[BortimusPrime]

I know we bash the favorable treatment towards women in the court system a lot, but it's not like they get away with murder...oh wait.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/201...c-son.html

Summary: Rich woman kills autistic son by force-feeding him drugs in expensive hotel room, transfers money out of his trust fund while he lays dying on the bed next to her, pretends to try and kill herself and then when police arrive immediately demands lawyer. Defense claims she was under emotional duress because of one ex-husband threatening her and the other supposedly having molested the kid, gets off on manslaughter charge.

[WestIndianArchie]

Similar case - but take note of the language

In this story, the boy plunges to his death.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-hea...ge-n241176

In this version of the story, she throws him off a bridge
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jill...ys-n241986

In both cases, the Press is desperately trying to make her look sympathetic.

hmmm


WIA

[perverted sage]

Not to jack this thread but from what i have been reading autism is a growing problem has anyone looked into how to prevent this from manifesting in children.

[Bushido]

(11-06-2014 06:03 AM)perverted sage Wrote:  

Not to jack this thread but from what i have been reading autism is a growing problem has anyone looked into how to prevent this from manifesting in children.

Don't reproduce with old hags.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(11-06-2014 03:47 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

In this story, the boy plunges to his death.
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/mental-hea...ge-n241176

In both cases, the Press is desperately trying to make her look sympathetic.

article Wrote:

"The moms don’t really experience the love that comes back from a child — the bonding is mitigated."
- Dee Shepherd-Look, a psychology professor at California State University

I can't believe that a highly educated professor at a respected university is blaming the boy for having trouble expressing feelings to his mother. This is abominable!

[bojangles]

(11-06-2014 06:03 AM)perverted sage Wrote:  

Not to jack this thread but from what i have been reading autism is a growing problem has anyone looked into how to prevent this from manifesting in children.

Generally its the age of women getting pregnant that causes the issue, however it's not always the case, rarely like my nephew for example, the mother can be young (23) and the kid can still unfortunately have autism.

[BortimusPrime]

There's an increase in diagnosis as well. It's part of our victim culture, nothing makes a person feel like more of a liberal saint than being able to tell everyone they have a tard baby, so they refer to little Pubert as being "Autism Spectrum" when he's only got low grade Asperger's. These are kids that in days past would simply be considered weird kids or nerds, but that just doesn't have the same ring as "my child has a mental disability so if I catch you saying the phrase 'tard baby' I'm going to screech at you until your ears bleed". Oh, and don't forget the tumblr self-diagnoses...

Now this isn't to say that there aren't serious cases of Autism, or even that there isn't an increase in serious cases occurring, but still I tend to be skeptical of someone claiming it unless I actually see the kid banging his head against the wall or asking if I've happened to see his baseball.

[ChrisPitts]

"But, but I'm a victim! My ex wouldn't stop calling me names for breaking up our marriage! And my son is in a better place now! I'm a better person for ending his pain early!!!!

One of these days I'm going to write a book entitled "Hamster Tales" and it's going to be filled with stories like these, hopefully as a warning to men. Until then, I'm going to feel absolutely no sympathy for broads like this and hope our justice system gets something right for a change and sends her to the slammer.

[Sp5]

Sometimes if some jurors feel the evidence is not that strong, they will compromise by finding the person guilty of a lesser offense. Not really supposed to happen, happens all the time. Murder / manslaughter have different levels of criminal intent, maybe that was where the verdict came from.

She's going to get a long stretch in prison. Funny how the article says "just 5 to 25 years." Just 25 years??

She's 53, and accustomed to a life of privilege and comfort. Now she's going to get thrown in with a bunch of tough banging bitches and idiots for a long time. If she gets out, she'll be a decrepit old hag by then.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-06-2014 07:00 AM)bojangles Wrote:  

(11-06-2014 06:03 AM)perverted sage Wrote:  

Not to jack this thread but from what i have been reading autism is a growing problem has anyone looked into how to prevent this from manifesting in children.

Generally its the age of women getting pregnant that causes the issue, however it's not always the case, rarely like my nephew for example, the mother can be young (23) and the kid can still unfortunately have autism.

