Quote: (02-07-2015 11:11 AM)Daedmo Wrote:  

Quote: (02-07-2015 10:50 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

This makes me laugh, do you really think the govt was trying to protect the homosexual lifestyle back in the 80s? Its a SEXUALLY transmitted disease. How does telling everyone to wear a condom protect homosexuals?

Do you know it's original name was GRID (Gay Related Immunological Deficiency) but it was changed to the more politically correct AIDS for obvious reasons.

In the west AIDS is primarily a homosexual phenomenon. 1 in 20 gays has HIV for Christ sake! 1 in 9 in major cities. In San Francisco it's 1 in 5! Government lied and said everyone's at risk to take the focus off homosexuals and their disease spreading lifestyle. Why is that hard to understand? Gays were a protected species even back then.

The chances of getting HIV from a heterosexual encounter is next to nothing.

Gays are much more promiscuous, so the disease was much more common in them. Now there are tons of immuno deficiency meds to take for complications of it, among othyer diseases that strip the immune system, so there isn't much of a deathrate from it anymore.

Getting vaccines isn't about heeling to government authority, it's about being protective of your community, protecting those who can't receive vaccines due to age or health concerns.

The problem with anti-vaccine mindset is the same with feminist problems these days, the main reason they can be so selfish and ignorant, is that they don't have the problems that were present 3-4 generations ago, so they feel they can be so cavalier about it.

Hilarious article on The Toronto Star.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/...ourse.html

Quote:Quote:

A Queen’s University professor under fire for using anti-vaccination material in a health course will no longer be teaching that course, the university said.

A spokeswoman told the Star Monday evening that Melody Torcolacci has requested and has been granted leave from teaching Physical Determinants of Health (HLTH 102) for the remainder of the term.

“Discussions around her other classes are ongoing,” the spokeswoman said in a statement.

Torcolacci, an adjunct professor in the university’s school of kinesiology and health, did not respond to requests for comment.

Torcolacci was accused last week of using information about vaccines and health that had been widely challenged by medical experts. It was reported that students had previously complained about the material to their academic affairs commissioner.

Lecture slides sent to the Star and posted online, which appear to be from the class, ask the question, “Vaccines — Good or Bad?”

“No scientific evidence exists showing vaccines are NOT contributing to increased incidents of chronic illness and disability in children,” reads one slide.

You'd think that while in the course of earning a PhD, most people would figure out that it is impossible to prove a negative. But whatever. Although there is a lot of work and time that goes into getting a PhD, from an academic perspective, they give them out like candy these days.

Quote:Quote:

The course description states, “HLTH 102 looks at some of the many physical determinants of health beyond the obvious factors of physical activity, nutrition, and stress management.” The course summary says “vaccines and health” will be covered in the class.

The university’s kinesiology and health studies department then told the student government they were aware of the issue and would have a “conversation” with Torcolacci.

Queen’s principal Daniel Woolf said in a statement that while the university is “committed” to academic freedom, it expects faculty members to, among other things, present information objectively and “declare their biases.”

I think when it becomes kosher to do and publish scientifically valid, but controversial research on gays, it'll be more OK to highlight scientifically controversial information on vaccinations.

Quote:Quote:

The university itself, though, does not have a policy on being “for or against” vaccines, provost Alan Harrison told the Star last week.

To be fair, I like how this has worked out so far.

If only women would step down from positions of authority and respect every time they engaged in questionable opinions.

Now, if we could just get the university to start actually requiring feminist instructors and professors to declare biases. ("I hate men.") Then we'd be off to a running start.

Quote: (02-06-2015 11:59 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

No one's forcing vaccinations. I proposed requiring them for public school attendees. Don't want to vaccinate? Don't send your kid to school and put other kids at risk. You have a problen with that? I guess you're a nanny state leftist big government conformist after all.

How would I put other kids at risk if my kids were unvaccinated and all the other kids were?

