I just want to say my piece on the whole vax/anti vax

[kalibex]

<snip>

One such is that, "When your free choice puts others at risk, you are no longer allowed that choice." (Often seen with ALL CAPS placed on various wordings.)

<snip>

Yes but if they're vaccinated they can't possibly be at risk, because that's what the vaccine is supposed to do!
Can these people not see that by using that argument they are by default admitting that vaccination does not give them immunity, so why the hell do it? It's like scoring a goal for the other team but blaming the other team for it. Does my head in.

Same here! That's the argument of "herd immunity" - so if you want to be part of the herd, just go and vaccinate yourself. And leave the others alone!

Actually, just to clarify: My understanding of the 'herd immunity' argument is that certain vulnerable members of society who cannot be vaccinated - very young babies, immunocompromised adults, etc. - are the ones who are protected by 'herd immunity' (ie, they are safer that there isn't a current outbreak of various diseases) - not the already-vaccinated public.

(Of course, that only works if vaccinations actually do work - which there isn't certainty about anymore - and, the fact that certain immunocompromosed people can't be safely vaccinated...kind of tells you something else about the possible effects of vaccinations, huh?)

 

[timmyman]

<snip>

One such is that, "When your free choice puts others at risk, you are no longer allowed that choice." (Often seen with ALL CAPS placed on various wordings.)

<snip>

Yes but if they're vaccinated they can't possibly be at risk, because that's what the vaccine is supposed to do!
Can these people not see that by using that argument they are by default admitting that vaccination does not give them immunity, so why the hell do it? It's like scoring a goal for the other team but blaming the other team for it. Does my head in.

Same here! That's the argument of "herd immunity" - so if you want to be part of the herd, just go and vaccinate yourself. And leave the others alone!

Actually, just to clarify: My understanding of the 'herd immunity' argument is that certain vulnerable members of society who cannot be vaccinated - very young babies, immunocompromised adults, etc. - are the ones who are protected by 'herd immunity' (ie, they are safer that there isn't a current outbreak of various diseases) - not the already-vaccinated public.

(Of course, that only works if vaccinations actually do work - which there isn't certainty about anymore - and, the fact that certain immunocompromosed people can't be safely vaccinated...kind of tells you something else about the possible effects of vaccinations, huh?)

was just about to say that but in my opinion herd immunity couldn't possibly work like that because upon vaccination the so called herd already carries the virus?

 

[kalibex]

Actually, just to clarify: My understanding of the 'herd immunity' argument is that certain vulnerable members of society who cannot be vaccinated - very young babies, immunocompromised adults, etc. - are the ones who are protected by 'herd immunity' (ie, they are safer that there isn't a current outbreak of various diseases) - not the already-vaccinated public.

(Of course, that only works if vaccinations actually do work - which there isn't certainty about anymore - and, the fact that certain immunocompromosed people can't be safely vaccinated...kind of tells you something else about the possible effects of vaccinations, huh?)

was just about to say that but in my opinion herd immunity couldn't possibly work like that because upon vaccination the so called herd already carries the virus?

Depends if it's the type of vaccine where the virus is still alive (but hopefully) less virulent - known as 'attenuated' - or if it's the 'inactivated' type (the virus has been completely killed).

If it's only attenuated, then yes, it theoretically can re-mutate back into a more virulent form. And shed live virus particles, of course.

 

[Woodsman]

<snip>

One such is that, "When your free choice puts others at risk, you are no longer allowed that choice." (Often seen with ALL CAPS placed on various wordings.)

<snip>

Yes but if they're vaccinated they can't possibly be at risk, because that's what the vaccine is supposed to do!
Can these people not see that by using that argument they are by default admitting that vaccination does not give them immunity, so why the hell do it? It's like scoring a goal for the other team but blaming the other team for it. Does my head in.

Same here! That's the argument of "herd immunity" - so if you want to be part of the herd, just go and vaccinate yourself. And leave the others alone!

