Robert Kennedy Jr. and vaccine safety review

Page 3 of 4 [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

11 Jan 2017, 9:51 pm

Adamantium wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
Moderating

Break!

Please return to your corners, ladies.

Reminder: The topic is "Robert Kennedy Jr. and Vaccine Safety Review" not "willburforce and nurseangela and their many faults, sins and deficiencies"

Should anyone persist in personalizing the debate, moderation will occur.

No hitting below the belt and protect yourself at all times.

Debate!


Am I the one who personalised this debate because I used the word "idiotic" to describe ignoring scientific evidence in the favour of letting children die of easily preventable diseases? Because as far as I can tell that is the textbook definition of idiotic behaviour. Was it wrong to use this word? How could I have worded my argument differently to make the same point but without it being "personal"? I would appreciate feedback on this because I have gotten into trouble for using this word before and I didn't quite understand why my usage was problematic then, and obviously I still don't.


If a WP member advocates a certain position A and then another says "Those idiots who advocate A are going to lead us to rack and ruin!" The first member is likely to feel that they have been indirectly attacked as an idiot for advocating position A.

Calling people idiots is abusive name calling, not fair commentary even if you think their position is ill conceived or the result of poor thinking. Everyone says something idiotic from time to time, but that's a very different thing than "being" an idiot. That's an existential label that proclaims the person has a very low IQ. That's really not OK.

A way to avoid getting into trouble with this is to focus on the thing that was said rather than the intellectual capability of the person or people saying it. This is likely to be a more persuasive argument because it sometimes happens that people with very little intellectual capacity present true arguments and people with enormous intellectual capacity argue totally false positions. Also, if you present the reasons for your position, some people might be swayed by them but if you call them idiots, they are likely to dismiss you and won't hear anything else you have to say.


But I said it was the behaviour that was idiotic, not the people doing it. I specified it was an idiotic thing to do, not that the people doing it were idiots. Letting children needlessly die is an idiotic behaviour that a lot of not-otherwise-idiotic people participate in because of misinformation and propaganda about the "horrible danger" of vaccines. This is why I don't understand the reasoning behind the trouble with this word. What is a better, less "personal" word for completely ignoring the obvious truth of something? Is there a word for that that's not "personally insulting"?

I'm really having a hard time understanding this.


But before you called their behavior idiotic, which would have been fine, you called them idiots, which is not so fine:
wilburforce wrote:
Children are dying of preventable diseases because of these idiots.


And that was the language to which nurseangela objected, an objection she voiced with a personal jab at you.


I forgot I started out from there, now I see what you mean.


_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,136
Location: Phoenix, AZ

11 Jan 2017, 11:41 pm

Show me proof that that children are dying at a greater rate from preventable diseases , I do not believe expressing skepticism about specific vaccines is putting public health at risk and what if there actually is an issue with the vaccines that people aren't looking into because of not wanting to be labeled an "anti-vaxxer"? My youngest brother had an adverse reaction to I think as MMR or DTaP vaccination which has resulted in permanent and irreversible brain damage, I know first hand that these are not completely harmless or without risk.

If there is no link then there is no link, I think the fears are unfounded. RFK Jr is very liberal Democrat, he's not some religious cook or "anti-science" conservative, I think he is genuine in his beliefs and it it fine to hear him out. If you are confident in the science of vaccines then more scrutiny shouldn't be an issue.



wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

12 Jan 2017, 12:24 am

Jacoby wrote:
Show me proof that that children are dying at a greater rate from preventable diseases , I do not believe expressing skepticism about specific vaccines is putting public health at risk and what if there actually is an issue with the vaccines that people aren't looking into because of not wanting to be labeled an "anti-vaxxer"? My youngest brother had an adverse reaction to I think as MMR or DTaP vaccination which has resulted in permanent and irreversible brain damage, I know first hand that these are not completely harmless or without risk.

If there is no link then there is no link, I think the fears are unfounded. RFK Jr is very liberal Democrat, he's not some religious cook or "anti-science" conservative, I think he is genuine in his beliefs and it it fine to hear him out. If you are confident in the science of vaccines then more scrutiny shouldn't be an issue.


Easily googled for those who can be bothered:

http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Pre ... eaths.html

https://www.unicef.org/immunization/index_why.html

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265 ... n-in-2002/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -stop-that

There is tonnes more out there, but I'm not going to link it all for you. This should be enough to get you started, though.


