rigorousintuition.ca

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:13 am wrote: Should we make marijuana legally mandatory for everyone?

Yes.

brainpanhandler » 04 Aug 2015 15:32 wrote:

Sounder » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:57 pm wrote:
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/for ... d-for.html

Monday, August 3, 2015
Former Merck Employee Targeted for Harassment, Intimidation After Speaking out Against Forced Vaccinations
By Melissa Dykes

...

People want to know, just for example, why it is that we have the most aggressive vaccination schedule in the developed world but also the highest rate of infant mortality?

...

I assume what she meant to say was, "People want to know, just for example, why it is that we have the most aggressive vaccination schedule in the developed world but also the highest rate of infant mortality in the developed world?"

The reasons have to do with the differences in the way countries define and count live births and also the disparity between the way the well off and the poor in the United States have access to good health care relative to other developed countries. If a more aggressive vaccination schedule has anything to do with it, it is probably little to nothing in comparison to those two factors.

Regardless, the problem and our proposed solution is indicative of the unique US approach to medicine. Do we try to handle our health problems by trying to provide our citizens with better nutrition, healthier agriculture, less exposure to radiation and other pollution, free disease preventative programs and better access to doctors and dentists? Not a chance. Instead, we mandate dozens of extra vaccines, spike our drinking water with unfilterable fluoride, blanket our mass media with advertisements for unnecessary drugs, and make sure there is plenty of iodine in our salt. Do we make healthcare a right and provide universal coverage? Not a chance. Instead we criminalize those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers.

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 12:29 am wrote:

brainpanhandler » 02 Jul 2015 20:32 wrote:

slomo » Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:46 pm wrote:Yeah, the problem is population vs. individual medicine. At a population level, I am willing to concede that vaccines are generally safe and effective. However, there are always subpopulations that will experience adverse events or nonresponse or both. The crude instrument of the law cannot address the nuance involved in determining these subpopulations and making exceptions for them. Thus, patient autonomy is key in all medications, including vaccines.

How then do you answer the question of whether children can attend public school without being vaccinated? Is there some limit on the medical autonomy of individuals when they pose a health risk to other individuals? The laws requiring vaccinations in order to attend public schools do not compel vaccination. Nor do they criminalize those who choose not to vaccinate. They simply provide an incentive to vaccinate. If you want your children to be able to attend public school they must be vaccinated.

http://www.publichealthlaw.net/Research/PDF/vaccine.pdf

What about quarantine and isolation laws?

http://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/aboutlaws ... ation.html

Show that the vaccines are safe.

What would prove their safety? Should there be zero adverse reactions/health complications/deaths to be certified "safe". Seat belts cause injury.

Prove that they are effective.

I doubt any proof would suffice.

Clearly demonstrate that the benefit of each recommended vaccine outweighs its costs and risks.

For everyone that takes it?

If you do this, the herd will come to you.

Some portion of the "herd" will not under any circumstances, but the benefits of vaccinations do not require that every last man, woman and child be vaccinated. So a certain percentage can opt out without any significant harm to the population as a whole.

Public education should be a right. This right should not be contingent on injecting your child with anything and everything Big Pharma lobbyists demand

You must be running out of straw by now.

, whether or not its benefits have been shown to outweigh its costs and risks.

What do you consider acceptable costs and risks?

The last time I got the flu, it was because a housemate who got the flu vaccine got himself and all of rest of us sick. Why is the health risk posed to ourselves and others from vaccination just dandy, while the supposed health risk posed to others from not getting vaccinated simply assumed to be horrendous enough for demotion to the untouchable caste?

Ok. Surely you really must be out of straw.

brainpanhandler » 04 Aug 2015 15:43 wrote:

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:29 am wrote:Why does correlation <> causation only apply to vaccine injuries?

Who said it did?

In fact correlation never equals causation. To prove causation requires different kinds of evidence. However, there are different levels of correlation. And when the correlation becomes overwhelming then even in the absence of formal, scientific proof some causative relationship can be provisionally inferred.

You're not really questioning the the disease prevention of vaccines are you?

I'm questioning how much these lower disease rates have to do with vaccines vs. how much they have to do with dozens of other confounding factors.

There are plenty of human afflictions whose mortality rates have been severely lowered over the last 100 years without the magic elixir of vaccination, which by definition to its myriad "scientific" defenders, can never do more harm than good. Why even test a new vaccine to prove that its benefits exceed its costs and risks? Just look at those charts! I mean, sick and malnourished people who lacked adequate medical care actually used to die of diseases and sicknesses other than obesity, diabetes, heart disease, lung disease, stroke, Alzheimer's disease, renal disease, cancer and overmedication! Do you want people to start dying again???

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:28 am wrote:

brainpanhandler » 04 Aug 2015 15:32 wrote:

Sounder » Mon Aug 03, 2015 5:57 pm wrote:
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/08/for ... d-for.html

Monday, August 3, 2015
Former Merck Employee Targeted for Harassment, Intimidation After Speaking out Against Forced Vaccinations
By Melissa Dykes

...