Actually, just to clarify: My understanding of the 'herd immunity' argument is that certain vulnerable members of society who cannot be vaccinated - very young babies, immunocompromised adults, etc. - are the ones who are protected by 'herd immunity' (ie, they are safer that there isn't a current outbreak of various diseases) - not the already-vaccinated public.

(Of course, that only works if vaccinations actually do work - which there isn't certainty about anymore - and, the fact that certain immunocompromosed people can't be safely vaccinated...kind of tells you something else about the possible effects of vaccinations, huh?)

This IS one of the later bits of canned spin I've seen out in the wilds of the internet. -That we must all vaccinate in order to protect the 1% of children who, for unexplained but supposedly officially legitimate medical reasons, cannot vaccinate.

Without pulling that apart for critical examination on its own merits, the thing I find most irritating about it is that it has obviously nothing to do with anybody's true reason for vaccinating. It is just a hair-splitting rebuttal to the puzzled/frustrated observation, "If your kids are already vaccinated (and you believe it works), then un-vaccinated children should pose no threat to your family when they come over to play in your back yard. (Did you even read the brochure before signing the dotted line?)"

Silence.

And then a few weeks later after some bright spark on the web came up with the 1% rebuttal.., "Yes, but.., but, think of the 1%! THAT'S who I'm worried about!"

"No you're not. You said you were worried about your kids getting sick because the neighbor's kids didn't get the measles shot. -And by the way, it's not even about that. You are spending an enormous amount of cognitive energy to find a way to apologize for and excuse people who are trying to harm you because you would rather continue taking poison while pretending that it is good for you than face up to the terrifying possibility that maybe it's POISON -and all that would imply."

So yes. Vaccinate your kids to protect the 1%. (And isn't THAT an interesting parallel?)

 

[Henchman 21]

Thanks everyone. I might change this a little bit as new thoughts have entered my head. But I am glad that it is at least floating well over here. I've always had insecurities about my writing as I was a C to D student in high school. The last thing I wanted to post was a bunch of C or D grade garbage. Btw for those that don't know the US grading system, C and D grades are not something to be proud of.
My confidence has been boosted so thank you all for your input. Helping me get over some of these programmed blocks.

 

[Cyre2067]

Hey Capt. Great rant! If you wanted to add some things in a future revision you might consider these two bits:

1.) Vaccines contain aluminium or mercury-based compounds. Both heavy metals are known potent neurotoxins, neither occur naturally in the human body, so much like radiation, there is no 'safe' amount.

2.) They also contain chemical adjuvants, these are compounds designed to trigger an immuno-cascade, basically inducing inflammation so that the body responds well to the vaccine components. In addition to skyrocketing rates of autism, we have other diseases related to overactive immune systems which we never saw before. Consider Celiac's but for one example.

I bring these up with provax folks frequently, doesn't seem to have much of an effect, but I thought I'd mention them nonetheless.

 

[Thebull]

Thanks everyone. I might change this a little bit as new thoughts have entered my head. But I am glad that it is at least floating well over here. I've always had insecurities about my writing as I was a C to D student in high school. The last thing I wanted to post was a bunch of C or D grade garbage. Btw for those that don't know the US grading system, C and D grades are not something to be proud of.
My confidence has been boosted so thank you all for your input. Helping me get over some of these programmed blocks.

A really good post which is especially poignant for me as my wife is a pro vac and I'm anti. It's been a touchy subject in our house for a number of month's now and it's difficult to encourage her to research.

 

[Ysus]

Hi Captainmurphy and all the contributors to this thread

I would like to add my perspective as a mother. It’s been a while (13 years) since I was confronted with making decisions concerning vaccinating my child or not. Had it not been for a homoeopath who suggested I look into it when I was pregnant, I might not even have questioned it. At the time I was still confident that the medical authorities have our best interest at heart and to this day think many many do mean well but are so busy and time constrained and so buried underneath huge demands that they themselves can often not accurately see what goes on – or they do or at least have an inkling of an idea of the many shams but feel too vulnerable (as real people with real feelings) to take on the fight for choice. I am sure it takes a very strong network for an “official person” to have a chance to be an effective public beacon and not just end up a short (however heroic) flicker. If you stand up too fast and too “unthinkingly idealistically” you are quite quickly gone again before you’ve effectively started. Mere cannon (read: hatred) fodder.