_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)


wilburforce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,940

12 Jan 2017, 12:28 am

No one is afraid to avoid scrutiny--the evidence is all there, for people to see. The problem is that they just ignore it in exchange for ignorant fear that is whipped up by crooks who know better like Wakefield.


_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War

(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,856
Location: Long Island, New York

12 Jan 2017, 2:21 am

nurseangela wrote:
wilburforce wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
The vax thing as been investigated under republican and democratic administrations. The likelihood that all the anti-vaxers, given their great diversity in other views, would find a Trump regime more trustworthy seems very low.

I don't have a lot of time for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Or chemtrails, area 51 seekers, and Sandy Hook deniers.

There is an almost unlimited amount of crap people theorize about. The US government should not be supporting that activity. I certainly don't want a penny of my tax money going there!


Some people think it's a pressing question, I am not afraid of hearing people out.


Children are dying of preventable diseases because of these idiots. Their misinformed "opinions" on vaccinations have caused children to die. You should be afraid of giving them more of a platform to spread misinformation that puts the public in danger.


Quit calling people idiots just because they don't agree with your line of thinking. I'm getting tired of it.

I, for one, would like to get rid of flu vaccines. Now they also have pneumonia vaccines (more than one) and shingle vaccines. Where does it stop? I get forced to get flu vaccines. The vaccines have other ingredients in them. When it comes to the flu, or pneumonia or shingles, I believe in natural immunity. Several times, they have come out and said the flu vaccine was useless, but I still have that crap inside me. Bunch of BS! Good old handwashing goes a long way - people should give it a try sometime.


Handwashing is not all that effective for a major metropolitan areas where you are packed togeather often.


_________________
Freedom of choice is what you got, Freedom from choice is what you want - Devo

Recovering from tongue cancer, somewhat verbal.
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,502
Location: Reading, England

12 Jan 2017, 8:12 am

Jacoby wrote:
RFK Jr is very liberal Democrat, he's not some religious cook or "anti-science" conservative,

It might seem like it, but Democrats aren't magically immune from getting things wrong. Look at the left-wing criticism of Monsanto or support for alternative medicine. His political affiliation is meaningless because this isn't a political issue.

If you launch enough investigations then eventually one will show something. It's simple probability. If those investigations are highly partisan, run by a liberal arts major who failed as a lawyer and has spent his life sucking at the Kennedy teat (drain the swamp!), and ordered by a low-information blowhard who creates his own facts, then there's a good chance they'll ignore the evidence.

If Trump wanted to reach across to a Kennedy then a better choice would have been Patrick J. Kennedy, a science major who has served on relevant House subcommittees. Better yet would be appointing an expert. These sorts of things shouldn't be left up to politicians - particularly not failed politicians.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,136
Location: Phoenix, AZ

12 Jan 2017, 8:37 am

Characterizing RFK Jr as just a loser hanger to his famous family is not fair whatsoever, he's been passionately involved with this issue for many years and I don't believe he is doing it for notoriety. I am not afraid of hearing him out, or anyone else for that matter. Not the only voice at the table, you need everybody for a complete picture and I think restricting those voices is what breeds skepticism and distrust in the system.

And no I don't agree that if you keep looking you will find something, either there is or there isn't. Falsifying something is a serious crime and something I think should be more thoroughly investigated in academics and science since I don't share this belief in their unwavering integrity like liberals apparently have. If nothing is there then nothing is there, I think the fear is that something might be uncovered and what the possible implications of that may be. I think there should be scrutiny on vaccines in general, would you falsify things the other way if you thought it protected the 'greater good'?

Patrick J. Kennedy is passionate about a whole other slate of issues, I don't think it is a bad idea for Trump to tap him for a position either. I think Patrick Kennedy would bring a lot to the table on the issues of mental illness and addiction for which he has done so much work on behalf for.



firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 698
Location: Southend on sea,Essex,England

12 Jan 2017, 8:52 am

There is already a whole heap of research disproving any connection. However no amount of research will ever be enough for the anti vax crowd.
As for getting an unbiased report is putting Patrick Kennedy, a vehement anti vaxxer, in charge of a review really going to achieve that?