It is that, but also the sheer number and toxicity of vaccinations - in the completely unvaccinated autism is somewhere in the vicinity of 1:5000 or 1:10000 - the number that was normal in the US in the early 1980s.

Currently it is reaching 1:50 in some US States, while the rate is around 1:75 on average. I personally have met now guys who argued with me furiously on the issue despite the contrary scientific data I mentioned (as well as Nobel Laureate MDs and other notables being opposed to vaccination as a grand medical "mistake"). The very same guys have now admitted to me privately that they regret a few things, since they see their own and other people's kids being sickly while the non-vaccinated in my extended family are the toughest little bastards around. Sometimes the whole group of kids gets sick except my little nephews. Medical theory told them the reverse would be true (and wide-spread statistical data from Germany tells the same story as 15% there are unvaccinated and that very group of children is the healthiest by far).

As a pharma-exec she certainly vaxed him to the max apart from being a psychopathic bitch:

Quote:

Her defense team managed to convince the jury with a strange tale, claiming Jordan had been trying "to save [Jude] from a life of sexual torture" at the hands of his birth father. Jordan said her husband at the time was plotting her murder, and she didn't want the boy to end up back with his abuser. Both men denied the allegations.

You will see more mothers killing their autistic children in the future as the shit will grow due to increased useless toxic medical "treatment" as well as mothers getting older.

[Truck'n]

(11-06-2014 08:47 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Sometimes if some jurors feel the evidence is not that strong, they will compromise by finding the person guilty of a lesser offense. Not really supposed to happen, happens all the time. Murder / manslaughter have different levels of criminal intent, maybe that was where the verdict came from.

She's going to get a long stretch in prison. Funny how the article says "just 5 to 25 years." Just 25 years??

She's 53, and accustomed to a life of privilege and comfort. Now she's going to get thrown in with a bunch of tough banging bitches and idiots for a long time. If she gets out, she'll be a decrepit old hag by then.

yeah....this cunt is going to get FUCKED UP if she ever is mixed in with the general population.

her attorneys must be working around the clock to find some way to get her into protective custody.

[Grange]

It's not just "the judicial system", it's the juries as well. I imagine the judge will err on the side of a longer sentence.

[Old Fritz]

I wonder how severe this boy's autism was. I am autistic and have never used any sort of drugs in my life. I turned out just fine. Either way, the bitch should have gotten a much harsher sentence.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Zel, even if it were somehow true that vaccines cause autism, wouldn't you say the massive reduction in most infectious diseases is worth it?


(Polio)


(Diphtheria)


(Pertussis)


(Smallpox)

Let's not forget Rabies, Tetanus, Plague, Cholera, Plague, Chickenpox and other diseases that were/are either completely eliminated or vastly reduced.

Also, wouldn't you say that the term "toughest little bastards" suffers from significant survivor bias?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-07-2014 06:54 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Zel, even if it were somehow true that vaccines cause autism, wouldn't you say the massive reduction in most infectious diseases is worth it?

No - my friend, because the graph you pulled and most medical books use start in the 50s, 60s or even 80s.

Sure - personal anecdotal experience theoretically may have little to do with it. But this here does not - 99,999% of medical students don't see those graphs for a good reason:

   
   
   

Also they do not see the statistical data available which compares the completely non-vaccinated against the vaccinated:

   
   

Frankly the whole debate boils down to decision making - which doctors do you trust more? Since there are quite notable opponents of vaccinations among the medical establishment, the question remains for any sentient being to use his mind and decide which opinion sounds the most logical AFTER assessing the viewpoints of both sides. That is why I had no problem accepting the Red Pill, anti-feminism, interest-free economics, Carroll Quigley's descriptions of history - it all just made more sense. If I meet more conclusive info in the future then I will discard my opinions in a heartbeat - I am not attached to them.

I did a huge powerpoint-prestentation on the topic with hundreds of links to scientific docs and vids. I may upload it on the forum sometime - have to do it in English, since I got it in 2 different languages. It's off topic here so - later and elsewhere....

I personally put my trust in those MDs here and have only compiled their data into a powerpoint presentation for friends and family. My presentation also had propositions on how to easily counter all those illnesses that the population is vaccinated against.