When I started to read up on the perils of vaccinations my trust was knocked badly. I had to force myself to read a lot and when I say “had to force myself” I mean: I felt myself emotionally drowning throughout the material - it was one big agony, a veritable “painfest” and all I wanted to do was stop reading and feel safe.

I decided against vaccinating but I know I would not have found the strength had my (then) husband not agreed and supported me. We also didn’t live around my family at the time - they would, no doubt, have tried to make me feel irresponsible. In addition to my husband’s support I also felt the need to join a “natural minded” mother’s group.

(As a “side insertion”: My son’s father has now another child and that child is vaccinated. It seems to me women are usually the ones deciding when it comes to children and a man is often at a disadvantage in that respect.)

My observation is: there is rarely a non-vaccinator who hasn’t quite extensively looked into the argument. Non-vaccinators normally arrive at their decision via painstakingly informing themselves and agonizing and thinking a great deal about it whereas many in the other camp do not. And it’s usually exactly the ones who have not done the “inform-thyself” work who will quite generously accuse the others of being irresponsible.


Deep sigh.


Having to make decisions for oneself is hard enough but having to make them for one’s own child is so much harder still. Also the trial isn’t simply over by saying “no” - no sigh of relief in sight … In fact that is the moment when the real trials start! You are faced with years of having to explain and defend your resolution and be vigilant and smart about who to talk to about it – all the while hoping nothing will go seriously wrong. We also learnt that the school (and a Montessori one at that) we wanted to send our son to didn’t accept unvaccinated children.

I remember a befriended mother approaching me on the subject of vaccination. She had informed herself and read all the material about it but was very undecided over what to do and asked me. I am for choice and I would not take it upon myself to urge anyone into “my camp” – at the end of the day one inescapable fact remains: parents have to live with their decision. We want safety but life is notoriously dangerous and uncertain. What I felt fit to say was: “When all has been thought through and the pros and cons been weighed carefully and you still feel uncertain about making a decision - what thought can you bear better: your child possibly being seriously affected by an illness (force majeure) or by a shot (‘the hand of man’)?”

Then again: emotions run high in both camps: the ones for as much as the ones against vaccination and there does not seem to be much room for compromise decisions. Perhaps the option of carefully choosing some while rejecting other vaccinations might be a viable path, too.

 

[Thebull]

Hi Captainmurphy and all the contributors to this thread

I would like to add my perspective as a mother. It’s been a while (13 years) since I was confronted with making decisions concerning vaccinating my child or not. Had it not been for a homoeopath who suggested I look into it when I was pregnant, I might not even have questioned it. At the time I was still confident that the medical authorities have our best interest at heart and to this day think many many do mean well but are so busy and time constrained and so buried underneath huge demands that they themselves can often not accurately see what goes on – or they do or at least have an inkling of an idea of the many shams but feel too vulnerable (as real people with real feelings) to take on the fight for choice. I am sure it takes a very strong network for an “official person” to have a chance to be an effective public beacon and not just end up a short (however heroic) flicker. If you stand up too fast and too “unthinkingly idealistically” you are quite quickly gone again before you’ve effectively started. Mere cannon (read: hatred) fodder.

When I started to read up on the perils of vaccinations my trust was knocked badly. I had to force myself to read a lot and when I say “had to force myself” I mean: I felt myself emotionally drowning throughout the material - it was one big agony, a veritable “painfest” and all I wanted to do was stop reading and feel safe.

I decided against vaccinating but I know I would not have found the strength had my (then) husband not agreed and supported me. We also didn’t live around my family at the time - they would, no doubt, have tried to make me feel irresponsible. In addition to my husband’s support I also felt the need to join a “natural minded” mother’s group.

(As a “side insertion”: My son’s father has now another child and that child is vaccinated. It seems to me women are usually the ones deciding when it comes to children and a man is often at a disadvantage in that respect.)

