Vaccinations thread.

[Scaff]

I didn't even bother looking at the name of the website before. I just assumed they were pulling garbage out of their ass, now I realise that they were doing it with a creationist agenda, which makes it even funnier.

It does highlight the danger of just searching and posting based on a strap line and not looking beyond the surface.

That site is one I know of old, from the debates in the Creation vs Evolution thread, and they are well know for using a deliberately missleading URL.

Its operated by the Discovery Institute, a creationist organisation.

 

[x3ra]

Yes of course, I understand that attacking the credibility of a website is easier than disagreeing with what they say, in a logical reasoned argument.

 

[Barra333]

Yes of course, I understand that attacking the credibility of a website is easier than disagreeing with what they say, in a logical reasoned argument.

Doesn't the fact that I didn't notice that it was a website of dubious credibility before I disagreed with what they say stomp on that?

The fact that it is run by creationists, a theory that has been so comprehensively debunked it is a joke, doesn't help its cause though.

 

[Scaff]

Yes of course, I understand that attacking the credibility of a website is easier than disagreeing with what they say, in a logical reasoned argument.

I notice that you have managed to totally ignore the vast majority of what I have posted and simply resorted to an ad-hominem post.

If you want to see vast amounts of post of me (and others) using logical, reasoned argument (that is both independently supported and independently verifiable) then head over to the Creation vs Evolution thread and settle in for quite a long read.

I do however take it from that comment that you support the credibility of that website? Given that you cited it as a source and quoted it.

 

[Tornado]

Yes of course, I understand that attacking the credibility of a website is easier than disagreeing with what they say, in a logical reasoned argument.

It's strange that you act like that isn't a valid way to respond to someone posting a source. Can I march into the Immigration thread and start arguing with people with a bunch of information that I got from Stormfront?

 

[Pupik]

Yes of course, I understand that attacking the credibility of a website is easier than disagreeing with what they say, in a logical reasoned argument.

If we accepted everything as truth, we would have made you a moderator by now.

I think your anti-vax ploy has lasted long enough. Just promise us (you can swear by the holy text of your choice) that you'll never reproduce, or that you're scared of needles, and we'll call it even.

 

[x3ra]

Doesn't the fact that I didn't notice that it was a website of dubious credibility before I disagreed with what they say stomp on that?

The fact that it is run by creationists, a theory that has been so comprehensively debunked it is a joke, doesn't help its cause though.

No, it does call into question your observational skills however. I'd quote you as well, doesn't mean I agree with everything you say.

I notice that you have managed to totally ignore the vast majority of what I have posted and simply resorted to an ad-hominem post.

If you want to see vast amounts of post of me (and others) using logical, reasoned argument (that is both independently supported and independently verifiable) then head over to the Creation vs Evolution thread and settle in for quite a long read.

I do however take it from that comment that you support the credibility of that website? Given that you cited it as a source and quoted it.

Firstly if I wanted to discuss creationism - evolution I would be in that thread. But I don't, so I won't.What particular aspect of my post can be construed as ad-hominem? So if I don't agree with a website about a certain issue, then I'm not allowed to use it as a source. I think not. If I think you are a jerk, does that mean that everything you say is balderdash. No. Does it mean that if you tell me the world is round, then do I take it that it is not. No.

Scaff pointed out earlier in the thread that "toxins" was not the correct word to use, which I agreed with. Anti-vax is a loaded term also. I'm not.

I'm looking at the mercury etc stuff and will pen a reply when I am ready.

How does this page grab you ?

Do I need to check the whole website to see if I agree with it, so that I can post this? Because if it does then , if I change my mind, I couldn't use it. How the hell does that work?

Are any of you seeing the logic here?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Is this okay? Do I need your approval?

Is the link between the two tables legitimate? The rates for infant death are higher for those countries, which give more vaccinations.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/who-accusations-misconduct/

 

[Scaff]

Firstly if I wanted to discuss creationism - evolution I would be in that thread. But I don't, so I won't.

You could however answer my question about you supporting the credibility of the site, you did after all consider it a valid enough source to both cite from and directly quote.

You see you don't get to moan about me questioning it, you opened the door to that when you used it as a source.

What particular aspect of my post can be construed as ad-hominem?