I can assure you that many many doctors are not doing what they preach and many are opposing overtly the vaccination propaganda. In some countries the MDs do not vaccinate their children at rates of 10-30% (Germany, UK, US) up until 50% (!!!! in Russia). That means that in countries like Russia 50% of MDs do not vaccinate their OWN children at all while fully recommending the program for their "customers". Even in the US children of MDs have notoriously low rates.

Also - a common question is then why don't we die like in the 19th century if it were not vaccines which saved us?

Even official medical literature admits it were the following things:

- clean water - still lacking in many countries of the world
- hygiene - not only ours, but also the one concerning our living quarters as well as our food (very important especially with meat, fish & dairy)
- access to nutritious food all year round - in many parts of the world still lacking - especially for us in the northern hemisphere it is absolutely essential to have greens, fruits and vegetables available even in long winters. We often forget about that little tidbit in our lives - people in the 30s even had no such luxury and were sometimes starved of essential nutrients for months.
- Better medical care - yes also antibiotics, but also the ability to treat infections and all kinds of accidents with great ease. Even decades ago many people would die of some minor broken bone and infection.

Actually I think that vaccines increased mortality as can be seen in some countries like Japan, which banned vaccines for all children below 2 in the mid 1970s and their child mortality dropped 10 places right afterwards.

I simply choose to put my trust in the minority of MDs out there. That minority has Nobel Price winners, ex CDC co-workers, leading scientists among them - their number is easily in the millions around the world. In almost any country in the world you can find doctors who will "vaccinate the sink" and give your kid the full schedule official acknowledgement. They do this, because they are doing it the same way.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

I see what you're saying, Zel, and this data is very interesting. However, let me just focus on this Dutch graph for a moment:





Wouldn't you say that it's possible that the children with naturally poor health (sickly, weak, irritable) who were unvaccinated are exactly those children who died from what little of these infectious diseases remains in the world, leaving the green (unvaccinated) cohort with only healthy children with the strongest immune systems?
Whereas in the red cohort contains all those weaker kids who would have otherwise succumbed to infectious diseases first but whose lives were preserved by vaccines, allowing them to survive to suffer from smaller ailments?

i.e. shouldn't we rather directly compare overall life expectancies and survival rates to age X between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-07-2014 08:01 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Wouldn't you say that it's possible that the children with naturally poor health (sickly, weak, irritable) who were unvaccinated are exactly those children who died from what little of these infectious diseases remains in the world, leaving the green (unvaccinated) cohort with only healthy children with the strongest immune systems?
Whereas in the red cohort contains all those weaker kids who would have otherwise succumbed to infectious diseases first but whose lives were preserved by vaccines, allowing them to survive to suffer from smaller ailments?

i.e. shouldn't we rather directly compare overall life expectancies and survival rates to age X between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations?

Heh - those numbers would be even worse for the vaccinated. They would be atrocious, because vaccines decrease the immune system for life and you have greater chances of cancer and various debilitating & degenerative illnesses.

The likelihood that the few unvaccinated kids in the Netherlands, Germany (10-15% unvaccinated) or Switzerland (up to 30% unvaccinated in some regions) somehow died before the survey was taken is rather wishful thinking of the medical cartel. I would estimate that the numbers would be much worse for the grown-ups, since children have generally more sick-days as their immune system develops and the growth-spurts take their toll. I have met a few unvaccinated guys in their 20s - some of them lived like shit, chain-smoking since their teens and had way better health than I ever did.

You would have to take a look at my presentation which I have designed with funny graphs, pics and easy texts, since I had to put points across to women mostly - the hundreds of scientific links hardly anyone went through. It took me personally months just going through the material some 3 years ago. Before that I too considered vaccines a necessary evil. Now I know better - the same is true with orthomolecular medicine vs. conventional treatments of anything like colds, pneumonia, measles etc. I have family members who are treating schizophrenia successfully with high-dosage supplements versus long-term debilitating antipsychotics.

Unfortunately the truth is on my side here as most doctors will shy away from an open debate on TV - they simply cannot win, since the data does not support their assumptions. All points - from rising autism rates to the "new measles epidemics" (which happen to 95-100% fully vaccinated in most cases) paint a rather dreary picture. And many doctors do know that something is wrong as they see the kids with adverse reactions more often, which is the reason why they do not vaccinate, but rather prefer to treat those rare childhood diseases themselves - even conventional MDs.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Ok, so I have to ask where this graph comes from...

