Health Quiz Regarding Vaccine Safety

Some here have invoked the phrase "holocaust denier" to anyone who dares question
the safety of any vaccine.

What do you think?

Should the Health Forum allow opposing views on vaccine safety or is it healthier
for only one view to be heard?

But to continue to do so when study after study answers the questions & proves their safety is dangerous & stupid.

:thumbsup:

reason to question the safety of some pharma products that are rushed out to the public
and peddled hard, for big money.

:rofl:

and thanks to the Bush years, its even easier, for whatever the profit making item is.

and a simple web search might have educated you on the difference.

with any number of sane and sensible alternatives missing, in an attempt to force a particular response.

"Push polling", I believe, is the technical term

I'm sure yours will be much better. If you can post comments, you can figure out how
to post polls.

Meanwhile, people are welcome to vote without fear of harassment.

There's always the ignore button.

You may recall my poll from a few months ago in which an OVERWHELMING majority was in favor of the standard vaccine schedule, but the difference is, mine was worded fairly. So while you will get the response you wanted (almost), it will be meaningless.

so sorry that mine upsets you so much.

so mock on, please keep on posting your insults, it keeps the thread bumped up
so more people can take the poll.

http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?PushPolling


I'm quite happy to keep kicking this so more people are exposed to your dishonest techniques.

Of course people have the right to question the safety of some vaccines for some people. Doing so when study after study answers the questions & proves their safety for most people is dangerous & stupid. So is extrapolating "because there are a few instances when they aren't safe" into "they aren't safe for a majority of people.

That also is dangerous and stupid.

and many volunteered.

And for those who don't like the questions - its free to post your own poll.

Or don't vote in this one if you don't like it.

AS IF push-polling was a crime worthy of hanging.

AS IF push-polling doesn't happen EVERY SINGLE DAY on DU.

Harrassment via push-polling? DO please SHARE whatever it is you are smoking. :rofl:

I intended to make a mockery of the word "harassment" because the other poster brought it up first, in an equally ludicrous way. Sorry I didn't use the :sarcasm: tag for the humor-impaired.

The "well why don't you go and do better" response when your poll is pretty obviously slanted to get the responses that you want.

I would say lame, but considering the source, I'll just say par for the course.

:rofl:

Tell us again about how credible the CDC is!

since they ask people to report vaccine related injuries.

Science is about asking questions, and developing new studies, and not letting mocking or
trying ever so hard to belittle people.

That's a major breakthrough for you!

Wonder how much money is involved in the productions of vaccines that can be fearmongered into the public?

The poster to whom you replied is arguing in another thread that the CDC is a credible source. You don't want to undermine her argument do you?

"However, as with any medical procedure, vaccination has some risks as well as substantial, proven benefits. Individuals react differently to vaccines, and there is no way to absolutely predict the reaction of a specific individual to a particular vaccine. Anyone who takes a vaccine should be fully informed about both the benefits and the risks of vaccination. Any questions or concerns should be discussed with a physician or other healthcare provider."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/safety/default.htm

After all that whining you did about the dangers of Gardasil--Even while the CDC said it was Safe, Now you agree with the CDC!

do you think it fools anyone?

Look at the votes.

You have weakened your own voice by accepting far out theories.

Unfortunately,according to many friends and acquantences I have that are employed there, bushco installed a layer of management whose function seems to be to provide cover for the medical industry.
I don't trust anything that comes out of the CDC until I check with my freinds on the veracity of the CDC claims.
Hopefully,Obama will institute a house cleaning there and get rid of the political flunkys and let the Dr's and scientists do their thing without political interference.

She uses the CDC to support her position on vaccine safety, but rejects the CDC on the safety of Gardasil -- because Gardasil deals with pure little girl's private parts.

She wants to have it both ways. The CDC is only right when she agrees with them.

Just one more example of the hypocrisy of conspiracy theorists. They reject any evidence that does not agree with their conspiracy theory.

Here is the quote that got her knickers in a twist.

"Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

It bears very little resemblance to the poll because she wanted to spin it into a push poll.

not this quote "Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

but when people say "it isn't absolutely safe for everyone, therefore it is unsafe for most anyone".

But that's the way some people do business.

Now THAT'S a poll that would be far more enlightening.

"Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

Geeeze, try to keep up.

a baby with Pertussis... a baby that might die.

its about whether people have the right to question some vaccines for some people.

Its about whether we should try to make vaccines as safe as possible for as many people
as possible.

That's a mighty cheap tux you're wearing.

Is it because you don't have any facts or data to back up your claims so you drag out the same old moldy strawmen?

cd's post:




Your version(s) of teh troof:



And your OP based on your strawman :




Get down off that straw, homeless people need it for bedding.

makes up for the negative comments posted here.

and were mocked and ridiculed.

....to lure us over the edge of the flat earth.

While there were certainly people in power who might have clung to the "earth is flat" theory, there was never really any large outpouring of resistance to the notion that the earth was round, either among the scholars or the uneducated.

The notion that there was widespread scoffing at the round earthers is more the stuff of myth than it is reality.

"Many doctors now argue that reporters should treat the antivaccine lobby with the same indifference they do Holocaust deniers, AIDS deniers and those claiming to have proof that NASA faked the Moon landings."

but we ignored it, we shrugged it off just like Obama shrugged off shit thrown at him.

Name calling, labeling, put downs, insults - are the tools of those on the defense of the indefensible.

