Search
Not Logged In
0
Your Username:
Your Password:

[ sign up | recover ]

Discussion Forums » General Discussion
DON'T GET A FLU SHOT!
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 19:31
Mary Magdelene
Post Count: 506
One more thing to point out before I go, though, is that she also said it's in relation to a healthy diet. You will find that those who live past the age of 100 have not been vaccinated, and have had healthy exercise routines and diet. When a healthy diet, a good exercise routine are coupled with a lack of vaccination, the chances of living longer are greater than if you ate healthy, exercise often, and got vaccinated. THOSE are the statistics that those organizations/companies don't want people to know about.
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:21
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
Well obviously the vast majority of 100 year olds have not been vaccinated because they were growing up at a time before vaccination programmes! That is by no means evidence that they reached that age because they weren't vaccinated! The number of people surviving to 100 is low (it may even be higher in 100 years time when children who HAVE been vaccinated reach that age!), and probably has far more to do with genetics, diet, etc than to do with vaccinations. More importantly, ask any 100 year old how many childhood friends/siblings they lost to diseases which we wiped out with vaccines, and I bet it'll be MUCH MUCH higher than you saw die during YOUR childhood. Infant mortality rates were far higher 100 years ago than they are now, and this is greatly because of vaccinations!

And life expectancy has a number of factors. Childhood vaccination is only a small one. Factors such as diet, smoking, alcohol, exercise etc are likely far more important.

When a healthy diet, a good exercise routine are coupled with a lack of vaccination, the chances of living longer are greater than if you ate healthy, exercise often, and got vaccinated.

I assume these studies corrected for other variables such as smoking? And they looked at high enough numbers for their results to be statistically significant? Where are these studies then? You obviously have them, so please provide a link or reference? If the evidence is provided I will be interested to read it. It may even change my opinion!
0 likes [|reply]
22 Oct 2009, 06:06
T.A.I
Post Count: 269
Keep in mind dear, that numbers can be manipulated annnnny way you want them too, on both sides of an argument.

I'm currently taking two stats classes, one for math credit and one is a psychological theory class.

It's quite interesting how we can take raw data and make numbers favor one outcome or the other simply by using a few common methods of trimming data or setting things to a curve. ;)
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 19:51
blogger
Post Count: 18
CLEARLY, you are more educated then simple little me, a mother of 6 healthy children. How stupid of me to not submit to what others claim are good for my children and how stupid of me to step outside the box and study for myself, think for myself and not be lead by the nose. Indeed, the stats you are giving us are one's I have already poured over. Let me take a bow to the educated medical professionals here and just continue in my ignorance, and should we meet in public with my (mostly) unvaccinated children then please, by all means cover your mouth and dodge this bullet. I know you must think I am a complete idiot. I would have to say that the feeling is NOT mutual, I just don't think you have looked into the alternative side of things enough to really know what the other options are. I have a GREAT respect for those in the medical field. It would be nice if someone could extend the same courtesy by not referring to another"s comments as stupid, however we live in a society of impolite people. As ignorant and stupid as one might think we are, as I said before, you would 9 times out of 10 enjoy me as person, opinions (butts) and all. My opinion on vaccines stands even more so now (tipping my hat to the posting two up) as I simply cannot deny the feeling that many people are like sheep being led to the poisoned water.
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:31
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
If you have already seen those stats, then why did you claim that countries who do not vaccinate have higher life expectancies, up to 100 years? Those stats clearly show those statements to be untrue. So why say them?

should we meet in public with my (mostly) unvaccinated children then please, by all means cover your mouth and dodge this bullet.

I would have no need to worry if I met your unvaccinated children. Because I am vaccinated. :P

I don't think you're a complete idiot. I just think you've been misinformed. I have tried to explain a few things, presented the facts... and as far as I can see you're just choosing to ignore them, yet you have no argument to provide as to why my information is not valid, nor to justify your decision (without using innacurate, misleading ingredient lists).

I don't think you're stupid, but to suggest that not vaccinating your children is OK because they'll be safe since the other kids are vaccinated IS an ignorant and stupid comment (for the reasons I have already stated, regarding herd immunity). Again, I think this is just due to the false information you have been given though which has led you to believe your kids will be safe because others are vaccinated (this is incorrect).