Because its supposed source says completely the opposite thing:

Results: The lifetime prevalence of at least one atopic disease among 1- to 5-year-olds was 12.6% (5.0%–28.3%) in unvaccinated children and 15.0% (13.6%–16.4%) in vaccinated children. In older children, atopy was more common, but its prevalence was not found to depend on vaccination status: among 6- to 10-yearolds, the prevalence figures were 30.1% (12.9%–55.8%) for unvaccinated children versus 24.4% (22.8%–26.0%) for vaccinated children, and the corresponding figures for 11- to 17-year-olds were 20.3% (10.1%–36.6%) versus 29.9% (28.4%–31.5%).

Conclusion: The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.

At the same time, here is the graph from the same study showing the vastly greater prevalence of preventable infectious diseases among the vaccinated:

   

What am I missing?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-07-2014 09:15 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Ok, so I have to ask where this graph comes from...

Because its supposed source says completely the opposite thing:

Nah - it was a statistical study never published in the German Aerzteblatt. The official institute released the data raw and people had to compile the information themselves. I can find the original stuff somewhere, but the survey compiled data from thousands of children and compared it to the general vaccinated population.

Quote:

Conclusion: The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.

At the same time, here is the graph from the same study showing the vastly greater prevalence of preventable infectious diseases among the vaccinated:



What am I missing?

Well - first of all they compare 94 cases with 10.000, which is a problem in itself.

I have long stopped sifting through their manipulated studies only to later find out that the placebo of a vaccine is another older vaccine (and thus has an equal amount of adverse reactions) or that they use highly selective samples (picking the top 10.000 of 100.000 of kids in health and dropping the other 90.000). I am not saying that they did it in this case, but frankly I am not even willing to go through their data and find the crap sitting in the bottom as usual. That's what I did for 6 months and I could spend another 100 years going through shit like their studies and come up with nothing. In the end you have diverging info and have to decide which to trust more and which sounds more credible.

Also I might add especially when looking at mumps, rubella and measles the conventional medical doctrine up until the end 1970s had the opinion that those childhood diseases strengthened the immune system if children went through those diseases in childhood. There are some studies out there which support the hypothesis, though likely not all children need to go through the disease to become stronger. Most likely some only need to be in the vicinity of such a kid - their immune system meets it and reacts without symptoms. Also on a different note - vaccinated kids sometimes especially with the harmless childhood diseases have atypical versions of mumps and measles - fever without the spots etc. The kid just had 2 weeks of fever and weakness without the measles symptoms - hardly anyone does the tests for those things anymore. As far as whopping cough is concerned - no I don't believe in those numbers at all! I know for a fact even among the conventional MDs that real whopping cough numbers are high - 100.000 for 50 mio. in population each year. They just move it to a more severe cold or cough in the statistical data, since according to their doctrine vaccinated children CANNOT GET whopping cough, so ergo it does not exist among them. In fact whopping cough is even spread by the freshly vaccinated for up to 3-4 weeks (through pores and body fluids) - just as some of the flu vaccines or Rotavirus is notorious to do so too. In fact freshly vaccinated kids should be in quarantine for 3-4 weeks after some vaccines - that little tidbit can be even found in some inserts.

If interested I can send you some of my files on PM or you can visit the German Impfsymposium which has quite a few notable MDs there every year. I only compiled the info from doctors like Dr. Luc Montagnier (Nobel price winner), Linus Pauling (Nobel price winner in chemistry) or Dr. Cathcart (patent holder in orthopedics - his patents made him a multi-millionaire and are still used around the world) or even Dr. Claus Koehnlein (conventional internist who just questioned the conventional dogma). Take your questions up to those guys - if the vaccine question is such a done deal, I guess it is interesting why well-known MDs risk their reputation to oppose the current narrative?

[Texas_Tryhard]

Vaccines do not cause autism. Anyone who tries to tell you so is an idiot or very misguided. I'm not going to be nice about this, in the same way I wouldn't be nice about someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster. As a matter of fact, it's way worse, because at least the existence of the Nessie is inconsequential.