People want to know, just for example, why it is that we have the most aggressive vaccination schedule in the developed world but also the highest rate of infant mortality?

...

I assume what she meant to say was, "People want to know, just for example, why it is that we have the most aggressive vaccination schedule in the developed world but also the highest rate of infant mortality in the developed world?"

The reasons have to do with the differences in the way countries define and count live births and also the disparity between the way the well off and the poor in the United States have access to good health care relative to other developed countries. If a more aggressive vaccination schedule has anything to do with it, it is probably little to nothing in comparison to those two factors.

Regardless, the problem and our proposed solution is indicative of the unique US approach to medicine. Do we try to handle our health problems by trying to provide our citizens with better nutrition, healthier agriculture, less exposure to radiation and other pollution, free disease preventative programs and better access to doctors and dentists?

Yes. Demonstrably so. Are our efforts adequate? No.

Not a chance. Instead, we mandate dozens of extra of vaccines, spike our drinking water with unfilterable fluoride, blanket our mass media with advertisements for unnecessary drugs, and make sure there is plenty of iodine in our salt.

Indeed. And you are right, that sort of approach is indicative of a general medical philosophy that relies too heavily on intrusive reactions to symptoms and not enough emphasis on finding root causes and strengthening the bodies natural defenses.

Do we make healthcare a right and provide universal coverage?

To our shame, no. But why would you want that if the American medical establishment is so corrupt and harmful as you say?

Instead we criminalize those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers.

Let me fix that for you:

Instead we criminalize provide compelling incentives for those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers. parents to get their kids vaccinated.

Two words that apply to the entire vaccination indu$try: herd impunity

What does that even mean?

It means that vaccine manufacturers are shielded from legal liability for any injuries caused by their vaccines.

Let me fix that for you:

Instead we criminalize provide compelling incentives for those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers. parents to get their kids vaccinated.

Compelling incentives? LOL. Name me the last caste in the USA who was denied access to public and private education by law.

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:57 am wrote:

Let me fix that for you:

Instead we criminalize provide compelling incentives for those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers. parents to get their kids vaccinated.

Compelling incentives? LOL. Name me the last caste in the USA who was denied access to public and private education by law.

I can't. I'm not even sure what you're asking.

Forgive my ignorance, but perhaps you could give me an example of when those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers have been criminalized for their failure.

Also, I note you chose to skip the more difficult questions I asked.

brainpanhandler » 04 Aug 2015 17:41 wrote:

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:57 am wrote:

Let me fix that for you:

Instead we criminalize provide compelling incentives for those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers. parents to get their kids vaccinated.

Compelling incentives? LOL. Name me the last caste in the USA who was denied access to public and private education by law.

I can't. I'm not even sure what you're asking..

This is not a difficult or confusing question. Can you name me the last group of individuals who were denied both public and private education by state law in the United States? Convicted felons? Sex offenders? AIDS patients? I think we have to go back all the way back to slaves.

But it's A-OK to deny the right to public and private education to those whose only crime is their legitimate concern about their kids' health and their legitimate suspicion of Big Pharma's dedication to their kids' well-being?

As for the "hard questions" you asked, I am not here to get into a protracted pissing match. Your unanswered "hard questions" basically consist of your repetitively labeling my purposefully hyperbolic rhetoric strawmen. Impressive job of deflection. I concede your nitpicking, just as I concede that denying children the fundamental right to public and private education falls just short of the technical standard for criminalization. However, if the state can deny parents the fundamental right of both public and private education for their children because of their insistence on informed consent, how far a leap is it to criminalize all citizens who resist any lobbyist mandated "medical care"? How far a leap is it to, say, only the allow the "privilege" of driving and using public transportation to those who get their basically useless (but highly profitable) annual shot of anti-flu toxins?

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 1:37 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » 04 Aug 2015 17:41 wrote:

stickdog99 » Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:57 am wrote:

Let me fix that for you:

Instead we criminalize provide compelling incentives for those who do not sufficiently enrich our insurance companies and vaccine manufacturers. parents to get their kids vaccinated.

Compelling incentives? LOL. Name me the last caste in the USA who was denied access to public and private education by law.

I can't. I'm not even sure what you're asking..

This is not a difficult or confusing question, Can you name me the last group of individuals who were denied both public and private education by state law in the United States? Convicted felons? Sex offenders? I think we have to go back all the way back to slaves.

I'm not a legal scholar, but sure.

But it's A-OK to deny the right to public and private education to those whose only crime is their legitimate concern about their kids' health and their legitimate suspicion of Big Pharma's dedication to their kids' well-being?

If you would simply phrase your arguments somewhat less hyperbolically we might find some common ground.

As for the "hard questions" you asked, I am not here to get into a protracted pissing match.

Well quite evidently you were by your blitz of responses to anyone not immediately and fully toeing your line.

