Vaccines

meta-agnostic

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
kalibex said:
meta-agnostic said:
This appears to be where all the recent hubub is coming from. Typical case of having one party mention it and the other side goes berserk raving about how stupid they are, even though the article does mention opposition comes from both "sides" of the political spectrum. Still don't see any mention of last year's CDC whistleblower though. Or of the number of measles cases among those already vaccinated.
For sure, the anti-'anti-vaxxer' backlash on Facebook that I've noticed the past few days has been ferocious, coming across as a lock-step, mindless, parroting of the standard 'company line'. Absolutely relentless. The jeering, the sneering, the self-satisfied superiority. The best image I can use to describe it is 'That scene when that guy from the (1978) Invasion of the Body Snatchers turns on one unconverted character with this loud, accusatory, alien 'screeech' when she tries to talk to him.' It's just....wow.
Indeed. What I've seen on twitter has been more in the form of jokes, as the format tends to lend itself to, but it's like it cuts across different groups in a way few things have recently other than Charlie Hebdo. People who rarely say anything political feel the need to work into their joke format just how stupid/evil/irresponsible they think anti-vaxxers are. Because of what? Measles? Which no one in the US has died of in 10 years? I would like to see at least one mainstream source mention that many of the measles cases are occurring among vaccinated individuals. So far they all seem to either imply or say outright that the outbreak is due to decreased vaccination rates without going into any more detail.
 

meta-agnostic

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
This might be a new low in the vaccine debate:

_https://medium.com/the-archipelago/im-autistic-and-believe-me-its-a-lot-better-than-measles-78cb039f4bea

The author says she is autistic and claims the main force of the anti-vaxx position is based on fear of / lack of compassion for people with autism. While she may in fact be completely sincere in her feelings, I can't even begin to pick apart the flawed reasoning here. If vaccines do in fact cause autism, then who knows what else they might cause?! If people were trying to prevent autism due to a naturally occurring genetic variation that would be one thing, but we're talking about a man-made invasive medical procedure. I can't claim to know how an autistic person thinks, but do people with dyslexia think it would be good if more people were to develop dyslexia? Because of something being done to them in their childhood? Not to mention she throws around slurs like conspiracy theories and truther. And to claim it's better to be autistic than have measles?! Nothing against autistics, but we're talking about an (often) debilitating neurological disorder that lasts a lifetime vs. an acute illness that the vast majority of people who acquire it recover from and live completely normal lives. I'm sure there are autistic people and people on the spectrum who feel the exact opposite of the point of view this article puts forth. The propaganda keeps getting dirtier and dirtier...
 

Fluffy

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
Hi Dylan,

My partner and I found this one useful. http://www.greatergoodmovie.org
 

Dylan

Jedi
I have read that article, and it was good, but to me it is also a rhetorical and editorial piece more than an objective based paper. I don't think it would be a very good tool to introduce to people who are not already skeptical. But, I did appreciate the work.
 

Woodsman

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Hi, Dylan.

I've also noticed that vaccine debate has, "gone viral" on Facebook.

I've watched people get ugly and stop thinking, and certainly stop listening.

I've also learned a few things, and seen one or two upstanding individuals actually practice the art of skepticism, attempting to put aside their biases and allow their knowledge structures to change based on new information. But this is by far not the standard reaction, which is one of hate and emotion and a fortification of ignorance.

I've come away with a few casual observations...

1. The worst offenders on the Pro-Vaxx side invariable begin their participation in the debate (in each of the several cases I saw), with the announcement that, "There is NO question. It's a completely closed case. Vaccination works and is safe." (Or some variation on that theme.) That's their starting position and everything they do after that is not an attempt to assess or to explore, but to fortify and to win.

2. The worst of the Pro-Vaxx people display an amazing level of cognitive dissonance and denial. Well constructed, polite comments and samples of evidence are utterly disregarded. Where weaker arguments and less-than-watertight examples are challenged and spun, the strong examples are simply ignored and quickly forgotten. -To the extent that questions and talking points thoroughly addressed are asked again as though they had not been answered.

