News coverage of vaccine controversies drives down support for vaccines

a reply to: RustyHook

You're trying to move it from a scientific issue to an ideological issue (which, for anti vaxers, is actually the case). "Outspokenly pro [vaccination]"? Really?? Do we have people who are outspokenly pro spherical earth? No, they are just called normal, rationale people.

The tide of public opinion is turning against ignorant and dangerous anti vaxers. As such, they are trying to play a semantics game. If to don't accept the efficacy and safty of vaccines or the scientific fact that there is no causal link between vaccines and autism then you are an anti vaxer (a subset of the broader category of science denier). No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that.

a reply to: GetHyped

Your reply has nothing to do with the context of the discussion my comment was posted in.

If to don't accept the efficacy and safty of vaccines or the scientific fact that there is no causal link between vaccines and autism then you are an anti vaxer (a subset of the broader category of science denier). No amount of semantic gymnastics will change that.

Well looks like it took quite some semantic gymnastics to make that point.

Why does everything have to be so black and white?

a reply to: RustyHook

Because emperical facts are black and white. Vaccines work and are safe, whether you like it or not. The reality of scientific evidence does not require your personal blessing.

a reply to: GetHyped

Wether I like it or not? What kind of a ridiculous postulation is that?

Your statements aren't even true. Vaccines don't always work and aren't always safe. The original point was that people who are as much as questioning the use of vaccines, even only specific ones, are immediately labeled anti vax which is not necessarily true.

I only see you reaffirming this notion.

a reply to: GetHyped
Whether you like it or not vaccines are not safe. Mercury is bad whether it is organic or if you change the name of it

originally posted by: RustyHook
a reply to: Grimpachi

I like how you side stepped the point that was being made there.

So just because the The National Anti-Vaccination League exists, it is ok to divide all people into two groups, and anyone that is not outspokenly pro is called an anti vaxxer.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever and the poster you responded to was making a very good point.

I like how you don't read links then state my post makes no sense.

It will make sense to those who do read links.

The reason anti vaccers are called such is because of self determining and history not a single entity that no longer exists.

Guess which one no longer exists.

a reply to: Grimpachi

No it still doesn make sense because of the same reasons that I mentioned. You took the post you responded to originally, completely out of context, and even after the actual point is explained to you, you still come up with more irrelevant nonsense.

At least you are consistent.

a reply to: GetHyped
Where are your links your scientific evidence you keep talking about?

With such people as yourself it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion

Quoted by GetHyped, Right back at ya!

a reply to: Grimpachi

Nice attempt at a dodge there but I seriously doubt that most using that term even know that organization exists.
The point was brought home to me in hearing all the furor on radio when Rand Paul expressed doubts about official declarations regarding safety and was immediately lumped as an "anti" despite the fact that he stated that he and his family are vaccinated. Another who expresses anything other than rabid enthusiasm for Early and Often vaccines is immediately attacked.
I'm among the skeptical when it comes to the safety of early vaccinations.
I wonder why titer tests are far more expensive than the vaccines themselves? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to just check for immunity rather than jabbing who-knows-what into kids on a routine basis?
Do you seriously believe that billions of dollars spent by Big Pharma has no effect on the reporting msm do or the reporting they refrain from doing?

a reply to: diggindirt

Nice attempt at a dodge there but I seriously doubt that most using that term even know that organization exists.

Go figure, another person who doesn't read links.

The point was brought home to me in hearing all the furor on radio when Rand Paul expressed doubts about official declarations regarding safety and was immediately lumped as an "anti" despite the fact that he stated that he and his family are vaccinated. Another who expresses anything other than rabid enthusiasm for Early and Often vaccines is immediately attacked.

Maybe you should stop listening to politicians about scientific and medical issues. That's just a suggestion.

I wonder why titer tests are far more expensive than the vaccines themselves?

I am sure a person who really wanted to know that could find such information with a search engine.

Doesn't it make a lot more sense to just check for immunity rather than jabbing who-knows-what into kids on a routine basis?

No. You could look that one up as well. Personally I am tired of spoon feeding info and links to people who don't bother to read them.

Do you seriously believe that billions of dollars spent by Big Pharma has no effect on the reporting msm do or the reporting they refrain from doing?

Big Pharma makes tons more money off of a person with a disease than a person immune to it.

Which costs more a night in the hospital or a vaccine shot?