Your unanswered "hard questions" basically consist of your repetitively labeling my purposefully hyperbolic rhetoric strawmen. Impressive job of deflection. I concede your nitpicking, just as I concede that denying children the fundamental right to public and private education falls just short of the technical standard for criminalization. However, if the state can deny parents the fundamental right of both public and private education for their children because of their insistence on informed consent, how far a leap is it to criminalize all citizens who resist any lobbyist mandated "medical care"? How far a leap is it to, say, only the allow the "privilege" of driving and using public transportation to those who get their basically useless (but highly profitable) annual shot of anti-flu toxins?

Here are the questions you conveniently skipped:

In response to:

Show that vaccines are safe

I asked:

What would prove their safety? Should there be zero adverse reactions/health complications/deaths to be certified "safe".

In response to:

Clearly demonstrate that the benefit of each recommended vaccine outweighs its costs and risks.

I asked:

For everyone that takes it?

and

What do you consider acceptable costs and risks?

purely rhetorical - Could a case be made that vaccination has contributed significantly to global warming? Nature kept our numbers thinner etc. We sure like fucking with Nature. Playing God is such fun. Until we need actual God-Like powers to undo what we've done. Not so much fun, then.

I do not dispute the fact that historically many vaccines have demonstrated that their benefits almost certainly outweigh their costs and risks for the vast majority of the populace. I simply want to see data demonstrating for each vaccine that adding it to the current regime results in far greater overall benefit to our population than its overall cost and its overall negative effects. I would also like to see extensive research performed on what factors put certain healthy individuals at a much higher than typical risk for vaccine related injuries. Wouldn't you?

I find the idea that all vaccines are necessarily bad for all people as anti-scientific as the idea that all vaccines are necessarily good for all people. Both of these statements are faith, rather than evidence, based.

I notice people who are generally very skeptical of power and authority (and rightfully so) suddenly become apologists for the ruling class with this particular issue, and I think that is because of what it represents, rather than the facts of the issue itself.

If the "science/left vs religion/right" debate was not a permanent backdrop behind this subject, then I suspect people would look at it differently.

IMO the assumption that a medical establishment composed of profit-driven corporations is being motivated by the greatest good of the general public is absurd, and only becomes more absurd with each passing year. It is equivalent to the assumption that politicians are motivated by the greatest good of the general public. It is naive, especially considering that both fields involve a great amount of money and prestige.

I also think many others on this forum would look at the medical and scientific establishments through a more skeptical lens, were it not for the underlying sentiment that acknowledging any wrongdoing or deception from these groups is tantamount to "conceding" to the religious right and their Jesus crusade.

I think that the vast majority of Americans are just braindead about vaccines in the same way that the vast majority of Americans have been braindead about fluoridating our drinking water since Bernays' original PR campaign took hold.

A lot of people like to think of themselves as in the club of the scientifically knowledgeable. Current admission to this club requires reflexive denigration of anyone who dares question the sacrosanct God of Vaccination. The general public is allowed to weigh costs vs. benefits and risks when it comes to other medical treatments and prescriptions. But when it comes to vaccination, any hint that any vaccine could ever have costs and risks that exceed its benefits is met with universally violent derision by the membership guardians of the club of the scientifically knowledgeable. The high priests of science have commanded. "Thou Shall Not Dare Question Vaccination, or Thou Shall Be Lumped in with Jenny McCarthy and All Other False Lords of Destructive Pseudoscience."

Scientists and the self-categorized "scientifically knowledgeable" still pay lip service to the principle of questioning scientific (and corporate) authority, but in the case of any and all vaccination, such questioning is reflexively deemed at least a bridge too far and spat upon, and any pro-vaccination social policies, even totalitarian ones, are universally embraced and defended, even in the face of extreme cognitive dissonance. To do otherwise would be to give solace to the destructive enemy forces of pseudoscience, and we simply cannot brook that.

BrandonD » 04 Aug 2015 16:03 wrote:I notice people who are generally very skeptical of power and authority (and rightfully so) suddenly become apologists for the ruling class with this particular issue, and I think that is because of what it represents, rather than the facts of the issue itself.

If the "science/left vs religion/right" debate was not a permanent backdrop behind this subject, then I suspect people would look at it differently.

IMO the assumption that a medical establishment composed of profit-driven corporations is being motivated by the greatest good of the general public is absurd, and only becomes more absurd with each passing year. It is equivalent to the assumption that politicians are motivated by the greatest good of the general public. It is naive, especially considering that both fields involve a great amount of money and prestige.

I also think many others on this forum would look at the medical and scientific establishments through a more skeptical lens, were it not for the underlying sentiment that acknowledging any wrongdoing or deception from these groups is tantamount to "conceding" to the religious right and their Jesus crusade.

I have noticed this as well, and agree with the analysis.

To repeat a point that has been made often in this thread: the issue isn't whether certain well-established vaccines are safe for most people (this is demonstrably true). It is whether the public health system, in collusion with institutional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry, should be given any legal precedent to mandate, population-wide, any medical procedure, Because given the current system for approving drugs (as well as their frequent off-label uses), it is not a stretch to imagine additional vaccines being added to the mandatory list without adequate testing for either efficacy or general safety. All of this runs counter to established principles of informed consent and autonomy. THAT is the real issue.