Surely the vaccines would protect the vaccinated kids from any sort of measles, mumps, or what have you if my kids were to attend?

G

Quote: (02-07-2015 11:31 AM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

Quote: (02-07-2015 11:11 AM)Daedmo Wrote:  

Do you know it's original name was GRID (Gay Related Immunological Deficiency) but it was changed to the more politically correct AIDS for obvious reasons.

Do you think maybe they changed the name when they had a better understanding of what the virus was. You do realize the virus can be transmitted from a M-F pretty much the same way its transmitted M-M? Also if they wanted to be PC why would they call it GRID in the first place.

The reason why it's way more common in gays is because:

1. They're way more promiscuous.
2. The ass is not made to take a dick. Microscopic tearing and bleeding occur.

Homo anal sex and heroin junkies using dirty needles are the two biggest sources of HIV transmission.

I'm late to this discussion so apologies if this is redundant.

The whole "Anti-vax" vs "pro-vax" debate is manufactured debate. It's in no way based on the real issues.

Most people fallen for it, unfortunately. That's ok, in today's world we are surrounded by manufactured debate every day. Hard to detect the bullshit from the truth.

The whole thing is a push for "2nd wave" vaccines for the flu, pneumonia, etc. It has nothing to do with polio or measles really. It's all about the flu and pneumonia vaccines. There is no consensus whatsoever that these should be mandated. But the the flu vaccine makers -- and all those people who love big government mandates in general -- obviously want them mandated/universal, so they are pushing the whole issue with that goal in mind.

The are creating this pro-vaccination "movement" to build a witchhunt against anybody who doesn't shut up and take these mandatory/unneccessary vaccinations.

Most anti-vaccine people aren't opposed to vaccines in general. They're opposed to the huge shift in vaccination policy that has happened in the past 10 years. They're opposed to vaccines which you have to take every year for something that is essentially harmless.

Polio---1 vaccination when you are a kid
Flu -- vaccination every year for 60 years for your whole life, and guess what, they don't actually do much for you.

Quote: (02-07-2015 12:44 AM)Daedmo Wrote:  

Quote: (02-07-2015 12:36 AM)Glaucon Wrote:  

Haha,go into the jungle for a week without any tropical vaccines. It is going to be an "interesting" trip. Just write your last will before it.

Do you think getting a flu shot every year is a good idea? It might be a for the vaccine manufacturers but the benefits for someone who isn't very young or very old are negligible.

For myself personally-- and I know this isn't a significant sample size. People who have published scientific research ( such as my self ) dismiss such reports as "N of 1", meaning a research experiment with little or no validity--I get flu shots every year.

Several of those years, 90%+ of my co-workers in the office I worked in got seriously ill with flu, were out at least a week, etc. I am not congenitally super-strong, when I was young and flu vaccines weren't common I got sick along with everyone else in school.

Every time, I got the mildest of colds, no fever at all really.

Now ANOTHER good reason for that is I ALWAYS get enough sleep, something most people don't prioritize.

I always ask friend when they get sick how much sleep they were getting.

Quote: (02-12-2015 03:04 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

The reason why it's way more common in gays is because:

1. They're way more promiscuous.
2. The ass is not made to take a dick. Microscopic tearing and bleeding occur.

Plus there is bi-directional busting inside said torn-up anus. Basically you couldn't transmit something easier unless you used a needle.
Fucking nasty shit.
I'm convinced that the gay-acceptance movement is largely spearheaded with this idea of 'lovey dovey' gays, who are otherwise exactly the same as straight people, and thus should be treated the same out of some idea of 'fairness'.

Perhaps they should be shown an uncensored close-up video of 'a week in the life of a gay guy'. We'll see if they maintain the same attitude.

Quote: (02-13-2015 10:50 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I'm convinced that the gay-acceptance movement is largely spearheaded with this idea of 'lovey dovey' gays, who are otherwise exactly the same as straight people, and thus should be treated the same out of some idea of 'fairness'.

