Why Don't People Vaccinate?

[SomecallmeBerto]

No need... the pharmas and the government and the doctors and the media have already tagged you.

 

[mashers]

@SomecallmeBerto
I thought that was the Go Compare guy in the thumbnail... If you don't know who he is, consider yourself lucky.

 

[JoostinOnline]

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.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[mashers]

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 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.

My view is that illogical or unsubstantiated arguments should always be challenged. We progress as a society by questioning each other. That is exactly what peer review is for - coming at all findings with a sceptical mindset and attempting to fault others' reasoning. It's only by doing so that we make discoveries, refute out of date information, and posit new theories which drive research. As long as these arguments are somewhat civil and rational I don't see any need to ignore one side or another.

The problem comes where only one side is listening to reason, and the other(s) are simple repeating dogma. That's what we're seeing here. But even if you don't get through to that individual, others will see the reason in what you are saying and the majority will benefit from the reasoned arguments.

 

[XDel]

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.

How 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?

 

[mashers]

How was this data collected,

The references are at the end of the article.

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?

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.

 

[The Catboy]

How 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?

First, sources are in the links provided
Second, that information is not relevant to the topic on hand. You wanted proof and I proved addition proof that matched up with my previous post. You've yet to provide data to back up your previous statement.

 

[XDel]

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.

 

[mashers]

Share links is not science.

Actually providing a citation is a perfectly valid part of the scientific method.

you can not dig up a culture from 500 years ago and see how they fair with vaccinations

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.

the environment would most likely be very much different than the one they were from so the results would not be fair.

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.

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.

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.

 

[XDel]

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!

 

[mashers]

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!

Citation extremely fucking needed.

 

[The Catboy]

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.

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.
I am not even going to bother with your second argument because it's obvious a ploy to distract me.

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!

This isn't relevant nor proof to your previous claims.

 

[XDel]

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 their pie!

 

[The Catboy]

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!

I am going to take this an admittance to defeat because you can't even post a simple rebuttal.

 

[mashers]

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.

Which is why religious texts are not reliable sources of information on any point whatsoever.

People do and can live long full lives without vaccinations and have been doing so for years.

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.

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!

Ironically, you've just provided a really good analogy for herd immunity; if you're not vaccinated, you're a threat to my wellbeing.

 

[Tigran]

I just wonder how people like wheatwad and Xdel would handle type 1 diabetes.

Probably die very painfully from diabetic ketone acidosis.

 

[mashers]

Light relief.

 

[XDel]

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.

 

[astronautlevel]

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.

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.

 

[mashers]

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"

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?

quoting web sites as if that is any different than quoting a scripture that was being misused by a dishonest high priest.

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?

Anyhow, if you can't keep up, I guess I'll admit "defeat" according to your terms and definition.

Ahh, low-level insults and a phoney concession. A common get-out clause in this kind of situation.