Vaccination & epidemic

[jinx]

Yeah the how-to-be-happier in life advice really cracked me up. I guess in that way, it worked...

There was an excellent article in Money magazine about vaccines years ago... maybe 10 years ago? I'll try to find it when I have time later.

[jinx]

Here it is. Just some history, for those that are interested.

Halsey's view is shared by many doctors. Says Geier: "The fact that a lot of pediatricians think whole-cell pertussis vaccine doesn't cause brain damage shows what a lot of money can do. Drug companies have paid a lot of money to people like James Cherry to put forth that image."



Cherry, a physician and professor of pediatrics at the University of California at Los Angeles, is a widely recognized pertussis expert who has been a leader on advisory committees that help frame immunization policy for the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Centers for Disease Control. Back in 1979, at a symposium, he said, "All physicians are aware that pertussis vaccine occasionally produces severe reactions and that these may be associated with permanent sequellae [complications caused by the vaccine] or even death." But by 1990, Cherry had changed his mind, proclaiming in the Journal of the American Medical Association that severe brain damage caused by pertussis vaccine was nothing but "a myth." From 1980 through 1988, Cherry got about $400,000 in unrestricted grants that he termed "gifts" from Lederle. From 1988 through 1993, he was given $146,000 by Lederle for pertussis research, and from 1986 through 1992, UCLA received $654,418 from Lederle for pertussis research. Additionally, drug manufacturers paid Cherry and UCLA $34,058 for his testimony as an expert witness in 15 DPT lawsuits brought against the companies.

[Undertoad]

Fine, I was being nice, let's try it this way.

Does your entire argument rest on these kinds of hypotheticals? Because that automatically shoots all kinds of holes in your thinking. Can you see how we can pretty much say "what if" followed by *anything* and make up an argument out of thin air? Can you see how, because of this, the words "what if" can never be used to form a logical, provable argument? Here, let me try:

WHAT IF the government created vaccines as a way to actually encourage disease, to make us all dependent on them in a sort of mass hysteria play? WHAT IF the Cellar is a tool to help get the right word out on it? WHAT IF Undertoad is a ploy in that game to try to rescue a situation that's failing rapidly? WHAT IF the government created polio as a way to further that scenario? WHAT IF the secret is on its way out and this is a last chance opportunity to keep it hidden? WHAT IF the CDC was created as a way to make people think the right information is in good hands? WHAT IF each new head of the CDC is indoctrinated in the right way? WHAT IF one of them decided not to go with the program and was assassinated? WHAT IF the rest of the CDC fell in line thinking they might be next? WHAT IF medicine is semi-aware of the problem and hospitals are part of a program to hide vaccine-related deaths? WHAT IF vaccine-related deaths are three times as common as we think? WHAT IF AIDS is part of the plot that kind of got away from them when they couldn't figure out a vaccine-based fix for it?

Naturally, we could go on all day with this kind of shit. And it wouldn't prove ANYTHING. If we wanted to address the above paragraph, we would have to address each What If entirely and provide proof that each What If was not true. But nobody can do that, because it's hard to impossible to prove the truth or falsehood of a hypothetical. And any hypothetical that's resolved can simply be replaced with another hypothethical. ("Of course the CDC wasn't created to make people think the information is in the right hands. But WHAT IF it evolved to that mission -- and nobody outside the government figured it out?")

And when you come to believe the hypotheticals, you are in effect creating your own truth out of thin air. When you do that, you become a little DUMBER EACH TIME. It's FAULTY THINKING. OK, OK, don't stop doing it because you'll be HAPPIER. Do it because you'll be SMARTER, and less worried about STUPID LITTLE CONCERNS that can keep you engaged in fighting shadows your whole life.

Better?

OR: let's try it another way. Your argument is But WHAT IF they aren't as safe as the government thought way back when there were only 3 or 4 of them commonly used?

My counter-argument: WHAT IF they're actually safer than they were back then?

Did I just "win"? Or did we just play a little rhetorical game and prove nothing?