3. "Show me legitimate proof! Not that conspiracy stuff!"

This one is interesting. It struck me that when an extreme pro-vaxx person demands "legitimate" proof, when you boil it down, what they are really asking for is proof which has been given the stamp of approval by Official Culture. -Approval which can be granted only by a trusted authority figure or body with a sufficiently high standing in Official Culture, such as respected news anchors with CDC press releases. The problem, of course, is that questioning virology is not approved of by Official Culture, and thus exists outside the Venn diagram circle of acceptability; anything which disagrees with the official position is by default, "conspiracy stuff". -Even officials from within official culture are, as we have seen, tossed into the "conspiracy circle" the moment they raise alarms or go "off message". One wonders just how much momentum an official announcement would have to attain before being accepted if it goes against popular belief?

4. Knowing a lot of the people in person who I have on my own Facebook account, I have had the opportunity to know what they are like in their real lives, know their histories, etc.: They are not all the same. Some of the extreme pro-vaxx people have been those who tended to have a lot of difficulty in general coping with change and with accepting upsetting ideas. They are deeply affected by scary ideas, and avoid research as a general rule.

Others have been researchers and powerful thinkers in the past, but strangely flipped on this issue, turning off their previously strong rational tool kits, adopting uncharacteristic levels of denial and dogmatism, including that strange ability to simply not see or remember conflicting data or refutations, and refusing to read or even look at the proofs offered in response to their demands for "proof". In one case, a person who had recently been married made just such a flip. I'd not met the partner, so I don't know what influence that might have had, but it's night and day.

Another was a person who I had always gotten energetic alarm bells from. One of those emotionally strange types who wore a lot of black and just seemed, 'off' somehow. This person over the years never had much to say, ever, on any subject; more than once described as 'vacant' and 'disassociated', became amazingly verbose, forceful and emotional when the subject of vaccination came up. It was absolutely weird.

In the end, I realized that after a certain point, these debates become attempts to abridge Free Will; the extreme Pro-Vaxx person does not want to know or to learn new things. However, since these debates are public, often starting with questions, or when I post an article on my own "Wall", with sometimes hundreds of people looking on, I tend not to back off, thinking less of the "Violation" aspect, and more of the "Give a Lie what it asks for".

But I try to do so in a measured way. I'll go back and forth a few times, enough to address the main points, and then back off rather than become mired down in pointless argument. If it is on my own page, I'll give warnings and then block users rather quickly.

Anyway, it is strange that it should come up now with such vehemence. I'm not convinced that it was the Disney story which caused the flare up of renewed debate, but it does line up time-wise.

Anyway...

As for books and resources...

-"The Better Baby Book", (Lana Asprey) does a brief but fair job of going over some of the more normal concerns wrt vaccination. It makes an effort to not engage in the fear-mongering approach so often adopted by the Anti-Vaxx side. The book's objective is not to discuss virology, but rather to help would-be parents trying to conceive through a variety of means, including low carb diet solutions, supplements, exercises and life practices when modern approaches to solving infertility issues have failed. I like this book a lot because it comes at the problem from a multi-disciplinary angle, suggesting comprehensive alternatives. It's easier to understand what vaccination is all about when it is taken in context with the rest of reality rather than in isolation. This seems obvious in retrospect, but when caught up in debate such approaches are easily overlooked.

-"Fear of the Invisible" (Janine Roberts) -You may already have looked at some of the stuff I've written about this book here:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35993.0.html

Roberts provides historical context and modern views from within the medical and regulatory communities regarding virology, all written with a firm journalistic approach and nearly a decade of attention to the project.


-"Doctor Mary's Monkey" (Ed Haslam) -This one is the most likely to be rejected out of hand as "Conspiracy Stuff", as it conjures names like Lee Harvey Oswald. However, it is earnestly researched and its contentions are well backed up. As one person I know put it, "But it's not conspiracy. It's all right there in the documents and interviews." -Which is not to say that Haslam doesn't speculate and sometimes use source material which is heretical, but he makes it very clear when and where he is doing so. Despite it's being unacceptable material for those who aren't going to look at any of this stuff regardless, those who are curious and who have some mastery over their automatic reactions, it's a wonderful read. Probably not for the average person on the fence, though. Know your audience.