Linus Pauling believed (after all, he's dead) that cancer could be cured with vitamin C. Dr. Cathcart believes the same, and that ebola could similarly be cured with vitamin C. Luc Montagnier believes that it is possible to detect electromagnetic signals from antiretroviral and bacterial DNA in water that has been diluted by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (yes, that is 18 fucking zeroes), and that this is caused by alterations of water structure (despite the much simpler explanation that he had contamination in his sample). Koehnlein believes that AIDs is a fictional malady created for big pharma to reap profits.

Winning a Nobel Prize doesn't mean you aren't a quack. There are far more Nobel prize winners on the side of reason (pro-vaccine). If this is a contest of Nobel prize winners, vaccines are gonna win. Not that it matters, because vaccines have a measureable

I'm not going to bother spending my time debunking all of the ridiculous assertions and shitty data from Zelscorpion's posts (for example, the unvaccinated disease rates from his graph are taken from a SURVEY of parents answering a questionnaire on an anti-vaccine website. Fucking really, Zel?). I'm sure he could spend post after post dropping results from shady websites who cherry pick data and perform ridiculous surveys to support their unfounded beliefs. And I could spend post after post debating him and shutting him down. But I won't. Because to debate him would only give him credence.

There are countless studies with publicly available data in peer-reviewed journals showing the efficacy and safety of vaccines. A simple Google Scholar or Pubmed search will give you enough studies to spend a career reviewing. If you're unable to do that and would rather rely on the opinions of a misguided poster on RooshVForum and his list of known nutjobs over those of the vast majority of trained medical doctors on an issue as important as public health, then there's nothing I or anyone else can do can do to convince you otherwise.



Now, on topic: Typical pussy pass nonsense. Typical how the men are framed as actually responsible for the child's death. Anything but blaming a woman, right?

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-07-2014 11:49 AM)Texas_Tryhard Wrote:  

Vaccines do not cause autism. Anyone who tries to tell you so is an idiot or very misguided. I'm not going to be nice about this, in the same way I wouldn't be nice about someone who believes in the Loch Ness Monster. As a matter of fact, it's way worse, because at least the existence of the Nessie is inconsequential.
...

With all due respect TexasT - you have no proof that autism is NOT caused by vaccines. In fact there are studies on monkeys out there where autism-like behavior patterns have been induced by the vaccines tested.

You might want to take a look here as well: http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/...M-2011.pdf

A study by a Canadian researcher who went through peer-reviewed studies on how vaccine safety is really assessed.

No reason to start a debate here - frankly I am always amazed of what a hot topic it is. The herd immunity up until the 1980s was supposed to be around 66% - they have pushed the bar higher and higher. All this germ and viral Zombie hysteria is now beginning if the vaccination rate drops to 98,9%.

If what you say is true than all those High-vegan-eco non-vax people will die out anyway. There is no way in fucking hell that the majority of the braindead population will ever question the prescribed medical propaganda - at best one may reach 5% of the population and even that is highly doubtful.

As far as the "nutjobs" you mentioned. Well - I have in my own mother's neighborhood a doctor who treats cancer with vitamin c injections and Gerson therapy (raw vegan diet and juicing for 6 months). My mother's very neighbor recovered from stage 4 liver cancer within 6 months completely - no trace of cancer whatsoever despite claims by the doctors that she had only a few months to live and nothing could be done. I've also seen wondrous things happening just via application of high-dosage vitamin C at diseases that the medical establishment tells young MDs that vit. C does not work - sore throats disappearing within 30 minutes after taking 15.000mg vit. C in pure powder form - just exactly as Dr. Cathcart described in his papers.

As far as water vibration a Luc Montagnier is concerned - well that field has not much to do with it here, but rest assured that mainstream science has hardly touched the field. Water strangely reacts even to emotions by humans and changes vibration patterns even after a few tiny drops of one liquid is dropped in a large tank. Dr. Koehnlein started to doubt the whole AIDS narrative after some cancer patients of his suddenly were diagnosed with AIDS after having done a new AIDS test on them. He researched the subject and could not find any preliminary study proving that HIV caused AIDS - that was back even in the 1990s. There is more to it, but Dr. Koehnlein also stated that he had no repercussions from his peers - he actually even invited other MDs for professional discussions. Most of those conversations went about in quite civil manner and his colleagues were more curious about his findings than instantly dismissive.