Was your post aimed at me or at a point I made?

I will answer that one for you, it was aimed at me.

Its further compounded by the fact that I did detail why it was wrong, something you chose to completely ignore.

So if I don't agree with a website about a certain issue, then I'm not allowed to use it as a source. I think not. If I think you are a jerk, does that mean that everything you say is balderdash. No. Does it mean that if you tell me the world is round, then do I take it that it is not. No.

I didn't say you couldn't use it as a source. What I asked was if you supported the site as a credible source (a question I have now asked three times).

I also clearly addressed why that quote (and the large section it was taken from) is both absurd and wrong, points I notice that you have ignored. What has also been explained to you, by numerous people, is that the peer review process has a huge number of checks and balances in it and itself is constantly being scrutinized, reviewed and improved.

What you (and your source of Creationists) effectively say is that unless its 100% perfect then it should be replaced. Replaced with a system based on people being able to claim anything they want as fact, with no process for review or publication of method, controls, results, etc.

Scaff pointed out earlier in the thread that "toxins" was not the correct word to use, which I agreed with. Anti-vax is a loaded term also. I'm not.

A loaded term is not the same as the outright misuse of two words (don't forget chemicals) in a manner designed to mislead. What term would you prefer? Pro-Virus? (that's sarcasm - just in case)

As your posts to date carry all the hallmarks of one who is against vaccinations, even the sources you use to support your position are well know as being very, very, very strongly anti vaccination.

I'm looking at the mercury etc stuff and will pen a reply when I am ready.

I look forward to seeing it, don't forget those peer-reviewed citations from reputable sources, after all you now have more than enough information to both know what that means and to check that a source is reputable.

 

[Barra333]

No, it does call into question your observational skills however. I'd quote you as well, doesn't mean I agree with everything you say.

- You complained that we were attacking the website, not the content
- I said that I didn't even take the website into account when disagreeing with the content
- You say I should have looked at the source before disagreeing with it

Do you not see a problem with that? Blindly agreeing with something is bad, but I see no problem with being skeptical of something without knowing the source, until the source is verfied as reliable. Turns out I was skeptical of content on a site that is questionable anyway.

 

[Scaff]

How does this page grab you ?

Do I need to check the whole website to see if I agree with it, so that I can post this? Because if it does then , if I change my mind, I couldn't use it. How the hell does that work?

Are any of you seeing the logic here?

Drop the attitude and drop it now. If you can't remain civil then you will not remain here.

Particularly given that I had made it clear that you can use any source you like well before you edited that part into your post (and yes the sites audit history does very clearly show that).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Is this okay? Do I need your approval?

Is the link between the two tables legitimate? The rates for infant death are higher for those countries, which give more vaccinations.

The graphs and the entire paper show a correlation, what they do not show is causality. Now I can show you a correlation between a drop in sea piracy in the Caribbean and the rise of Climate Change, that doesn't mean that declining piracy in the Caribbean is a causal factor in Climate Change.

The paper itself acknowledge its own limitations in that regard (in its conclusion) and states that this is a factor that should be investigated, what its doesn't do (because it doesn't present the data to be able to do so) is claim causality.

Long story short, its doesn't say what you think/want it to say.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/who-accusations-misconduct/

You remember those pay-to-publish journals that you cited an article about, guess what Dr Lee uses to publish his work in.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=25840

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19200157023&tip=sid&clean=0

You have now used as a source one of the very things you were complaining about.

Dr Lee's work is not well researched, was full of control errors and was far from transparent.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/japan-and-hpv-vaccine-debunking-myths/

 

[x3ra]

Drop the attitude and drop it now. If you can't remain civil then you will not remain here.Particularly given that I had made it clear that you can use any source you like well before you edited that part into your post (and yes the sites audit history does very clearly show that).

That's because whilst I was editing, you posted. Not really my fault, it's the way a forum works, as you are probably aware. Since you know that it was only a matter of few minutes whilst I was searching for a link. If I'm wrong then please post the evidence. Is that what tree'd means?

The graphs and the entire paper show a correlation, what they do not show is causality. Now I can show you a correlation between a drop in sea piracy in the Caribbean and the rise of Climate Change, that doesn't mean that declining piracy in the Caribbean is a causal factor in Climate Change.