Just like the couple on Modern Family. You see alot of that on TV, however you hardly ever see gay male couples in the real world. On the flip side there are older lesbians couples living together all over the place. I can think of 4 I know of personally. But that's not what you see on TV. That's how you know they are pushing an agenda hard.

Quote: (02-12-2015 03:04 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

1. They're way more promiscuous.

I don't think being gay makes them more promiscuous by nature but that they are more promiscuous simply because they can. Any straight men would be as promiscuous as gay men are if it was so easy for us to get sex with different partners as it is for them.

Quote: (02-12-2015 10:08 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  

The are creating this pro-vaccination "movement" to build a witchhunt against anybody who doesn't shut up and take these mandatory/unneccessary vaccinations.

There is no movement or witch hunt to make flu vaccines mandatory.

Quote:Quote:

Most anti-vaccine people aren't opposed to vaccines in general. They're opposed to the huge shift in vaccination policy that has happened in the past 10 years. They're opposed to vaccines which you have to take every year for something that is essentially harmless.

I think that's true only for a small subset of the anti vaccines people, the majority of them are opposed to vaccines in general because they're either too dumb, too uninformed and ignorant about how vaccines work or too "the government and big pharma want to kill us all" type of cuckoos, not really the rational types you describe.

Flu shots aren't mandatory, but it's a good idea to get them each cycle, I'm more worried about getting an elderly relative sick if I am contagious when visiting. I always get them, it's only 20 bucks, and does no harm to me.

The big ones are mandatory, as they should be. Polio, measles, etc. are debilitating diseases. There's a reason they are required for school attendance. They really need to get rid of the religious exemption for public school vaccination requirements.

^There are schools in NYC where less than half of children are vaccinated for spurious reasons, egg allergies or some other nonsense.

The only plausible exemption should immuno-deficiency, those who truly can't vaccinate or are on bullshit like prednisone (over-prescribed by moron doctors). Even those on immunity blockers should be required to vaccinate when they are done with the drugs.

We need to tighten up the vax reqs to protect those who cannot be immunized. There's no conspiracy of "big pharma" or mind control drugs being administered by the government. Too much credence is being given to conspiracy theorists in that listening to them brings real harm to communities.

Shit, there's even a chickenpox party (grouping kids to contract chickenpox, by parents) variant for measles in parts of California. These idiots never knew of the dangers of measles, and how it could truly fuck up a child, because it wasn't present when they were kids (proximity) they think it is as harmless as chickenpox. Sure it makes sense in a way to build a natural immunity, survival of the fittest, etc, but it's not worth the child being complicated with encephalitis or meningitis.

Is there any merit to the anti-vaccine movement?

Absolutely. But I am of the belief that the anti-vaccine movement is "controlled opposition" designed to make any opposition to anything related to official public policy to appear crazy, paranoid and delusional.

I'll concur with Basil Ransom's statement here: "It's silly to conflate support for specific vaccines to mean support for ALL vaccines - but that's what liars and scam artists do, and the anti-vaxxers who do so are much the same. "

I like to think of my own stance on this topic as a bit more nuanced, informed, and calculated to obtain the benefits of necessary vaccines, while avoiding the worst consequences of the current, absolutely ludicrous vaccine schedule pushed by the CDC, AMA and any other org being influenced by Big Pharma $$$$ concerns.

Here's my case, citing the works of Cardiologist Dr. Donald Miller.

Quote:Quote:

A communitarian ethic increasingly governs health care in the U.S. It places a greater value on the health of the community, on society as a whole, than on the health of particular individuals. Public health officials have put together a vaccination schedule designed to eliminate infectious diseases to which the population is prey. These officials recognize that these vaccines will harm a small percentage of (genetically susceptible) individuals, but it is for the common good. The communitarian code posits that it is morally acceptable, if necessary, to sacrifice a few for the good of the many. Or as one observer more bluntly puts it, "Individual sheep can be sheared and slaughtered if it is for the welfare of their flock."