I found that some of the best & more experienced MDs are quite pragmatic in their treatments - they don't even bat an eyelash if you have cured your disease by cannabis sprouts or high-dosage supplements. Usually they shrug, grunt something under their breath and congratulate you on your recovery.

I don't think there is a reason as to start a debate here with parties trying to "debunk" each other. This is neither the place nor the right forum topic. I respect your opinions very much - also because 2 of my best friends are MDs and we only casually discuss the topic (knowing that we differ in our opinions) - right before we drop eyes on some pretty lass and talk about more interesting stuff

_____________________________________________________

In any case we certainly are in agreement that women like that first should rather have their children when young - also another point hardly ever mentioned is that younger mothers usually have more energy and strength to deal with the antics of small children or god-forbid highly autistic ones. They never mention that little fact that a 23 year old easily manages 2 small kids in the household, while a 36 year old will be totally stressed out after having one small toddler to take care of.

In any case - any sound judge in the 19th century of Britain would have given the father full parental rights and let the woman cure her hysteria elsewhere with as little contact with the child as possible. But unfortunately we have left all reason behind.

[Texas_Tryhard]

(11-07-2014 12:50 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

With all due respect TexasT - you have no proof that autism is NOT caused by vaccines. In fact there are studies on monkeys out there where autism-like behavior patterns have been induced by the vaccines tested.

You might want to take a look here as well: http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/...M-2011.pdf

A study by a Canadian researcher who went through peer-reviewed studies on how vaccine safety is really assessed.

No reason to start a debate here - frankly I am always amazed of what a hot topic it is. The herd immunity up until the 1980s was supposed to be around 66% - they have pushed the bar higher and higher. All this germ and viral Zombie hysteria is now beginning if the vaccination rate drops to 98,9%.

If what you say is true than all those High-vegan-eco non-vax people will die out anyway. There is no way in fucking hell that the majority of the braindead population will ever question the prescribed medical propaganda - at best one may reach 5% of the population and even that is highly doubtful.

As far as the "nutjobs" you mentioned. Well - I have in my own mother's neighborhood a doctor who treats cancer with vitamin c injections and Gerson therapy (raw vegan diet and juicing for 6 months). My mother's very neighbor recovered from stage 4 liver cancer within 6 months completely - no trace of cancer whatsoever despite claims by the doctors that she had only a few months to live and nothing could be done. I've also seen wondrous things happening just via application of high-dosage vitamin C at diseases that the medical establishment tells young MDs that vit. C does not work - sore throats disappearing within 30 minutes after taking 15.000mg vit. C in pure powder form - just exactly as Dr. Cathcart described in his papers.

As far as water vibration a Luc Montagnier is concerned - well that field has not much to do with it here, but rest assured that mainstream science has hardly touched the field. Water strangely reacts even to emotions by humans and changes vibration patterns even after a few tiny drops of one liquid is dropped in a large tank. Dr. Koehnlein started to doubt the whole AIDS narrative after some cancer patients of his suddenly were diagnosed with AIDS after having done a new AIDS test on them. He researched the subject and could not find any preliminary study proving that HIV caused AIDS - that was back even in the 1990s. There is more to it, but Dr. Koehnlein also stated that he had no repercussions from his peers - he actually even invited other MDs for professional discussions. Most of those conversations went about in quite civil manner and his colleagues were more curious about his findings than instantly dismissive.

I found that some of the best & more experienced MDs are quite pragmatic in their treatments - they don't even bat an eyelash if you have cured your disease by cannabis sprouts or high-dosage supplements. Usually they shrug, grunt something under their breath and congratulate you on your recovery.

I don't think there is a reason as to start a debate here with parties trying to "debunk" each other. This is neither the place nor the right forum topic. I respect your opinions very much - also because 2 of my best friends are MDs and we only casually discuss the topic (knowing that we differ in our opinions) - right before we drop eyes on some pretty lass and talk about more interesting stuff

You're right: I can't prove a negative. Nessie may in fact teleport in and out of existence depending on if people are looking for her.