.
I agree. Almost impossible to prove causality in this case, too many variables. And that's the problem. Difficult to prove causality. Problem for me, but not for you. If that's how you want to play, fine.

The paper itself acknowledge its own limitations in that regard (in its conclusion) and states that this is a factor that should be investigated, what its doesn't do (because it doesn't present the data to be able to do so) is claim causality.

I know. That's why I thought it said would be okay, since it does acknowledge it's limitations.

Long story short, its doesn't say what you think/want it to say.

Nice to read that you think you know what I'm thinking. You reprimanded me for doing that to you earlier. Funny.

You remember those pay-to-publish journals that you cited an article about, guess what Dr Lee uses to publish his work in.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=25840

http://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch.php?q=19200157023&tip=sid&clean=0

You have now used as a source one of the very things you were complaining about.

Dr Lee's work is not well researched, was full of control errors and was far from transparent.

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/japan-and-hpv-vaccine-debunking-myths/

But you think that's okay. Nice to see that your standards of proof are so much higher than the Japanese government.

This link is for everyone who thinks that skepticalraptor is an authority. He's not, he's as guilty as anyone of lies by omission, and half-truths. http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2...s-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/


Mum says it's time to go to bed, so here's your ball.

If there's anyone of sane mind still in this thread. See if you can see the similarities between this thread and this link http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/03/...ory-suppresses-the-vaccine-safety-debate.html

And yes I know it is from an autism website, but if it was on a pro-vaccine website would the words be any different.

 

[TenEightyOne]

If there's anyone of sane mind still in this thread. See if you can see the similarities between this thread and this link http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/03/...ory-suppresses-the-vaccine-safety-debate.html

And yes I know it is from an autism website, but if it was on a pro-vaccine website would the words be any different.

Did you read your own source this time? Maybe not... here's the site admin's disclaimer at the base of the article;

The vaccine-autism link has been debunked by many careful studies, and here at Daily Kos we consider it conspiracy theory.

CT postings are not permitted here. Postings that advocate this theory can get you banned at Daily Kos.

 

[Scaff]

I agree. Almost impossible to prove causality in this case, too many variables. And that's the problem. Difficult to prove causality. Problem for me, but not for you. If that's how you want to play, fine.

Want to play what?

I know. That's why I thought it said would be okay, since it does acknowledge it's limitations.

Nice to read that you think you know what I'm thinking. You reprimanded me for doing that to you earlier. Funny.

You posted it with no context and no explanation as to why you posted it. As such anyone reading it had no choice but to make an inference as to why you posted it and what you expectations of it were.

On the other side of things you posted as if I had actually commented on a subject, a subject that I had never discussed with you at all.

But you think that's okay. Nice to see that your standards of proof are so much higher than the Japanese government.

No I didn't say that was OK at all, and I also provided you with a link to an independent source that allow you to vet the quality of journals.

And yes I'm quite happy that my standards of proof are much higher than the Japanese governments, but given that that are out of step with every other (quality) paper on the subject and never banned anything of the back of the paper you cited its not that different.

This link is for everyone who thinks that skepticalraptor is an authority. He's not, he's as guilty as anyone of lies by omission, and half-truths. http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2...s-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2...s-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/
So an article that provides no sources for its claims and is basically complaining that people on the internet disagree with them is telling us what?

Well a few things indicate that they are less than honest for a start. What appear to be footnote links to sources at the end of quotes are nothing of the sort, linking only to the site itself (using yourself as a source is never good), they then also quote mine a section from the Skeptical Raptors blog which shows him to be someone who has only ever worked in marketing and sales. They provide no link to be able to check that yourself.

However if you do you find that they missed off rather a relevant bit of info...

"I have an undergraduate degree in Biology from a top US research university, and a graduate degree in Biochemistry/Endocrinology from a major US research university. I did my post-graduate work in a multi-national pharmaceutical company."
Source: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/about/

....that is about as dishonest as you can get. Would you like me to pick the rest of it apart?

Mum says it's time to go to bed, so here's your ball.

What?

If there's anyone of sane mind still in this thread. See if you can see the similarities between this thread and this link http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/03/...ory-suppresses-the-vaccine-safety-debate.html

And yes I know it is from an autism website, but if it was on a pro-vaccine website would the words be any different.