In this framework, health care providers become agents of the state charged with injecting vaccines into people that the central planners deem necessary. Physicians who remain true to their Hippocratic Oath and place the interests of their patient above that of the herd are considered to be out of step with the times, if not an anachronism.

When it's your kid sitting in the Doctor's office with the hypodermic needle hovering above his or her arm, do you take comfort in the idea that our society's "betters" who decide what is best for the FLOCK see the possible harm your child experiences as a necessary cost to ensure the welfare of everyone else's children?

I know my answer to that question.

But here's the real issue in a nutshell - the current vaccination schedule is ludicrous, and YES it certainly appears to play a causal role in the rise of autism and other auto-immune diseases. I believe it's related to every kids state of health and nutrition at the time of vaccination, as well as the number of vaccines their immune system is exposed to at any given time. I.e., autism can't be traced to a single vaccine or a single cause....but is the result of multiple variables in play at the time of vaccination that CAN result in a kid suffering from autism or other "side effects" of the current vaccine schedule which calls for multiple vaccinations in a single Doctor's visit. All kids are different. All kids have variable levels of health, nutrition and various levels of development of their immune system. Which is why some kids will take 6 vaccines at once and suffer no apparent side effects, while another kid could get a single shot and turn into an autistic basket case.

Now that I have a child who is 4 years old, this vaccination issue is quite personally relevant to myself. The vaccination schedule our HMO wanted to use with my kid was completely different from the schedule I had as a kid. "In the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule put out by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), 12 vaccines are given to children before they reach the age of two."

When I was a kid, I had 6 vaccines, and a follow up booster shots of those 6 vaccines when I was around 10 years old.

Polio, Mumps, Pertussis, Measles, Rubella and Tetanus. I know this, because I still have my old 1970's era shot record card my Mother saved from my child hood along with all my other important documents - birth certificate, etc.

I let my child have those same 6 vaccines, and I argued and fought with the Doctors so that only one vaccine at a time was administered...except the MMR. The singular vaccination for each separate disease is not available in the US. I let my kid have one round of the MMR, and that's it.

I believe in a user friendly vaccine schedule and avoiding what I consider to be unnecessary and extraneous vaccines - like flu and chickenpox.

The debate between "pro" and "anti" vaxx is a manufactured debate. The real debate is Who will follow orders from AUTHORITY without question, and who will question, think for themselves and attempt to make an informed decision based on personal research and rumination.

The current Government-Healthcare-Pharmaceutical complex is more concerned with the herd immunity of the flock of sheeple.

I'm more concerned with my own kids health and well being, so I am certainly not going to follow the Government's one size fits all policy and HOPE my child is not one of the unfortunate outliers that suffers the bad effects.

Oh, and someone upthread stated that vaccines no longer contain mercury.

Source?

Here's what the CDC's website states regarding Thimerosal:

Since 2001, no new * vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts ** of thimerosal, except for some formulations of influenza vaccine.***

Let me translate that from propaganda-ese into normal sheeple-speak.

* Any vaccines that were developed and licensed BEFORE 2001, still contain mercury.

** trace amounts are still amounts of mercury. As mercury poisoning can be cumulative, the fact remains, following the CDC vaccination schedule still results in your child being injected with mercury over the course of 6 years. Every person has the ability to excrete or eliminate toxic substances from the body, depending on a number of variables. This is why some kids get sick, while other do not.

*** i.e. the yearly flu shots our healthcare system wants everyone to inject on an annual basis.

Whether you take shots or not, the real issue is mercury toxicity due to systemic buildup. One of the key factors in a bodies ability to eliminate mercury buildup, is how much Selenium is in your diet, and how much good, healthy saturated fats you consume regularly.

This is why some kids will get autism and some won't. Every kids diet is different, every kids immune system is at a variable stage of development based on a number of factors.

