as to start taking and keeping records of those people's life spans, I.E. the Native Americans?
Actually providing a citation is a perfectly valid part of the scientific method.Share links is not science.
Why would you need to? As I said, if the question is 'do humans live longer with vaccination' then you need to compare a civilisation over time and discuss the points at which vaccination was introduced, hypothesising about its possible influence. Why you would need to 'dig up a culture from 500 years ago' I have no idea.you can not dig up a culture from 500 years ago and see how they fair with vaccinations
That is a very fair point. I would expect any article claiming that vaccinations were responsible for increasing life expectancy to control for other changes in the environment.the environment would most likely be very much different than the one they were from so the results would not be fair.
If somebody falls on hard times and can't live comfortably or in good health then this affects that person and a limited number of people surrounding them. However, vaccination has implications for the whole population (cf. the previous discussion of herd immunity). For example, if I develop a condition which means I can't be vaccinated for a particular disease and then a whole load of people have refused to be vaccinated for that same disease, they could potentially infect me with said disease. So of course it is in my interests (in that situation) for as many other people as possible to vaccinated.Anyhow, why do you people care what people do or don't do to them selves or their own? I mean if a person does vaccinate and they vaccinate their children too, but at some point they fall upon hard times. Are you guys going to open your door to them so they can manage to live comfortably and in good health while they try to get back on their feet? Doubtful.
Citation extremely fucking needed.Just for fun... a quote from another, much older text that mentions people living up to 120 years old...
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years." - Genesis 6:3
Those ancients, I tell ya... wild imaginations!
Then why did you even bother to ask for addition information if you can't even back up your own previous statement, it shouldn't be hard to provide a basic counter argument with evidence against my claims. It took me 5 minutes to find several sources that matched up. You should be able to easily show something to back up your claims.Share links is not science. You guys have not answered my question, and on top of that, you can not dig up a culture from 500 years ago and see how they fair with vaccinations, and even if you could bring them back, the environment would most likely be very much different than the one they were from so the results would not be fair.
Anyhow, why do you people care what people do or don't do to them selves or their own? I mean if a person does vaccinate and they vaccinate their children too, but at some point they fall upon hard times. Are you guys going to open your door to them so they can manage to live comfortably and in good health while they try to get back on their feet? Doubtful.
This isn't relevant nor proof to your previous claims.Just for fun... a quote from another, much older text that mentions people living up to 120 years old...
Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years." - Genesis 6:3
Those ancients, I tell ya... wild imaginations!
I am going to take this an admittance to defeat because you can't even post a simple rebuttal.I could cite a guy who is citing a guy who is citing a guy who is talking out his ass.
Point.... you would have to be there and you would have to do the research your self, first hand. Everything else is hear say. People do and can live long full lives without vaccinations and have been doing so for years.
If you want one, great, to each their own. If you don't want one, then step the fuck back and get your fucking finger outta my pie!
Which is why religious texts are not reliable sources of information on any point whatsoever.I could cite a guy who is citing a guy who is citing a guy who is talking out his ass.
Point.... you would have to be there and you would have to do the research your self, first hand. Everything else is hear say.
We're talking about averages. Saying 'my aunty Mabel never had a single vaccination and lived to 105' is no more evidence against vaccinations than is 'my cousin Barry had a tetanus vaccination at 31 and subsequently died' an argument against them. You have to look at the overall statistics to see what's going in in the general population.People do and can live long full lives without vaccinations and have been doing so for years.
Ironically, you've just provided a really good analogy for herd immunity; if you're not vaccinated, you're a threat to my wellbeing.If you want one, great, to each their own. If you don't want one, then step the fuck back and get your fucking finger outta my pie!
That's not how vaccines work at all, though. Vaccines don't provide medicine against a virus, they provide a weakened virus to allow your immune system to adapt to the virus and be more effective against an actual virus when it comes.If I were faced with a life threatening virus, and I knew for sure I needed a vaccine or I was going to die, then sure I would take one!
What I am arguing against is the whole "call the ambulance before I hurt my self mentality", and I guess also, quoting web sites as if that is any different than quoting a scripture that was being misused by a dishonest high priest.
Anyhow, if you can't keep up, I guess I'll admit "defeat" according to your terms and definition.
Do you realise that these statements are contradictory? Preparing your body for possible exposure to an infectious agent seems to be what you are arguing against, yet you state that you would do it. Are you simply being argumentative for the sake of it?If I were faced with a life threatening virus, and I knew for sure I needed a vaccine or I was going to die, then sure I would take one!
What I am arguing against is the whole "call the ambulance before I hurt my self mentality"
NO, they are NOT the same thing. What has been quoted is evidence substantiated by references which are subject to peer review. What is 'scripture' subject to? How do we substantiate or refute the claims made therein?quoting web sites as if that is any different than quoting a scripture that was being misused by a dishonest high priest.
Ahh, low-level insults and a phoney concession. A common get-out clause in this kind of situation.Anyhow, if you can't keep up, I guess I'll admit "defeat" according to your terms and definition.