My observation is: there is rarely a non-vaccinator who hasn’t quite extensively looked into the argument. Non-vaccinators normally arrive at their decision via painstakingly informing themselves and agonizing and thinking a great deal about it whereas many in the other camp do not. And it’s usually exactly the ones who have not done the “inform-thyself” work who will quite generously accuse the others of being irresponsible.


Deep sigh.


Having to make decisions for oneself is hard enough but having to make them for one’s own child is so much harder still. Also the trial isn’t simply over by saying “no” - no sigh of relief in sight … In fact that is the moment when the real trials start! You are faced with years of having to explain and defend your resolution and be vigilant and smart about who to talk to about it – all the while hoping nothing will go seriously wrong. We also learnt that the school (and a Montessori one at that) we wanted to send our son to didn’t accept unvaccinated children.

I remember a befriended mother approaching me on the subject of vaccination. She had informed herself and read all the material about it but was very undecided over what to do and asked me. I am for choice and I would not take it upon myself to urge anyone into “my camp” – at the end of the day one inescapable fact remains: parents have to live with their decision. We want safety but life is notoriously dangerous and uncertain. What I felt fit to say was: “When all has been thought through and the pros and cons been weighed carefully and you still feel uncertain about making a decision - what thought can you bear better: your child possibly being seriously affected by an illness (force majeure) or by a shot (‘the hand of man’)?”

Then again: emotions run high in both camps: the ones for as much as the ones against vaccination and there does not seem to be much room for compromise decisions. Perhaps the option of carefully choosing some while rejecting other vaccinations might be a viable path, too.

Thanks for your post Ysus it's struck a chord with me. It's s dilemma indeed and if you don't look into the subject and accept the pharma line things would be easier and vaccination's administered, no questions asked. As soon as you delve into the subject of vaccination to me anyway it seems insane that you would contemplate vaccinating a baby or small child. Most people i have ever discussed this with seem to think I'm a unstable.

It is even more difficult when your loved ones aren't on the same page. All I can do is is provide material or articles to read but if there is no interest to delve into the subject and party line accepted without question what then? This thread has been very useful for me and will serve me well in the future.

Captain Murphy an informative well written piece your work and time is much appreciated.

 

[manitoban]

Thanks for your post Ysus it's struck a chord with me. It's s dilemma indeed and if you don't look into the subject and accept the pharma line things would be easier and vaccination's administered, no questions asked. As soon as you delve into the subject of vaccination to me anyway it seems insane that you would contemplate vaccinating a baby or small child. Most people i have ever discussed this with seem to think I'm a unstable.

It is even more difficult when your loved ones aren't on the same page. All I can do is is provide material or articles to read but if there is no interest to delve into the subject and party line accepted without question what then? This thread has been very useful for me and will serve me well in the future.

Captain Murphy an informative well written piece your work and time is much appreciated.

Thank you Captain Murphy and everyone who has added their thoughts to this thread.

I've gone through my own share of utter frustration with people who refuse to even examine the evidence of the harm vaccines can cause, and I can sure empathize with people who have very young children in the current era of hysteria. I remember a few years back, a friend of mine who is totally pro vax gave his child the chicken pox vaccine. Some months later the child got the chicken pox. I naively thought at that point he would perhaps reevaluate his views, but he still swore up and down that vaccines do work! That was when I realized that with some people, maybe even most people, no amount of evidence will EVER convince them. For them, it really isn't about the evidence, its about maintaining their belief system.

 

[Thebull]

Manitoban
I've gone through my own share of utter frustration with people who refuse to even examine the evidence of the harm vaccines can cause, and I can sure empathize with people who have very young children in the current era of hysteria. I remember a few years back, a friend of mine who is totally pro vax gave his child the chicken pox vaccine. Some months later the child got the chicken pox. I naively thought at that point he would perhaps reevaluate his views, but he still swore up and down that vaccines do work! That was when I realized that with some people, maybe even most people, no amount of evidence will EVER convince them. For them, it really isn't about the evidence, its about maintaining their belief system.

That's right,maintaining their all important belief system. They cannot face the truth that these corporations and organizations haven't got our best interests at heart. It is too terrifying for people to contemplate that they are risking their children's lives with the concoctions that are injected into them.