It just may be that.....
Big Pharma supports the antivaccine movement–the real conspiracy

Have a nice day.

a reply to: GetHyped
I've seen a ton of reports of children that have had vaccinations getting the very diseases for which they were vaccinated. I know two family members that got chicken pox after having the vaccine against it. Therefore your statement: "Vaccines work..." is not true. That fact leaves me skeptical of your further claim: "...and are safe, whether you like it or not."
I would very much like it if your statement was true but I know that the first half of it isn't. You can go about the land parroting such sweeping claims of efficacy and safety all you wish but you are always going to find people who have different experiences. If you wish to believe the talking heads on the tv, you are perfectly free to do. Never question. Not in the face of evidence---just attempt to tamp down any civil discussions by injecting hateful name calling....
Now, did you want to discuss the topic? How has news coverage of the controversy affected society?
It has been highly revealing to me to hear folk who call for tolerance with one side of their tongue while the other fork is calling for anyone who doesn't submit to their brand of science to be jailed---or worse. This sets up yet another division in society and attempts to lump all into one of two groups. Reality isn't like that.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Rand Paul is a physician, an eye surgeon, in fact. I suspect his training to become a doc included quite a few science classes. My reference to him was in regard to the reporting on his statement, the lop-sided nature of the reporting that attempted to portray him as in the "anti-vaxers" crowd.
Having been part of the Big Pharma world for 15 years before abandoning mainstream medicine I've witnessed firsthand all the "safe" drugs introduced in the past and the devastation they've caused.
Having been a victim of the DES epidemic, I'm very aware that things induced into a pregnant woman's body can adversely affect the next generation. Those "safe" little pills the doc gave my mother "just in case" back in 1953 have cost me dearly in health. It took leaving mainstream medicine to regain the health Big Pharma had cost me.
My skepticism is based on anecdotal evidence---my experiences.
What was the medical profession when I entered the field was already showing signs of becoming The Medical Industry. By the time I left, in the late '80s, the transformation was well under way. As in all other areas, follow the money.

a reply to: diggindirt

Now that was a fine dodge.

My skepticism is based on anecdotal evidence---my experiences.

Did you know some of the anti vaccers of yor thought smallpox was caused by the deterioration of the atmosphere?

They also had anecdotal evidence. You may want to look up that term I don't think it means what you think it means.

Look, I have been round and round with anti vaccers it never gets anywhere. They never make a good case because they never have any solid evidence. Sooner or later the issue will be settled in courts one way or another ether by previous precidents (see links provided) or by holding anti vaccers responsible. I like the second option but thats my opinion.


If you don't ike the term anti vaccer take it up with those who labeled you guys as anti vaccers, unfortunately they are all dead since it started back in the 1800s by the anti vaccers who were proud of the term.

Later.

a reply to: Grimpachi

If you don't ike the term anti vaccer take it up with those who labeled you guys as anti vaccers, unfortunately they are all dead since it started back in the 1800s by the anti vaccers who were proud of the term.

Still pushing that ridiculous argument? The term "anti vaccer" doesn't even appear in your link.

What a load of nonsense.

The stuff that vaccinazis come up with.......

a reply to: Grimpachi
Why do you call me an anti-vaccer? I'm not. If I stick a nail through my foot tomorrow I can assure you that if my titer shows me low on antibodies, I'll get that jab. But I'll get only the tetanus jab, not some convenient concoction offered routinely.

I have enough pharmacology classes under my belt to make my decisions based on science. One of the first things I learned in those classes was that each and every human body is unique in composition. No two people have the same chemical composition so nobody can accurately predict what the introduction of foreign substances will do to the chemical and electrical balance in the body.

I'm not totally convinced that injecting substances that pass into the incomplete brain barrier of newborns is the best idea.
But here you have proven what I was asserting---that anyone who expresses skepticism of the mainstream medical mantra gets a negative label: anti-vaxxers. My deepest thanks to you.

originally posted by: RustyHook
a reply to: Grimpachi

If you don't ike the term anti vaccer take it up with those who labeled you guys as anti vaccers, unfortunately they are all dead since it started back in the 1800s by the anti vaccers who were proud of the term.

Still pushing that ridiculous argument? The term "anti vaccer" doesn't even appear in your link.

What a load of nonsense.

The stuff that vaccinazis come up with.......

It's taken 3 pages for the Godwin to appear.
Is that some sort of record?

a reply to: Pardon?

Sorry, I don't speak jabber.

But it seems like you have some sort of problem with the terminology.

What you don't like labels?

a reply to: gmoneystunt

Well done, you've just demonstrated that you have done zero reading into the issue beyond reading anti vax blog posts. The scientific evidence has been posted by myself and others in this forum COUNTLESS times already where upon it is routinely ignored or dismissed out of hand. You guys are just like creationists.

a reply to: GetHyped

Jabbers are the ones with religious belief in one sided science, government and multinationals with no room for infidels.

originally posted by: diggindirt
What I don't understand is the seeming need that journalists have to divide everyone up into two distinct camps---"pro-vaxers" and "anti-vaxers"

Divide and conquer seems to be the modus operandi -- again! And the fear mongering of course. The extreme rhetoric sure ramped up quick, didn't it?

...and include anyone who questions "the Authorities" in the "antis" because they simply don't step up and toe the Official Line.

At least their accepted and approved authorities.

When reading these stories in the msm, just remember where the financing for tons of TV, radio and print media originates: Big Pharma. Do you really think they're going to harm that golden goose?

Money and power rears its ugly head again. Only it doesn't seem to be going so well for them this time. Maybe that's a good sign for the future.