Here's a radio interview with Haslam which is worth listening to: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5-liXcXLI
 

Beau

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Dylan said:
I have read that article, and it was good, but to me it is also a rhetorical and editorial piece more than an objective based paper.
Why can't a rhetorical and editorial piece be objective? They are not mutually exclusive.
 

Dylan

Jedi
An editorial, by definition, is an opinion piece. There were facts mentioned in that article that are objective, but there was a clear bias of the author. Making it a subjective, rhetorical paper, which presents some facts to support it's editorial bias. That is my reading of it, anyways. It is certainly not a paper which you would reference when writing an academic essay, and I understand there are limitations to objectivity through contemporary academia, I do understand that, like the scientific method, academic paper writing is a way of reducing the noise and referencing ones positions with as 'objective as it gets' material.

The point I'm making, is while there are some credible links and references which are useful in gaining an objective insight, but the editorial slant, from my perspective, is quite rhetorical and I don't understand the difference in modus operandi between that article and the ones we rail against from social media and the presstitute media. It's a little bit like shock doctrine journalism. My .02.
 
Woodsman said:
Hi, Dylan.

I've also noticed that vaccine debate has, "gone viral" on Facebook.

I've watched people get ugly and stop thinking, and certainly stop listening.

I've also learned a few things, and seen one or two upstanding individuals actually practice the art of skepticism, attempting to put aside their biases and allow their knowledge structures to change based on new information. But this is by far not the standard reaction, which is one of hate and emotion and a fortification of ignorance.

I've come away with a few casual observations...

1. The worst offenders on the Pro-Vaxx side invariable begin their participation in the debate (in each of the several cases I saw), with the announcement that, "There is NO question. It's a completely closed case. Vaccination works and is safe." (Or some variation on that theme.) That's their starting position and everything they do after that is not an attempt to assess or to explore, but to fortify and to win.

2. The worst of the Pro-Vaxx people display an amazing level of cognitive dissonance and denial. Well constructed, polite comments and samples of evidence are utterly disregarded. Where weaker arguments and less-than-watertight examples are challenged and spun, the strong examples are simply ignored and quickly forgotten. -To the extent that questions and talking points thoroughly addressed are asked again as though they had not been answered.

3. "Show me legitimate proof! Not that conspiracy stuff!"

This one is interesting. It struck me that when an extreme pro-vaxx person demands "legitimate" proof, when you boil it down, what they are really asking for is proof which has been given the stamp of approval by Official Culture. -Approval which can be granted only by a trusted authority figure or body with a sufficiently high standing in Official Culture, such as respected news anchors with CDC press releases. The problem, of course, is that questioning virology is not approved of by Official Culture, and thus exists outside the Venn diagram circle of acceptability; anything which disagrees with the official position is by default, "conspiracy stuff". -Even officials from within official culture are, as we have seen, tossed into the "conspiracy circle" the moment they raise alarms or go "off message". One wonders just how much momentum an official announcement would have to attain before being accepted if it goes against popular belief?

4. Knowing a lot of the people in person who I have on my own Facebook account, I have had the opportunity to know what they are like in their real lives, know their histories, etc.: They are not all the same. Some of the extreme pro-vaxx people have been those who tended to have a lot of difficulty in general coping with change and with accepting upsetting ideas. They are deeply affected by scary ideas, and avoid research as a general rule.

Others have been researchers and powerful thinkers in the past, but strangely flipped on this issue, turning off their previously strong rational tool kits, adopting uncharacteristic levels of denial and dogmatism, including that strange ability to simply not see or remember conflicting data or refutations, and refusing to read or even look at the proofs offered in response to their demands for "proof". In one case, a person who had recently been married made just such a flip. I'd not met the partner, so I don't know what influence that might have had, but it's night and day.