Its not from an autism website, its from an anti-vax website who dress it up as an autism website to try and push the utterly debunked myth that vaccines cause austim.

I first came across them a number of years ago when helping my wife research her final degree paper (which was on autism and how it is managed in education in differing countries).

So aside from it being a very poor source, you appear to be using it to try and claim that this thread and site are censoring you in some way and anyone who can't see that is not sane (your clear inference).

You seem unhappy that you views are challenged here, and more upset that we don't accept sources blindly. This is not an echo chamber of any sort and we will listen to all views (as long as they meet the AUP) but across the site as a whole you will be expected to back up your views and you should expect them to be discussed, debated and challenged (this applies to all members).

Now about that mercury....................

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Its not from an autism website, its from an anti-vax website who dress it up as an autism website to try and push the utterly debunked myth that vaccines cause austim.

It's a favourite tactic among anti-vaccination groups. Until recently, one of our leading anti-vaccination groups was called the Australian Vaccination Network until they were forced to change the name because it was felt that the name was mis-leading. Which it was.

 

[Pupik]

That's because whilst I was editing, you posted. Not really my fault, it's the way a forum works, as you are probably aware. Since you know that it was only a matter of few minutes whilst I was searching for a link. If I'm wrong then please post the evidence. Is that what tree'd means?
.
I agree. Almost impossible to prove causality in this case, too many variables. And that's the problem. Difficult to prove causality. Problem for me, but not for you. If that's how you want to play, fine.

I know. That's why I thought it said would be okay, since it does acknowledge it's limitations.

Nice to read that you think you know what I'm thinking. You reprimanded me for doing that to you earlier. Funny.

But you think that's okay. Nice to see that your standards of proof are so much higher than the Japanese government.

This link is for everyone who thinks that skepticalraptor is an authority. He's not, he's as guilty as anyone of lies by omission, and half-truths. http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2...s-attack-anyone-resisting-vaccine-party-line/


Mum says it's time to go to bed, so here's your ball.

If there's anyone of sane mind still in this thread. See if you can see the similarities between this thread and this link http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/03/...ory-suppresses-the-vaccine-safety-debate.html

And yes I know it is from an autism website, but if it was on a pro-vaccine website would the words be any different.

I have read your links, and there is nothing in those articles which brings forth anything scientific; it's all whispers, hearsay, theories, and anecdotal bits of information. What is (possibly) true of one or two individuals, trumped up as a "many people", is vague and misinformed. Using the few to support the whole, and using the fears of something which sounds oppressive, especially without any hard evidence, is what lands an untested pet theory into the realm of conspiracy theory.

The icing on the cake is where you do not trust one government but substitute it for another as a backing for your reasoning.

 

[Joel]

I have read your links, and there is nothing in those articles which brings forth anything scientific; it's all whispers, hearsay, theories, and anecdotal bits of information. What is (possibly) true of one or two individual
s, trumped up as a "many people", is vague and misinformed. Using the few to support the whole, and using the fears of something which sounds oppressive, especially without any hard evidence, is what lands an untested pet theory into the realm of conspiracy theory.

That's what they want you to think!

 

[x3ra]

Did you read your own source this time? Maybe not... here's the site admin's disclaimer at the base of the article;

That's not the websites disclaimer since the website is ageofautism not the dailykos. And I quote
---------------------------------------------------------
All this is preamble to what I now wish to briefly note. A regular and astute commenter on AOA, Twyla, forwarded me a note she got last week from The Daily Kos, the progressive site with quite a large readership. I guess her intended comment triggered some algorithm or alert intern. She got this in red type:

A message has been issued from site admin at Tue Feb 03 2015 10:25:09 GMT-0800 (PST):

The vaccine-autism link has been debunked by many careful studies, and here at Daily Kos we consider it conspiracy theory.

CT postings are not permitted here. Postings that advocate this theory can get you banned at Daily Kos.

[box to check] I acknowledge receipt of this message: (Posting is not allowed until the message is acknowledged.)

Well, bloody hell! I know Twyla and she is no conspiracy theorist any more than I am. Yet reasonable debate with people like us is being cut off before it can get anywhere and called a “conspiracy theory.