In the end, mercury or not though, here's more from Doctor Miller that I previously cited:

Quote:Quote:

Vaccine manufacturers have started removing thimerosal from vaccines. And for the first time since the state began keeping records on this disease, California has had a decrease, of 6 percent, in the annual number of children over the age of 3 who have been diagnosed with autism. * This occurred in children born in 2000, when the phase-out of thimerosal in vaccines began. Iowa has passed a law banning thimerosal in that state, and California has done the same thing for pregnant women and children under 3 (the bill awaits the governor's signature). But pharmaceutical companies still add thimerosal in their Flu vaccines; and pediatricians are vaccinating children with their remaining supply of thimerosal-containing vaccines, which the FDA has chosen not to recall.

Taking mercury out of vaccines would substantially reduce the incidence of autism, but this alone will not eliminate the disease. Giving too many vaccines over too short a time to infants whose nervous system is not yet fully developed can also trigger autism and its spectrum of disorders. As Dr. Blaylock has shown (see Recommended Reading below), multiple vaccines given close together over-stimulate the brain's immune system and, via the mechanism of "bystander injury," destroy brain cells.

* Despite this, our benevolent Government still insists vaccinations and autism are completely unrelated.

Right.

I think debating the efficacy of vaccines is a red herring.
Nobody has died from the measles in America over the past decade.

The issue as framed by Cristi and Paul is about whether parents can be forced to deliver vaccines. And unless there is a plague I think they are correct.

I don't ascribe to the anti vaxxer movement. Polio vaccines are a good thing.

That being said, why bother for so many non life threatening illnesses?

Edit - provably belongs in deep forum.

Quote: (02-12-2015 02:57 PM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

Quote: (02-06-2015 11:59 PM)Basil Ransom Wrote:  

No one's forcing vaccinations. I proposed requiring them for public school attendees. Don't want to vaccinate? Don't send your kid to school and put other kids at risk. You have a problen with that? I guess you're a nanny state leftist big government conformist after all.

How would I put other kids at risk if my kids were unvaccinated and all the other kids were?

Surely the vaccines would protect the vaccinated kids from any sort of measles, mumps, or what have you if my kids were to attend?

G

You are talking about what they called 'herd immunity' or 'community immunity'. You are correct in that if everyone else is vaccinated, but your kids were not, then no one should be at risk. Your kids are not at risk because everyone else is vaccinated so your kids can't get anything form anyone else. Everyone else is vaccinated so they can't get anything from your kids.

The problem is not everyone can be given some vaccines. Some people with already preexisting conditions or weakened immune systems can't be vaccinated against some diseases. That is why people who can take a vaccine, should be vaccinated. While you may be willing to take the risk of getting something, you are also putting someone else at risk that can't take a vaccine by not getting vaccinated.

Think about it this way. If you do not get a vaccine, and you get something, you would not be happy with what happened but you would know that you took the risk at your own choice. Now, what if someone else gets sick (or worse, dies) because you did not get a vaccine that could have prevented someone else from becoming ill? I think most people would feel horrible at what they had allowed to happen and feel responsible for causing someone else such grief.

While not all vaccines are 100% safe, they are safer than the alternative by a large factor.

While people have been worried in recent years about the risks of vaccines, they have forgotten what it use to be like prior to them. It was not that long ago (1950s?) that some victims of polio would be paralyzed for life and/or stuck in an iron lung for the rest of their lives or have the wear leg braces to walk slowly because there was no vaccine against polio. I recall some accounts talking about public swimming pools having just about no one at them because some people feared that polio could spread in such public places.

If you go further back, like to the Middle Ages and read the accounts of small pox or the plague diseases, people thought that it might be the end of times and the world was coming to an end. There are accounts of ships drifting in the Mediterranean sea because everyone on board was dead, or factories being closed because there was no way to hire enough people to work because so many had died. With small pox the estimates are that in an area, when the disease hit, the death rate was 25% for its victims and I have heard rates as high as 50% of its victims.