 

[davey72]

Perhaps you can post your finished piece here with a signature so that i for one can copy and share it?

 

[Arwenn]

Thank you Captain Murphy and everyone who has added their thoughts to this thread.

I've gone through my own share of utter frustration with people who refuse to even examine the evidence of the harm vaccines can cause, and I can sure empathize with people who have very young children in the current era of hysteria. I remember a few years back, a friend of mine who is totally pro vax gave his child the chicken pox vaccine. Some months later the child got the chicken pox. I naively thought at that point he would perhaps reevaluate his views, but he still swore up and down that vaccines do work! That was when I realized that with some people, maybe even most people, no amount of evidence will EVER convince them. For them, it really isn't about the evidence, its about maintaining their belief system.

That's truly the crux of it. And there is science to solidly back this up- from Laura's article The Golden Age, Psychopathy and the Sisth Extinction:

"A recent imaging study by psychologist Drew Westen and his colleagues at Emory University provides firm support for the existence of emotional reasoning. Just prior to the 2004 Bush-Kerry presidential elections, two groups of subjects were recruited - fifteen ardent Democrats and fifteen ardent Republicans. Each was presented with conflicting and seemingly damaging statements about their candidate, as well as about more neutral targets such as actor Tom Hanks (who, it appears, is a likable guy for people of all political persuasions). Unsurprisingly, when the participants were asked to draw a logical conclusion about a candidate from the other - 'wrong' - political party, the participants found a way to arrive at a conclusion that made the candidate look bad, even though logic should have mitigated the particular circumstances and allowed them to reach a different conclusion. Here's where it gets interesting.

When this 'emote control' began to occur, parts of the brain normally involved in reasoning were not activated. Instead, a constellation of activations occurred in the same areas of the brain where punishment, pain, and negative emotions are experienced (that is, in the left insula, lateral frontal cortex, and ventromedial prefrontal cortex). Once a way was found to ignore information that could not be rationally discounted, the neural punishment areas turned off, and the participant received a blast of activation in the circuits involving rewards - akin to the high an addict receives when getting his fix.

In essence, the participants were not about to let facts get in the way of their hot-button decision making and quick buzz of reward. 'None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged,' says Westen. 'Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones'...

Ultimately, Westen and his colleagues believe that 'emotionally biased reasoning leads to the "stamping in" or reinforcement of a defensive belief, associating the participant's "revisionist" account of the data with positive emotion or relief and elimination of distress. The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data,' Westen says. Westen's remarkable study showed that neural information processing related to what he terms 'motivated reasoning' ... appears to be qualitatively different from reasoning when a person has no strong emotional stake in the conclusions to be reached.

So basically if someone is very emotionally heavily invested in a certain belief, there is no amount of evidence to the contrary that will make them change their minds- to do so, causes them pain and punishment. And a defensive belief (one that they believe in, without questioning or researching things for themselves- religious fundies, pro-vaxers etc, believe it because they have been told to by Authority and because their social group, peers family etc believe it). It literally causes them pain to even have an open mind.

So, with this knowledge in mind, with rabid pro/anti anyone without an open mind, it's an opportunity to practice external consideration. Spare them the pain, spare yourself the frustration, as ultimately it's futile to do otherwise.

 

[davey72]

That is a good point Arwenn but just speaking for myself i know that there were a lot of things i believed in at one time until i saw something that grabbed my attention and made me look into it a little at a time until i changed my mind. Vaccination being one of them.

 

[Arwenn]

That is a good point Arwenn but just speaking for myself i know that there were a lot of things i believed in at one time until i saw something that grabbed my attention and made me look into it a little at a time until i changed my mind. Vaccination being one of them.

Difference being that you had an open mind and when presented with evidence that challenged or contradicted your perceptions of reality/truth, you were willing to change. These militant believers won't/can't change their minds because to do so would undo who they are. Too much pain/work/effort, therefore can't/won't got there.

It's not herd immunity, it's a herd mentality - safety in numbers, despite evidence to the contrary.