It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Amazing. I replied to GetHyped, Pardon jumped in, and I am somehow needling Pardon by responding.

So. Uhm...ok.




posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Amazing. I replied to GetHyped, Pardon jumped in, and I am somehow needling Pardon by responding.

So. Uhm...ok.


I don't want to divert the thread myself; so one quick question --- in your last post, did you say that you weren't interested in what Pardon? had to say but how they said it ... or not?

That's the point.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No. You might want to revisit what I said prior to that comment. I made my point about using ridicule and condescension BEFORE Pardon jumped in with his/her position. I wasn't disputing either GetHyped's position or Pardon's position. So, no, I don't need them to restate their position -- my point had nothing to do with the content of their debate, only the approach.

My point was that if they want to enlighten and educate people on their position -- which is a fine and dandy position -- they might want to leave the ridicule and condescension out of it.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

And my point is that you didn't "just respond to Pardon?'s jumping into the topic" you twice in a row (your last two posts directed at that user) make it plain that you aren't interested in their argument or factual statements (which, like it or not, is the purpose of these discussion forums) but merely want to critique how they are saying what they are saying.

Pardon?, you, me, everyone, has a right to post whatever they wish that is in line with the site T&C.

You and I are both doing the same thing, addressing NOT THE FACTS but merely each other.

That is fundamentally my point ... which is made. Best.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Great. So you have jumped in to do what you are chastising me for doing.

I got your terrific point and can see you are totally in a position to make it.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Great. So you have jumped in to do what you are chastising me for doing.

I got your terrific point and can see you are totally in a position to make it.


Are you irritated by this?

Does that irritation prompt you to consider anything else I may post on the topic?

Yes, then you have received the point. In the future, perhaps, address the facts and not the poster, or, as they say it around here, "play the ball."

Because it's irritating as heck to be called down merely for the way you're saying something instead of what you're saying, now isn't it?




posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh geez. This is silly.

You win. Please get your last word in now and I promise I won't respond. I want you to have your moment in the sun.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Half of me feels like I should jump in here, since it's my thread and I hate to see you (or anyone) ganged up on... but at the same time, you're handling this so well you don't need me! I'd say the stars you're getting tell the tale best. So I'll just say good job standing your ground.

Everyone's words will stand on their own merits in the end.... people will do their own due diligence and come to their own conclusions.




posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Back to the original post ...

Let's be real. The source can be described as an "anti-vax" site.

The doctor held up in the article as an example of "a doctor who doesn't agree with vaccinations" is obviously shilling for his own business.

The motivation of the source site and the source article are not to "just look at the research" but are firmly anti-vaccination.

I'm not sure what else needs to be said. The great majority of medical professionals, biologists, public health specialists, et. al. understand that vaccination, while not 100% safe, is overwhelmingly helpful, beneficial, etc. to society at large.

I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with that fact being pointed out ... no matter what the perceived "tone" one uses in doing so. I'll also observe that those who believe strongly in something tend to perceive insult merely when someone disagrees with their belief.

*turns off sun-lamp*



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Half of me feels like I should jump in here, since it's my thread and I hate to see you (or anyone) ganged up on... but at the same time, you're handling this so well you don't need me! I'd say the stars you're getting tell the tale best. So I'll just say good job standing your ground.

Everyone's words will stand on their own merits in the end.... people will do their own due diligence and come to their own conclusions.



Ah, but you did "jump in there", didn't you? And as your evidence and/or justification, you're counting stars. LOL.

You're okay with someone posting off-topic in your thread ... so long as they're on your side of the argument, eh?

What's your take on your OP now? I'm curious. Do you still feel that you were just dropping another "perspective" into the discussion that you found during your research?



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Half of me feels like I should jump in here, since it's my thread and I hate to see you (or anyone) ganged up on... but at the same time, you're handling this so well you don't need me! I'd say the stars you're getting tell the tale best. So I'll just say good job standing your ground.

Everyone's words will stand on their own merits in the end.... people will do their own due diligence and come to their own conclusions.