_________________
Support mental health research
Please support mental health research
http://www.mentalhealthresearchuk.org.uk/
http://mcpin.org/
https://www.mqmentalhealth.org/


Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 133 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 47 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,324
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Jan 2017, 8:58 am

I believe much which is "anti-vax" revolves around the issue of government interference in people's lives. It's more a libertarian issue quite a bit of the time than it is a scientific one.

It's pretty obvious to any serious scientist that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh the potential hazards. I get the feeling some problems might be caused by the preservatives used in vaccines, rather than the vaccines themselves. This must be addressed.

As I stated previously, if vaccines caused autism, we would have had headlines blaring in the 50's and 60's referring to an "autism epidemic."



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,136
Location: Phoenix, AZ

12 Jan 2017, 9:03 am

You don't get to choose what is settled and what isn't, if people are still asking questions then obviously isn't settled. I think it all boils down to fear of letting people hear an opposing viewpoint, would you say 'oh we already had a panel on racism, we don't need another'? I don't understand the extremists about vaccination unless they do not care about the individual but rather the 'greater good'.

I don't believe vaccines cause autism, perhaps they can aggravate it tho and as I mentioned before I know first hand that they can cause adverse reactions which some of the dogmatic vaccine supporters would lend you to believe never happens. They should investigate vaccines, medications, medical treatments continuously. Reluctance just breeds mistrust, if vaccines weren't being mandated and forced on some people then there probably wouldn't be as much of a push back.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,324
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Jan 2017, 9:06 am

Of course, there are side-effects associated with vaccines.

There are also side-effects associates with things like Tylenol.

Do we just ban Tylenol?

I never stated that we should not continue to perform research. I explicitly stated that we should look into the preservatives found in vaccines.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,324
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Jan 2017, 9:15 am

Frankly, if we didn't have universal vaccination, we would revert back to medieval days.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,136
Location: Phoenix, AZ

12 Jan 2017, 9:29 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Of course, there are side-effects associated with vaccines.

There are also side-effects associates with things like Tylenol.

Do we just ban Tylenol?

I never stated that we should not continue to perform research. I explicitly stated that we should look into the preservatives found in vaccines.


I have never said ban vaccines. I just think more investigations with more viewpoints involved is a a good thing, if there is an issue with certain vaccines then that is huge pressing issue that needs to be fixed immediately. By investigating the link between autism and vaccines they will be looking at two subjects that need more attention on their own merits and maybe this committee and means to that. This 'you can't look at that, that's settled science' nonsense is exactly why there is such a lack of trust in it, anything so unquestionable usually has some issues because otherwise they wouldn't be so defensive.

Is there a greater good argument, if you believe that vaccines save millions of people do you even care about minority who suffer the adverse reactions? I don't feel like a lot of the vaccination zealots do.

Also this whole herd immunity argument doesn't make a lot of sense, vaccination rates are not anywhere close to 95% and never have since most vaccinations don't work for life! Most of the childhood vaccinations you got no longer protect you as an adult and I don't think most people are getting yearly boosters. The only way to achieve that sort of vaccination rate in reality would be to mandate it for all children and adults to get it every year, that aint happening. A lot of these outbreaks are actually happening with people that are thought to be vaccinated.

Do you get a flu shot every year?



BTDT
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,190

12 Jan 2017, 9:37 am

Jacoby wrote:
They should investigate vaccines, medications, medical treatments continuously. Reluctance just breeds mistrust, if vaccines weren't being mandated and forced on some people then there probably wouldn't be as much of a push back.


Who is "They?" Or, more importantly, who is going to pay for this investigation, the drug companies making the vaccines? Surely you don't expect to lay off researchers and expect them to do this on their own funds, do you?

Republicans typically cut taxes to fulfill election promises, then cut programs they don't like in order to balance the budget. I fully expect researchers doing real science to lose their jobs, as they make it harder for companies to make money--hence the booming stock market.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 33,324
Location: Queens, NYC

12 Jan 2017, 9:40 am

I don't get a flu shot every year.

One year, it was found that the flu vaccine was merely about 33% effective.

And each flu vaccine only works on one strain of influenza. There are always multiple strains floating around at any given time.

Saying this, if it were mandated that I get a flu shot, I would get it.

Most vaccines (e.g., DPT) confer virtually 100% immunity once their vaccination cycles are complete.