Another was a person who I had always gotten energetic alarm bells from. One of those emotionally strange types who wore a lot of black and just seemed, 'off' somehow. This person over the years never had much to say, ever, on any subject; more than once described as 'vacant' and 'disassociated', became amazingly verbose, forceful and emotional when the subject of vaccination came up. It was absolutely weird.

In the end, I realized that after a certain point, these debates become attempts to abridge Free Will; the extreme Pro-Vaxx person does not want to know or to learn new things. However, since these debates are public, often starting with questions, or when I post an article on my own "Wall", with sometimes hundreds of people looking on, I tend not to back off, thinking less of the "Violation" aspect, and more of the "Give a Lie what it asks for".

But I try to do so in a measured way. I'll go back and forth a few times, enough to address the main points, and then back off rather than become mired down in pointless argument. If it is on my own page, I'll give warnings and then block users rather quickly.

Anyway, it is strange that it should come up now with such vehemence. I'm not convinced that it was the Disney story which caused the flare up of renewed debate, but it does line up time-wise.

Anyway...

As for books and resources...

-"The Better Baby Book", (Lana Asprey) does a brief but fair job of going over some of the more normal concerns wrt vaccination. It makes an effort to not engage in the fear-mongering approach so often adopted by the Anti-Vaxx side. The book's objective is not to discuss virology, but rather to help would-be parents trying to conceive through a variety of means, including low carb diet solutions, supplements, exercises and life practices when modern approaches to solving infertility issues have failed. I like this book a lot because it comes at the problem from a multi-disciplinary angle, suggesting comprehensive alternatives. It's easier to understand what vaccination is all about when it is taken in context with the rest of reality rather than in isolation. This seems obvious in retrospect, but when caught up in debate such approaches are easily overlooked.

-"Fear of the Invisible" (Janine Roberts) -You may already have looked at some of the stuff I've written about this book here:

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,35993.0.html

Roberts provides historical context and modern views from within the medical and regulatory communities regarding virology, all written with a firm journalistic approach and nearly a decade of attention to the project.


-"Doctor Mary's Monkey" (Ed Haslam) -This one is the most likely to be rejected out of hand as "Conspiracy Stuff", as it conjures names like Lee Harvey Oswald. However, it is earnestly researched and its contentions are well backed up. As one person I know put it, "But it's not conspiracy. It's all right there in the documents and interviews." -Which is not to say that Haslam doesn't speculate and sometimes use source material which is heretical, but he makes it very clear when and where he is doing so. Despite it's being unacceptable material for those who aren't going to look at any of this stuff regardless, those who are curious and who have some mastery over their automatic reactions, it's a wonderful read. Probably not for the average person on the fence, though. Know your audience.

Here's a radio interview with Haslam which is worth listening to: _https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ5-liXcXLI
Agreed. The vaccine debate has definitely gone viral on Facebook. I watched this view that a friend posted this morning from Canadian journalist Rex Murphy - http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/content/analysis/rexmurphy/anti-vaccine_movement.html
To be Anti-Vaxx is to risk being labelled "stupid" or "idiot" or as Rex says "having the intellectual power of a dead tree stump. And may even be living in one." Can the label of "murderer" or "terrorist" be far off?
 

Dylan

Jedi
Yeah, I saw that one too, Bruce. Absolute drivel, but there are times Rex nails it on other issues. Blaming these outbreaks on the anti vaxxer crowd and suggesting that failure to vaccinate is failure to care are arguments based on emotional manipulation. Rex is known for his editorial rants, so it is no surprise to see him speak as such, but I think it's absolutely ridiculous that so many people are putting rhetorical editorial pieces out there in order to convince or castigate other people.

The more research I do into the scientific and more objective work, the more I an dreading the next 'immunization' my children have. Once you know something, you cannot unknow it, and I'm really worried.
 