"Progressives ought to be able to make this distinction, to tease out the fundamental public good [of a reasonable vaccine policy] from an inadvertent and ongoing disaster and the long failure to confront and fix it. If for no other reason, they should do this because when public action fails due to mismanagement, it plays into the idea that the public sector can’t run anything as well as private business, and the progressive movement inadvertently validates the conservative critique. Instead, public health officials are now trying ever harder to stifle the debate, preserve the status quo and their own careers and credibility; in doing so, they betray not only the children they are charged with protecting, but the progressive values that led to mass vaccination in the first place."

The Daily Kos blogger, “Critical Dune,” wrote:

"Dan Olmsted, Editor of the blog "Age of Autism" and former wire service reporter, offers up an interesting (and pretty thoughtful) analysis, pointing out what he thinks is a blind spot for many on the left: the issue of questioning current vaccine policy, especially as it relates to possible links with autism." (See here.)

Dune added: "Wherever you stand on this issue, or if you firmly think it's a non-issue, Olmsted points out some troubling behavior in the public health complex that should concern progressives." Dune continued:

"As a progressive, I strongly believe in public health initiatives all over the world to aggressively fight disease but think that a robust system of checks and balances is not what it ought to be in the United States. It worries me greatly that for some definable, and perhaps not so small, subset of kids with immune system vulnerabilites (like Hannah Poling and others), it's plausible that some components or timing of the recommended immunization schedule may be doing more harm than good."

Come on, Dune, that’s conspiracy theory stuff! You are hereby banned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End of quote


I am willing to accept that the levels of chemicals/list of ingredients included in most vaccines are not of a sufficient level for them to be poisonous.

I am not willing however to bow down to the efficacy of the herd-immunity. I understand the mathematics of the herd and that makes sense. But it's not about mathematics in the real world. What if getting a measles vaccine caused you 10 years down the line to get some other illness. How the hell do you prove causality?

You've already shown me how difficult that one is.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That's not the websites disclaimer since the website is ageofautism not the dailykos. And I quote

Fair enough - it looked like a facelift blog hosted by another organisation, I see now that the author of the article you linked runs and owns the domain.

That doesn't alter the fact that there has been zero credible research linking autism and vaccination. There has been a rise in the number of diagnosed autism cases due to the re-definition of autistic spectra, that's definitely true.

It is also definitely true that no research has backed up any causal link to more children being born with 'altered' conditions. Fact.

 

[Scaff]

I am willing to accept that the levels of chemicals/list of ingredients included in most vaccines are not of a sufficient level for them to be poisonous.

Most vaccines?

Are you able to provide details of those that are then poisonous?

I am not willing however to bow down to the efficacy of the herd-immunity. I understand the mathematics of the herd and that makes sense. But it's not about mathematics in the real world.

Well actually it is, that's why smallpox no longer exists and we are close to doing the same with Polio.

So yes it is about (among other things) the maths of herd immunity in the real world.

What if getting a measles vaccine caused you 10 years down the line to get some other illness. How the hell do you prove causality?

By repeated analysis and study, which most certainly does happen. A good number of examples of causality over the long term exist, such as smoking with lung cancer, lead poisoning from petrol (and other sources). Is it more difficult? Yes. Does that make it impossible? No.

However the ingredients in Vaccines are well know as are the short and long term affects of them, how the are processed by the body, as such models can be built that will give a picture of what may or may not happen. Is it perfect 100% of the time? Of course not, but its also rigorously controlled and monitored (as is all licensed medicine).

However I take it from this approach that you live in a hermetically sealed bubble and eat no food? After all that same logic can be applied to well, everything!

On that subject, given that you seem not to trust vaccines because you are unsure of if they could have long term affects, what do you use in terms of medicine?

You've already shown me how difficult that one is.

Difficult, yes. Impossible, No.

 

[huskeR32]

I am not willing however to bow down to the efficacy of the herd-immunity.

This language right here is pretty telling. Herd immunity isn't some crackpot demand that you need to "bow down" to; it's a scientifically-established fact that you should account for if you want to be taken seriously in a conversation about vaccines.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Progressives ought to be able to make this distinction, to tease out the fundamental public good [of a reasonable vaccine policy] from an inadvertent and ongoing disaster and the long failure to confront and fix it.