Even those that survived small pox were usually scared for life and suffered lingering health problems for the rest of their lives. One time I was wondering about the fashion of men wearing powered wigs in colonial times and one source thought the reason was because some survivors of diseases, like small pox, had thin or little hair left, so it was a measure to cover that problem up and make the person look better. It appears this wearing of wigs by men was so widespread at some point that it became a tradition in some courts that continued into the modern age, like England and its Commonwealth Nations.

While some vaccines did and do have problems, the percentage of people stricken by the vaccine was far less than the diseases that the vaccines prevented.

It would appear half of the posters in here didn't vaccinate against the deadly banhammer disease.

Quote: (03-24-2016 10:38 AM)Hades Wrote:  

I don't ascribe to the anti vaxxer movement. Polio vaccines are a good thing.

That being said, why bother for so many non life threatening illnesses?

Edit - probably belongs in deep forum.

So that you don't fatally infect those whose lives would be threatened by the illness. Pretty simple, no need for deep thinking on it.

Robert Deniro supports an anti-vax documentary:

http://variety.com/2016/film/news/robert...201739552/

"The Tribeca Film Festival is facing serious backlash for including anti-vaccination documentary “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe” from doctor-turned-documentarian Andrew Wakefield into its 2016 lineup.

Wakefield is a fervent believer in the link between vaccination and autism. He has also been the subject of many controversies, including being accused of professional misconduct and falsifying information as early as 1998 in one of his research papers. Wakefield’s bio on the festival’s page for the documentary mentions the research paper and study but not that it was later discredited.

Many called for a response about the festival’s decision. Robert DeNiro, co-founder of the Tribeca Film Festival, defended the choice to include the film, even though he doesn’t endorse the content.

“Grace and I have a child with autism and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined. In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming. However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening VAXXED. I am not personally endorsing the film, nor am I anti-vaccination; I am only providing the opportunity for a conversation around the issue.”

^^^^

Confirmed: Robert DeNiro has no more brains than Jenny McCarthy. His kid with autism was born in 1998, meaning he was 55 and she was 43 at the time of conception. A clapped out egg and an elderly set of sperm is more likely to have caused the kid's autism than vaccination.

Wakefield falsified his data in support of the "MMR = autism" lie. He was struck off as a doctor as a result of engaging in that fraud. He is not a "doctor turned documentarian", he is a "disgraced and discredited former doctor who is still peddling bullshit to the credulous anti-vaccination crowd".

The extreme knee jerk reaction to those who would dare question vaccines comes from the same desire by certain people to simply control others, and is born of the same vile ideas that are behind totalitarianism everywhere. Society has no right to stick any substance into anyone who does not consent. Even if the anti-vax people are wrong, they have the right to their own bodies and those of their children and have the right to refuse vaccines for themselves and for their children, and interpret the dangers as not being worth the potential benefits and therefore refuse. Parents have rights over their children and they are not state property. Note the hateful name calling in this very thread directed at anti-vaxers. It's just a really nasty case of "how dare you think for yourself."

from what I heard from my father this book is pretty good on the whole vaccine debate.

http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Marys-Monkey-Ca...1937584593

The older parents theory still doesn't explain the dramatic rise in autism over the past few decades. Yes it might be a contributing factor but it still doesn't explain all of it. I'm surprised this form is a more skeptical of vaccines given the people pushing them are part of the new world order. I'm not saying all vaccines are bad it's just that amount given to children is ridiculous. For all the people who think autism is is solely cause by older parents answer me these questions.
Why did autism dramatically rise since the 1980s when a new vaccine regiment was introduced?

Why are 95% of autistic people male? could it be that the mercury in the vaccines reacts differently with testosterone.

Why why haven't they discovered what gene causes autism if it is genetic?