You have marginalized yourself.

However, some of the opponents of vaccinations don't make things easier for themselves by invoking sites that have links with right-wing conspiracy theorists or Christian-Right fundies. Recently, someone linked to whale.to. I have also seen links to healthtruthrevealed.

As regards your question: I certainly think that the forum should allow opposing views on vaccine safety. However, I think there should be tighter rules about allowing people to accuse pro-vaccine people of being 'shills' or motivated by profit. Personally, I consider access to vaccines to be a basic human right, which should not depend on ability to pay, and I would be quite happy if the Pharma companies had a lot less of a role. But that's because they tend to make medications and vaccines unaffordable to many - not because most medications and vaccines are bad.

that said doctors were beginning to equate skeptics to being holocaust deniers.

Its a good Bush tactic

They did it back in 2000 against John McCain.

Here is the post that your "attacker" assaulted you with:




cd's post was a response to yours:



You might want to quit playing the victim, WYVBC, 'cuz when it comes to hurling snark and insults in this forum, you're a pro.

Here is the quote in context from the NYT:



Replacing science with faith based superstition is a good bush tactic too, do carry on.

that "doctors" were saying this.

But they did not cite any doctors. Perhaps they were talking with Doctors who
are on the Pharma payroll.

Actually, the article did cite many doctors, maybe you missed this one:



Since Dr. Minshew's education and experience couldn't possibly compare to Jenny McCarthy's, I doubt any doctor will be able to convert the pro-infectious-disease cult members.

Seriously, BMUS, have a can of wake-the-fuck-up.

:crazy:

You're right, how can anyone possibly compete with all of that? :D

A quick peruse of the assorted woo-fomercials in here is all it takes to prove you're allowed to proselytize superstition, pseudoscience and paranoia at will in this forum.

If you want to peddle it unchallenged, use your group.

but I guess you didn't get the illiteracy vaccine.

But he was polite about it, so I'm not surprised that went over your head.

More wisdom from this inspiring man:

Big Pharma hates it when people want better and more transparent drug trials,
and when people remember too well when Big Pharma screwed the public over.

There is no single entity called "BIG PHARMA", there is no evil conspiracy to injure and kill patients, and no Snidely Whiplash type villains running things behind the scene.

I hate to ruin your paranoid fantasy, but the pharmaceutical industry does employ scientists who aren't evil and their research has improved and saved countless lives, including mine.

You are not a medical professional, you are not privy to industry secrets, you are not exposing evil scientists, and lastly, you are not special.

In fact, you are the one endangering people by making up shit about science-based medicine and posting it here.

:fistbump:

The plan to take over the world is right on schedule, MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :evilgrin:

still kickin' ass and takin' names, I see :hi:

Sid

without namecalling or belittling.

I don't have to be polite to anti-science and/or religious fundamentalists.

At least I'm not two-faced.

Because the poll is so lame that it was offensive (and should be offensive) to anyone with a modicum of intelligence.

Should the Health Forum allow opposing views on the supposed link between HIV and AIDS or is it healthier
for only one view to be heard?

1) The science is fairly concrete and HIV is the cause of AIDS. Differing opinions on this is unhealthy and dangerous.

2) People should be able to openly question the link between HIV and AIDS" and the compounds they use to treat this "syndrome".

3) People who are concerned about the science behind HIV research are like anti-vaxxers, holocaust denialists, chemtrail theorists, and moon landing conspiratists.


That's probably neither here nor there, but there comes a point where you cross the line that separates healthy skepticism and a crusade.

The former is someone who doesn't cut and paste and cherry pick their way through databases looking for the next big thing they can be outraged about (ie, OMG! Some girl passed out after being given an injection of Gardasil! OMG! There were 7000 (!!!!) adverse reactions reported in VAERS about this or that vaccine! -and we'll just ignore that 6980 of them were common to nearly ANY injections) and looks at the bigger picture in context.

The latter is someone who has completely closed their mind on an issue and has already decided there is a huge conspiracy.

If you can honestly say to yourself, "You know, we claimed z caused y because of x and they removed x from z and yet y keeps happening, that even though I was completely led down the wrong track about x, it still must be z!", you may have moved over into the crusade category.

I saw the same things with the HIV doesn't cause AIDS crowd. In 1987 or so, they had a solid base, but by the time 2000 had rolled around, they had shifted their theory from one thing to another to another and eventually started claiming that the drugs that treat AIDS cause AIDS.

I'm seeing the same thing now in the splintering of the "theories" for why vaccines are bad. Especially since the first and favorite target (Thimerasol) is suffering the fate of calling the antivax side's bluff. So we get "EEK! It's aluminum!" and "It's the combination of several shots in one!" and "it's the order in which they are given" and "it's the magical property of water memory that makes homeopathy work that's contaminating the vaccines in manufacturing" and "It's the frequency of vaccination".

All of that sounds, somewhat plausible on the surface in a way or more likely are dressed up in the trappings of scientific jargon to make it sound plausible. But then again, so does "tertiary syphillis as the cause of immune system failure", or "too much recreational drugs", or "immune reaction to semen", or "breakdown of the mitochondria as result of antiviral therapy" among the splintering I've seen among the AIDS denialist camp.

There is a difference between healthy scientific concern and flat out tinfoil hattery and pseudoscience.

but if you're going to do it, you better be damn sure that your questions are rooted in sound medical research, and not internet woo and celebrity endorsements.

Sid