[jinx]

Actually, some of them are safer now, but most didn't exist at all. Read the article I linked. Educate yourself.

[Undertoad]

*sigh* entirely not the point.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

*sigh* entirely not the point.

So its ok to "speculate" but saying "what if" requires a silly-long condescending response?
Did you read the article?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Naturally, we could go on all day with this kind of shit. And it wouldn't prove ANYTHING. If we wanted to address the above paragraph, we would have to address each What If entirely and provide proof that each What If was not true. But nobody can do that, because it's hard to impossible to prove the truth or falsehood of a hypothetical.

It's not "hard to impossible" to prove a hypothetical. It's called science, except they prefer the word hypothesis. But you actually have to do the studies, before you can get to that point. All they'd have to do is a large-scale study with vaccinated and unvaccinated controls. But they won't. Their claim is that it would be unethical, to not give vaccinations to babies in the interest of a clear and defined study, because they are certain the vaccinations are good and not bad. When it's pointed out that there are already tens of thousands of people voluntarily not vaccinating, and they could use them for the study... they just continue to say it wouldn't be ethical. That's the only response they've ever given.

They could test the hypothesis, and add to the body of science. They refuse. Why?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's not "hard to impossible" to prove a hypothetical. It's called science, except they prefer the word hypothesis. But you actually have to do the studies, before you can get to that point.

Precisely; and it's up to the writer of the hypothetical to show proof, otherwise, the hypothetical alone is not proof of anything.

[Clodfobble]

Right. At which point, it's just a question of money.

Who funds medical studies?

[lumberjim]

alarmist hippie chicks?

[Undertoad]

Clod, glad you agree that jinx shouldn't argue using hypotheticals.

Who funds medical studies? I don't know, there are a lot of them, in many nations around the world. Are you talking about the ones that made AIDS no longer a death sentence? The ones that improved cancer survival rates by 20% over the last few decades? The groundbreaking genetics work or the amazing psychiatric findings in the last ten years?

Jinx, CNN/Money is the shittiest financial periodical, and perhaps the shittiest overall periodical I have ever come across. I know it seems a total cop-out, but I have no interest in pawing through one of their turds in order to find the wisdom nuggets in it. Just tell me what they said.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Jinx, CNN/Money is the shittiest financial periodical, and perhaps the shittiest overall periodical I have ever come across. I know it seems a total cop-out, but I have no interest in pawing through one of their turds in order to find the wisdom nuggets in it. Just tell me what they said.

Um, no.
I went looking for that 12 year old article in response to you saying

Any amount of money in it now can't inform the conspiracy theory of five years ago.

and also in response to you telling me a few month ago that you were interested in the vaccine controversy... that you had been meaning to look into it for a while actually.

If you don't want to read the article that's fine. I don't really want to read any more of your posts that are all about how intelligent and logical you are. I want to talk about vaccines.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by jinx

I want to talk about vaccines with people who agree with me.

FTFY.

[jinx]

You know that's not true, you're just being bratty.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Clod, glad you agree that jinx shouldn't argue using hypotheticals.

You're letting your anger make you petty, man. Everything I've said so far supports coming up with hypotheticals and then being allowed to test them.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Who funds medical studies? I don't know, there are a lot of them, in many nations around the world. Are you talking about the ones that made AIDS no longer a death sentence? The ones that improved cancer survival rates by 20% over the last few decades? The groundbreaking genetics work or the amazing psychiatric findings in the last ten years?

Really? You want to go back to the whole "the medical field is a sainted profession that can do no wrong" stance? Obviously some scientists can, have, and will continue to do some great things. It helps when there's money in a cure, as all those medical problems above require treatment and medicines to be corrected. There's no money in it if the cure is to stop doing something.

Of course, as you're so fond of pointing out, the truth always does come out eventually, especially if the problem is a growing one. What is your opinion of the recent study that I linked earlier in the thread, demonstrating that the Hepatitis B vaccination given at birth categorically caused developmental delays in newborn monkeys?