SummerLite

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
My goodness! So interesting to read whats being said here. I have also been experiencing this sudden energetic blast against people who choose not to vaccinate. The source for me is my daughter who is in nursing school. Her teachers have always been pro vac. but just recently a new level of fanaticism has exploded among teachers and students. A few nights ago my daughter called to say also there is a show on tv (main stream) targeting parents who don't vaccinate and perhaps it was a good idea to jail these people!

Years ago, while expecting my first grandchild I did a lot of research on vaccinations and the adverse affects. The studies and consequences ARE alarming. To my daughters credit she also studied this material and chose not to vaccinate, also wrote a few papers on it for med school( not in our home town here where she currently attends school. She is a closet no vacciner). She is a sensitive and kind hearted person and to hear others brand her as a ignorant criminal is quite hurtful to her and I AM Furious!!!!

The observations of Woodsman are very good, thanks. I'm not on facebook nor have I heard the latest political debate and controversy. All this has me considering forming a group in our community of people who support freedom of choice and to make sure our voices are heard and not be steam rolled. So analysis here is helpful in the mind set of the "other side". I consider one factor of the fanatical opposition to the unvaccinated is a deep fear of disease and death. Of course we know how fear has been so heavily used to control people.

On the article from the Washington post, Quote"

"The link between vaccinations and autism was alleged in a small 1998 study that has since been widely discredited in the scientific community. The journal that published the study retracted it in 2010, and its author lost his medical license.

But many doctors had cast doubt on the study even before those actions, insisting that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was safe and effective at combating once-deadly but now preventable diseases."

I don't know what this refuted study is they speak of but it sounds like the case involving Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who lost his medical license due to exposing links between the MMR vaccine and autism. He has in fact been vindicated in accredited medical circles sense then. So saying this research has been debunked isn't true. He was a favorite whipping boy for quite awhile. A good, caring doctor with only his patients well fare at heart.

"New independent research presented at the 2010 Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting in Vancouver, Canada confirms unequivocally the findings of Dr Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 Lancet paper of an association between autism and serious gastrointestinal disease in children [Full Details Below].
https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/wakefield%e2%80%99s-lancet%c2%a0paper%c2%a0vindicated/

Also on this website can be found articles such as this: " Vaccination Causes Autism – Say US Government & Merck’s Director of Vaccines. https://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/vaccination-causes-autism-%e2%80%93-say-us-government-merck%e2%80%99s-director-of%c2%a0vaccines/

The whole thing has the feel of the battle once fiercely fought about abortion rights but somehow seems on a much larger scale. I have experienced a very emotional reaction to all this, something I haven't felt in years. I find myself irrupting just as the pro vaccinators with cries of utter stupidity and mind control. A need to reflect on this is important for putting it all in perspective. Perhaps a rant in the Swamp topic. My apologizes if this last part is out of line here Dylan. I think the links provided here are good ones though.
 

Skyfarmr

Jedi Master
FOTCM Member
meta-agnostic said:
This might be a new low in the vaccine debate:

_https://medium.com/the-archipelago/im-autistic-and-believe-me-its-a-lot-better-than-measles-78cb039f4bea

The author says she is autistic and claims the main force of the anti-vaxx position is based on fear of / lack of compassion for people with autism. While she may in fact be completely sincere in her feelings, I can't even begin to pick apart the flawed reasoning here. If vaccines do in fact cause autism, then who knows what else they might cause?! If people were trying to prevent autism due to a naturally occurring genetic variation that would be one thing, but we're talking about a man-made invasive medical procedure. I can't claim to know how an autistic person thinks, but do people with dyslexia think it would be good if more people were to develop dyslexia? Because of something being done to them in their childhood? Not to mention she throws around slurs like conspiracy theories and truther. And to claim it's better to be autistic than have measles?! Nothing against autistics, but we're talking about an (often) debilitating neurological disorder that lasts a lifetime vs. an acute illness that the vast majority of people who acquire it recover from and live completely normal lives. I'm sure there are autistic people and people on the spectrum who feel the exact opposite of the point of view this article puts forth. The propaganda keeps getting dirtier and dirtier...
Indeed! (in regard to what is highlighted in red)