Lucija Tomljenovic is a postdoc (she's still training, certainly not a good example of an 'expert' in any field) and a known nutjob as well. She published an epidemiological study in an inorganic chemistry journal with a low impact factor. The thing you sent me is junk also. I'd debunk her bullshit but someone already has. Please just do the most basic of Google searches: And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper

In regards to your talk about a shifting herd immunity number: This isn't your field, which is okay, but you shouldn't step into it because you'll misinterpret things. I don't make a habit of arguing with lawyers about the interpretation of the law, for example. But to move on: Herd immunity is not a standard, single number; it shifts on a per-disease and per-time basis, depending upon several factors including the ability of the virus to spread, the population of people it can infect, the denseness of the population, and the effective ability of the vaccine to prevent the disease. This is why the number has shifted. Source, slide 17. It's simply easier to describe with a single number than to explain to people.

I am of the believe that it is tantamount to child abuse to avoid vaccinating your children, barring medical contraindications. They don't have the choice to override their parents' stupidity, and they may suffer from a lethal or debilitating condition as a result of it. Denying your children basic medical care is not acceptable. Children are not property. As populations get denser and contact with non-vaccinated countries (in Africa, for example) increases, the standard for herd immunity rises. We (those concerned with the idea of the resurgence of smallpox) can't sit on our laurels now because these wacko theories will probably never gain traction. You're additionally putting sickly children at risk who can't get vaccines, because their chance of exposure raises. I'm not buying the "it doesn't matter!" argument you're selling.

I won't talk about the anecdotes because I don't believe them, and even if I did there's nothing to talk about. I'll also leave your comments on the efficacy of vitamin C in treatments of sore throats and stage 4 liver cancer, as well as talk of water vibration and emotions, to stand for themselves. Those are firmly out of science territory and into quack territory as far as I'm concerned.

As far as HIV and AIDs, there are a series of papers in Science, who's impact factor is quite high, by a Dr. Robert Gallo showing the connection between HIV and AIDs. Dr. Montagnier actually worked parallel to him during the rush to find HIV, and commented on how shitty it was that Gallo was not given a mention on the same Nobel Prize that he won for that discovery. In fact, they co-wrote an article about this in Science in 2002. I would hope that someone in the HIV/AIDs field would have read these rather famous papers.

Pragmatic MDs have dealt with enough people questioning their advice that they just don't care. It's not worth arguing, as I've said before, with people who don't fully understand just how out-of-whack what they're saying is. It's tiring in the same way arguing with a bluepill male or feminist is. There's just no winning and they have to swallow the pill for themselves or not at all.

Here I go again though, getting in this discussion when I know it's mostly fruitless Also, in before gish gallop.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(11-07-2014 04:43 PM)Texas_Tryhard Wrote:  

]
but you shouldn't step into it because you'll misinterpret things.



I am of the believe that it is tantamount to child abuse to avoid vaccinating your children, barring medical contraindications. They don't have the choice to override their parents' stupidity, and they may suffer from a lethal or debilitating condition as a result of it. Denying your children basic medical care is not acceptable. Children are not property.

You are using the same shitty fascists arguments that all current dictatorial powers are using. You are not an economist, then don't comment on economic policy. Not a politician, then don't fucking have an opinion on politics. You have not studied pediatrics, then you are not fit to tell women how to take care of their toddlers.

People have forgotten that vaccine riots and wars have been happening in 19th century UK and early 20th century in South America. Men went to prison for weeks only to have their kids not be vaccinated. I guess it was all superstition and those marvelous vaccines only saved lives. Meanwhile even Dr. Salk stated after the Polio vaccine containment was published that vaccine science in the 1950s was primitive. That very same smallpox marvel vaccine must have been great in 1890.


I guess you want SWAT teams to come pick up kids and shoot the family dogs while at it? Or better yet take them by simple CPS procedure and give them to some loving pedophile same-sex couple?