I may well get along with you as a person. My disagreement with you over this is nothing personal, but I do have big issue with people posting information on a public forum which may scare others into not vaccinating, when that information is clearly incorrect.

I simply cannot deny the feeling that many people are like sheep being led to the poisoned water.

Haha, I was thinking the same about you. Is it being a sheep to look at the facts and the evidence and make an informed decision? I think it's far more sheep-like to make a decision based on scare tactics and lies (and innacurate ingredient lists!).
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 21:12
Chris
Post Count: 1938
A doctor would know what's better for your children than you do.
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:16
Acid Fairy
Post Count: 1849
Two brilliant articles from Wired:

H1N1 Flu Shot: 3 Major Fears Debunked

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All

Personally, I think not vaccinating your kids is selfish.
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:22
Acid Fairy
Post Count: 1849
I also can't believe how distrusting you guys are of government. It must be sad to live in such a way, thinking that everyone is out to get you.
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 21:46
Lauren.
Post Count: 885
Thats exactly what I was thinking!
0 likes [|reply]
22 Oct 2009, 06:08
T.A.I
Post Count: 269
Government distrust is healthy. It means that they have to keep what they do visible to the public in most cases.

However, when it comes to healthcare, there is a specific movement that exists that basically claims that the governments of the world are trying to dumb down and thin out the human population and control them and make some grand new world order yadayadayada.

My mother's into all of it. Makes me wanna vomit sometimes.
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:33
Transit
Post Count: 1096
Ahh I'll sit back and enjoy the ride
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:35
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
But that's so unlike you! Come on jump on in, it's fun in here!
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:39
Transit
Post Count: 1096
I'd rather let certain people dig bigger holes for a while, it makes everything that little bit funnier when they either,;
1. Ignore questions
2. Say something rude to change the topic
3. Run away
4. Leave bloop

Though I've been told to get the flu shot this year as today my doc told me he is almost 100% sure I'm asthmatic, yay what fun!
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:40
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
This is true. You'll note that hardly any of the questions I've asked have been answered. Says it all really. ;)
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:41
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
Oh, and you forgot...

5. Say "this is the last I'll say on this subject" and then follow it with "oh, and one more thing"
0 likes [|reply]
20 Oct 2009, 20:44
Transit
Post Count: 1096
Ahh yes, I did forget that one
0 likes [|reply]
21 Oct 2009, 01:18
blogger
Post Count: 18
Yes, a Dr. might know what is better for my children then I. That having been said, our pediatrician (by no means a homeopathic Dr.) agrees with me. I'm not afraid of the government, I just don't believe that they always have my best interest in mind. What you all call facts I see as slanted information geared to line pocketbooks. Why am I not giving information to back up what I am saying? What would be the point? Just to listen to others tell me it is false information that is slanted (which is indeed what I am telling you your information is)? Why do I have to give you information in regards to the other side? I had to do my own research in regards to pro-vaccination (which was funded by pharmaceuticals, you would be hard pressed to find one that isn't, I tried) do yours on anti-vaccination. Find the research that is not funded by some fanatical group (again, it isn't easy, but can be done).

You aren't going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you. You are going to think I am afraid and I think the same of you. You are going to think I am foolish and I will feel you are not looking for complete information, you are looking in the government books that simply agree with your decision. If I were a sheep I would not have the faith I have, nor would I have so many people lecturing me (not just here but in real life) on something that really isn't their business. The definition of selfish is serving one's self. Having this stance certainly doesn't make life easy, and in my mind it isn't for my own benefit, it is for my children.

Do your own research earn it. Whatever I put up here will be refuted as being "misinformed", bias or just crazy. Clearly you all think we are crazy...Jimmy Crack Corn.....I do not care!
0 likes [|reply]
21 Oct 2009, 02:02
Chris
Post Count: 1938
Er, part of a debate is backing it up with resources or research. Otherwise you're just ranting on about whatever the shit, and it should be in your diary, not a discussion thread.
0 likes [|reply]
21 Oct 2009, 09:59
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
What you all call facts I see as slanted information geared to line pocketbooks.