Barbara Loe Fischer, founder and president of National Vaccine Information Center, wrote this in an article back in February 2012:
http://www.nvic.org/PDFs/IOM/NVIC-BLF-IOM-Stmt-2-2012.aspx
These questions are being asked because, as the numbers of American children experiencing acute infectious diseases has
significantly decreased in the past half century due to mandatory use of multiple vaccines,the numbers of children suffering with chronic disease and disability has dramatically increased. Today, 1 child in 6 is developmentally delayed; 35 1 in 9 has asthma;361 in 10 is diagnosed with ADHD;37 1 in 110 develops autism;39 and 1 in 450 becomes diabetic. 40 Millions more have life threatening food and environmental allergies;41 seizures,42 mood and behavior disorders;43 inflammatory bowel disease;44 juvenile rheumatoid arthritis45 and other kinds of autoimmune and neurological problems marked by chronic inflammation in the body.

The United States ranked 12th in infant mortality among all nations in 1960 and now ranks number 30. In America, 6 in 1,000 babies die before their first birthday 46 and most of them receive twice as many vaccinations by age one as babies in European countries with much lower infant mortality rates. 47 The rate of diagnosable mental, behavioral or emotional disorders is twice as high among those aged 18 to 25(29.9%) as among those over age 50(14.3%).48 U.S. life expectancy rates are lower than many other developed nations.49

Environmental co-factors, such as vitamin deficient, processed foods; chemical contamination of soil, water, air and household products; overuse or misuse of prescription drugs; too little exercise and sleep; and too much stress could be playing a role in the premature deaths and health deterioration of infants, children and young adults. However, the significant change in vaccine schedules during the past half century, which has altered the way infants and children immunologically experience their environment,5051 cannot be left off the table when it comes to investigating the unexplained child chronic disease and disability epidemic, an epidemic that is bankrupting families,52 the health care system 53 and public schools, which can’t build special education classrooms and train special ed teachers fast enough. 54
Fischer has been bringing attention to vaccine injury, and the question of safety and efficacy since the 80's and her organization has gained recognition and clout as they educate more and more people including Congress. It should come as no surprise that the psychopathic shills in the medical and pharmaceutical industry have once again hijacked the mass media and are ramping up the volume and insults against all of us "anti-vaxxers".

The articles contained on this site, www.nvic.org, are well footnoted and sourced... a great resource for anyone wanting to debate this issue intelligently.
 
What most people on this issue fail to recognize is that this problem has nothing to do with your decisions because the ptb are going to make sure that we will all be vaccinated for everything soon. The battle is not about the here and now but about our futures. Can you imagine a world where everyone has to get multiple shots per year filled with heavy metals and other horrid substances. This is where we are headed. We are only in the primer stage right now. Soon it's full on "brave new world".
Something must be done or we are all at risk whether you want to vax or not, soon we will have no choice. Cold vax, flu vax, shoot why not a headache vax, you name it they will make you take it. Viva la resistance. (Yeah I know my French is no good)
 

Lilou

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The gov taking over healthcare is a real disaster in the making. I suppose the best thing to do is try and stay out of the healthcare system itself, limiting any data they have on you. Most medical/ and some dental offices now make a photocopy of your drivers license! So keeping a low profile is more difficult than it used to be. :ninja: Luckily, there are privacy experts, like JJ Luna, if you really had to disappear. ;)

To bill any medicare, Medicaid, and now Obamacare, the office records have to be online. Most opticals have not computerized yet, but are now required to include medical diagnosis on optical billings. Most opticals elect not to bill gov vendors, because then they are subject to audits with potentially big fines for stupid stuff, but eventually, they will likely be forced to it.

The schools are becoming an arm of enforcement for vaccine recommendations, making it very difficult if you have children. If you are insured, even privately, they can up your rates or even cancel you if you don't follow a prescribed regimen of pills, diet or exercise (they give discounts on premiums if you participate in walk-a-thons & other crazy $hit), and the bane of all, if you smoke!
 
Top Bottom