I take issue with this statement, because anti-vaccination is not a progressive idea. People - like myself - who describe themselves as progressive look to advance society through bringing about changes to concepts and institutions that they believe to be outdated or out of step with society's understanding of itself. This statement attempts to lump anti-vaccination in with ideas like gay marriage and the rights of people with diverse sexualities - that the failure to recognise it as a legitimate concern is a fundamental flaw of society, which is patently untrue. If anything, anti-vaccination is a regressive idea, one that threatens the stability of society by bringing about a net harm. For the person to be making the claim that they represent the progressive views of society is as deliberate a misrepresentation of intent as an anti-vaccination lobby group positioning itself as the Australian Vaccination Network.

 

[x3ra]

@prisonermonkeys - depends on your definition of progressive. Progressives tend to see themselves as people who believe in reform, in changing society for the better, as opposed to conservatives, who they believe want to keep things the same or even turn the clock back - could be one definition. By this definition he is a progressive. Maintaining the consensus/status quo is not progressive. But I suppose it depends on the definition you use, and depends how far you want to go down the thread-derailment route. It's not important in my view what he thinks he is, or what you think you are, or what I think I am.

@Scaff How can you tell whether something is peer-reviewed?

 

[Scaff]

@prisonermonkeys - depends on your definition of progressive. Progressives tend to see themselves as people who believe in reform, in changing society for the better, as opposed to conservatives, who they believe want to keep things the same or even turn the clock back - could be one definition. By this definition he is a progressive. Maintaining the consensus/status quo is not progressive. But I suppose it depends on the definition you use, and depends how far you want to go down the thread-derailment route. It's not important in my view what he thinks he is, or what you think you are, or what I think I am.

Debatable, however your context on this...

"Progressives ought to be able to make this distinction, to tease out the fundamental public good [of a reasonable vaccine policy] from an inadvertent and ongoing disaster and the long failure to confront and fix it."

....is based on an unproved claim that the current vaccine schedule (which is reviewed and changed when required - so is already progressive) is (and I quote you) a 'disaster' that any attempt to 'fix it' has been a 'failure'.

Remarkably bold claims to make with out evidence to support it!

@Scaff How can you tell whether something is peer-reviewed?

First material has to be able to be peer reviewed, for that to occur every part of the process being presented has to be detailed, explained and utterly transparent (from hypothesis to results and conclusion). The further away from that it is, the less credible it is, if it can't be tested independently it can't be peer reviewed and is worthless (which includes everything that Natural News claim to have carried out, give that they fail at every step in that regard).

With credible journals (which I have provided a tool for you to check on) they will not just publish a paper (unlike the pay to publish journals) but will have a body of peers who will review the paper to ensure it meets all of the standards laid out above. If it doesn't it will be rejected and the author(s) given an opportunity to review it and represent it if they wish. Once its meets these standards it then gets reviewed by a collected body of experts in that field, who will test the results and check for errors, mistakes, fraud, etc. Only once these have been met (and for pay to publish sites these steps are not rigorous and are little more than a tick box exercise) can a paper get published.

Even this is not the end of the process, as at this stage anyone who wants to can then take the paper and test it themselves, allowing for an ongoing process of review.

Now the above is also a process that is constantly under review and refinement, and while not 100%, it is the single best tool for the job.

In regard to knowing if a paper has been well peer reviewed, well that goes down to the journal its published in, and how credible that is. Hence the reason why I provided you a link to the site that independently monitors and ranks them. Pay to publish journals will almost never score well (as they have a business model to shortcut the process), and always keep in mind that even well established and credible Journals will get it wrong from time to time. However when they do they will publicly state that and withdraw the paper and this will also have an impact on the journals ranking.

Its also important to note that how papers get presented in the media is very often not even close to what has actually happend or what the paper says. Something that is of great frustration to the scientific community.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Maintaining the consensus/status quo is not progressive.