Geared to line pocketbooks? What on earth is that supposed to mean?
International statistics on infant mortality rates and average life expectancies are not 'slanted information'. They are FACTS. They are produced by international organisations who have no relation to pharmaceutical companies, nor are in anyway involved in the vaccination debate. These statistics were not produced to be used in the vaccination debate. They are just a representation of how things are in the world.

And if you have so little faith in average life expectancies, why did you make reference to them yourself (even if you were quoting them incorrectly) to back up your OWN argument?

Why am I not giving information to back up what I am saying?

Easy, because you have NO actual evidence. When you DID try and make reference to some (your suggestion that countries who do not vaccinate have higher average life expectancy, into the 100s) you actually quoted INCORRECT information. You cannot argue with international statistics on mortality and life expectancy.

I had to do my own research in regards to pro-vaccination (which was funded by pharmaceuticals, you would be hard pressed to find one that isn't, I tried) do yours on anti-vaccination. Find the research that is not funded by some fanatical group (again, it isn't easy, but can be done).

As you've shown here, you obviously didn't do your research very well then. Examples of this:

1. You have no understanding of the concept of herd immunity (you have demonstrated that here)
2. You believe your children will be safe if other children are vaccinated (incorrect. This is not a debatable topic. It is fact that when herd immunity drops below 70% for measles, unvaccinated children are at risk of catching it)
3. You claim that formaldehyde in vaccines is a harmful toxin, and say that the amount produced by the body itself is OK because it's produced in 'safe amounts' (FACT: The amount of formaldehyde produced by the body is far far more than the tiny amount in vaccines. FACT: There is no evidence that this tiny amount of formaldehyde is harmful)
4. You try to quote figures (that people in unvaccinated countries live longer, into their 100s) that don't exist.

So it makes me curious as to what other nonsense you've found during your 'research'.

And actually, it's very easy for me to find this information without looking at sources funded by pharmaceutical countries. It is easy to find a science book or website which quotes the amount of formaldehyde within the body (science text books are not produced by the government or the pharmaceutical industry!). And the lists of average life expectancy which I posted did not come from any source in ANY way associated with the pharmaceutical industry. They were produced by a World Fact Book, and not produced in any way as part of a pro-vaccination campaign. I did the research into which of those countries have vaccination programmes myself.

So clearly, you're not very good at researching, if you can only find information funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

I could however NOT find any information which supports NOT vaccinating, except for on fanatical anti-vaccination websites.
0 likes [|reply]
22 Oct 2009, 06:10
T.A.I
Post Count: 269
That's just lazy. If you've got the information, present it.

You never know, it might change the subject or open it up to healthy skepticism from a new audience.

Not revealing things because of "What's the point they'll throw it back in my face" is just being lazy and shows that you don't want to give credibility to your defense.
0 likes [|reply]
22 Oct 2009, 06:32
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
Exactly!
0 likes [|reply]
21 Oct 2009, 01:45
blogger
Post Count: 18
# 6. Copped out by insisting that everyone does their own research, thereby providing absolutely nothing to back up their beliefs.
0 likes [|reply]
21 Oct 2009, 07:25
Transit
Post Count: 1096
Actually in any debate you must provide your sources, if you don't your 'facts' hold no ground and then when you don't provide any sources it just makes you look like a fool.
0 likes [|reply]
21 Oct 2009, 10:01
~RedFraggle~
Post Count: 2651
Are you trying to be ironic? You've just described yourself there!
0 likes [|reply]
21 Oct 2009, 02:06
blogger
Post Count: 18
A. I'm not trying to back up anything, least of all fecal matter. That should be clear. B. It is a moot point for me to be providing information. Nobody convinced me of my views (I was actually pro vaccines for some time) but when I did my own research it then became important to me. I don't need to back up an opinion, that truly was the point one of the other gals was trying to make. It's mine, I own it, you can disagree or dislike, but please, keep the mean comments to yourself.
Post Reply
This thread is locked, unable to reply
Online Friends
Offline Friends