All those millions of dissenting doctors and parents who observe the lights going out with their children after some shot - all those are nutjobs and crackers and you are the supreme commander of reason and understanding. I advocate for understanding and acceptance of difference of opinion, but you prefer the boot of autocratic dictatorial power. Yes a discussion is truly futile here. I guess this feminist paradise and militarized police must be the dream for you - with the new Ebola vaccine wars at least the police will have tanks and drones at their disposal.

[TheWastelander]

This anti-vaccine nonsense seems to me to be a result of misanthropic Malthusian eco-nut propagandists who want people to die and people today living too well off who have bought into the "'natural' must mean good" phenomenon.

The generations of Americans that remember what it was like having to live under the very real threat of being infected with serious diseases like polio, measles, and mumps in the United States are dying off. I believe most of them would think people not vaccinating their children to protect against disease are insane and downright negligent. The other less effective and more liberty-infringing solution to contain outbreaks of serious diseases is quarantine. Before a lot of these vaccines were invented quarantines of entire parts of major cities were common when an outbreak was detected.

Which would you rather have? Vaccine or quarantine?

Furthermore, if anti-vaccers' children were under threat of getting something like polio I think they'd change their stance on vaccines right quick.

[Texas_Tryhard]

(11-07-2014 05:21 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

You are using the same shitty fascists arguments that all current dictatorial powers are using. You are not an economist, then don't comment on economic policy. Not a politician, then don't fucking have an opinion on politics. You have not studied pediatrics, then you are not fit to tell women how to take care of their toddlers.

People have forgotten that vaccine riots and wars have been happening in 19th century UK and early 20th century in South America. Men went to prison for weeks only to have their kids not be vaccinated. I guess it was all superstition and those marvelous vaccines only saved lives. Meanwhile even Dr. Salk stated after the Polio vaccine containment was published that vaccine science in the 1950s was primitive. That very same smallpox marvel vaccine must have been great in 1890.


I guess you want SWAT teams to come pick up kids and shoot the family dogs while at it? Or better yet take them by simple CPS procedure and give them to some loving pedophile same-sex couple?

All those millions of dissenting doctors and parents who observe the lights going out with their children after some shot - all those are nutjobs and crackers and you are the supreme commander of reason and understanding. I advocate for understanding and acceptance of difference of opinion, but you prefer the boot of autocratic dictatorial power. Yes a discussion is truly futile here. I guess this feminist paradise and militarized police must be the dream for you - with the new Ebola vaccine wars at least the police will have tanks and drones at their disposal.

I am arguing the expertise is a thing worth valuing, and that the breakdown of expertise in favor of everyone's "opinions" and "feeeeeeelings" is disgusting to watch. Is the opinion of somebody with no medical training truly as valuable as the educated assertions of someone who has had such training, backed up by the vast majority of peer-reviewed information on the subject? Simple question.

Vaccines do have side effects. The side effects, except in people who have contraindications for vaccinations, are rare and mostly minor. The 'good' outweighs the 'bad'.

If you deny your children medical treatment for, say, cancer, they forcefully give the child treatment against the parents' wishes. I am comfortable with that. Your histrionics about giving children away to pedophile homosexuals and shooting dogs are funny but I've nothing to say about them.

Ad-hominem attacks are frequently employed by those without an argument. I am not the supreme commander of reason and understanding. But considering an overwhelming majority of experts on the matter, and an overwhelming majority of the evidence, points towards the efficacy and safety of vaccinations, that duty is luckily not mine. Accepting others' opinions is fine, but forcing your delusions on your children at their peril and the peril of others is not fine. Spanking your children/slapping them or not is a "matter of opinion", but beating your children to the point where it endangers their medical health is unarguably wrong, for example. If you believe that there is a limit to how much you should be allowed to beat your child before the "boot of autocratic dictatorial power" steps in, then I assume you can see a limit to how much you should be allowed to deny basic medical care to your children before the same steps in. This is not an either/or thing, there are gray areas between "fascist" and "freely allowing all discourse/actions". If you want to avoid giving your children the flu vaccine, fine. Noone's dying from the flu. If you want to avoid cancer treatment for you children, not fine.

As for comparing me to a feminist, let me try this out on you: "I guess this feminist paradise where appeals to emotion and deference to histrionics must be the dream for you."

Or I could remain calm and avoid such childish comparisons, because I prefer not to make a habit of thinking/talking with my ass.