It is when the alternative is a giant leap backwards. Progressives don't believe in change for the sake of change. Progressives believe in improving on what already exists; if that calls for radical change, then radical change it is; if it's a few minor adjustments, then we'll make a few minor adjustments. But if the system already works as well as it can and no change is necessary, then progressives aren't going to tinker with it. Vaccination is one of those things where no change is necessary, and the refusal to try and change it doesn't make someone conservative.

 

[Dennisch]

This is truly one of those issues I cannot wrap my mind around.

How the hell can someone question and oppose the workings of vaccinations?

 

[BobK]

This is truly one of those issues I cannot wrap my mind around.

How the hell can someone question and oppose the workings of vaccinations?

Questioning is fine, but normal due diligence should ease any concerns.

 

[Carbonox]

This is truly one of those issues I cannot wrap my mind around.

How the hell can someone question and oppose the workings of vaccinations?

Well, apparently a little tiny number of kids have been "injured" by vaccines, though it's still unsure what that exactly means and where the proof is supposed to be.

And of course, there was that non-scientist several years ago linking them to autism with some flawed logic. It appeals surprisingly well to idiotic crowds of concerned parents, though. Especially when they get to circlejerk about the danger of vaccines together without any arguments to the contrary.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is truly one of those issues I cannot wrap my mind around.

How the hell can someone question and oppose the workings of vaccinations?

Not everyone is smart enough to understand or decipher the information around vaccination. It's not a requirement of society to be smart quite yet. In fact, if you are so dim that you can't hold a job we'll pay you to sit at home in most cases.

Do you question and support/oppose the withdrawl of government benefits if you refuse to have your child injected with a vaccine? Which vaccines should be a part of this, "If you don't inject your child or yourself you no longer qualify for this government benefit" style of "progressive" government? How about the flu vaccine? Not completely effective, have to take it every year, but there is no doubt that threatening the withdrawl of benefits as a way of coercing people into taking it would save lives, probably dozens or hundreds. Many hospitals now make flu shots mandatory and the penalty is termination so why not apply this principle to flu shots as well? How many lives were lost in Australia over the last 10-15 years by a handful of people not being vaccinated against measles and how many lives would have been saved with forcing people to submit to flu shots over that same period?

 

[Dennisch]

Do you question and support/oppose the withdrawl of government benefits if you refuse to have your child injected with a vaccine?

Read the first post of the thread. I also prefer that non vaccinated people need to tell that they don't take vaccinations when applying for schools, jobs, etc.

Which vaccines should be a part of this, "If you don't inject your child or yourself you no longer qualify for this government benefit" style of "progressive" government?

Diseases that the WHO or any other medical institute calls for, probably will be different per region.

How about the flu vaccine? Not completely effective, have to take it every year, but there is no doubt that threatening the withdrawl of benefits as a way of coercing people into taking it would save lives, probably dozens or hundreds.

Since the flu shots change every year, and as it turns out this year's flu shot aren't effective at all here in the Netherlands, the flu is one of those diseases that will stay a hot topic for awhile.

How many lives were lost in Australia over the last 10-15 years by a handful of people not being vaccinated against measles and how many lives would have been saved with forcing people to submit to flu shots over that same period?

It always starts with a handful of people. If you don't nip it in the butt while it's still small and manageable it can turn out to one big ugly monster.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

How the hell can someone question and oppose the workings of vaccinations?

My guess is over-parenting. They're convinced that they need to make informed decisions about every aspect of their child's life in the name of good, responsible parenting, stumble upon the quackery opposing vaccinations and convince themselves of its merits even when most of them probably don't understand science beyond what they covered in high school. They'll justify the decision as being unwilling to take what they consider to be an unacceptable risk to them child's wellbeing when they don't understand the risks associated with or potential consequences of their decision. It's killing with kindness.

In Australia, the two areas with the highest rates of unvaccinated children are around Vaucluse and Murwillumbah. Vaucluse is an extremely affluent area in Sydney's eastern suburbs, and is the kind of place where people won't vaccinate because they're convinced that they're the smartest, most well-informed and best-educated in the city (unaware of the tautology of that sentence). Murwillumbah, on the other hand, is in the north-east of New South Wales and is associated with alternative lifestyles; there's a lot of New Age spirituality and the wider area is associated with heavy cannabis use. So if they're not vaccinating, it's because they'll see vaccinations as being a vehicle for mainstream subjugation or some such.