Thanks!



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Just a few more "Doctors Who Have Done the Research" ...

A Doctor's Take on the Anti-Vaccine Movement



The vaccines we use today have minimal risks and an extremely safe track record. They have undergone rigorous testing and scrutiny by the scientific community and have proven their effectiveness in large-scale clinical trials.

As a result, the days of school closures for measles and pertussis outbreaks have become a relic of the past. The side effects from vaccines are almost always mild. And even in the extremely rare case of a more serious allergic reaction, physicians and their staff are trained to deal with it.

Simply put, the benefits of vaccination substantially outweigh the risks.


Doctors to Vaccine Doubters - Get your Kids Vaccinated!



Baltimore-area doctors made a public stand in favor of vaccines Monday, standing literally shoulder to shoulder to urge holdouts to get their kids vaccinated against measles.

"Ours is an unequivocal message. Vaccines are safe, they are effective, and they save lives every single day," Baltimore City Health Commissioner Dr. Leana Wen said as the group stood up in front of a seminar about measles at the Johns Hopkins University school of public health.

"The Disneyland outbreak raises the real risk that measles may come roaring back. We have come too far to let that happen," the group said in a statement.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says 121 people have been reported infected with measles so far this year. One outbreak — the one linked to Disneyland — is responsible for 85 percent of the cases, CDC says.


So, yes, there are real Doctors who have "done the research" and their conclusions are in line with the vast majority of medical professionals: get vaccinated.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Pardon?

Seriously. I don't need you to reexplain your position. My point is that you won't reach anyone with ridicule and condescension.

Like anti-vaxxers, you don't have much use for common sense though.



If people are genuinely looking for advice I'm happy to give it.
And I'll give it hopefully in a way that's easy to understand.

If people are posting fallacies and lies deliberately due to their belief system then I may appear like I'm making them look ridiculous.
What makes it look like I'm being condescending is when these posters ask questions or cite information in such a way to try to make them look like they know what they're talking about.
I show them that they don't.
Simple as.

EDIT: As you may be aware on this site, 99% of the vaccine-related threads are started not by people who want others to vaccinate, showing the benefits of vaccines nor by people asking advice on vaccines. They are generally of an anti-vax stance.


edit on 11/10/15 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Amazing. I replied to GetHyped, Pardon jumped in, and I am somehow needling Pardon by responding.

So. Uhm...ok.


You're not needling me at all.
I felt I need to explain what the "debate" is as I didn't think you'd got it.

But I've got a very long fuse.
I have to have on this site.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

But Pardon? ... it's OPINIONS that matter most, right?

Not facts.

Not medical research.

Not science.

Not the preponderant understanding that vaccination has done immensely more good for humanity than non-vaccination.

People should be able to say whatever they wish and never be questioned according to the facts, right?

I applaud what you've done in the thread, regardless of our relative star-counts, LOL.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ah, but you did "jump in there", didn't you?


Yes and no...yes, I did jump in and give credit where credit is due, but no, I did not jump into your argument.


And as your evidence and/or justification, you're counting stars. LOL.


Nope, neither "evidence" nor "justification," just confirmation... and I didn't count either. Just couldn't help but notice a few bright green pointy spots right there by her moniker. And it made me smile.


You're okay with someone posting off-topic in your thread ... so long as they're on your side of the argument, eh?


Actually, given that my OP did express an issue with how the national dialogue is being framed and debated, I would say that her comments were in fact quite topical. And as far as being on my "side" of the argument, not totally. We agree that government mandated forced vaccination is unacceptable. Not to speak for her of course, but I believe I have more concerns about the adverse side effects of vaccines than she has expressed; however, I would also assume that we both understand all medical procedures have potential adverse affects. If we were to have an in-depth discussion, I'm sure we would find further areas of both agreement and disagreement. That's life.

But more important, I'm sure we could discuss it in a reasonable and friendly fashion, without insulting each other, or asking gotcha questions, or quibbling over semantics, and we could both respect each other's positions, knowing that neither of us have all the answers and we're both just doing our best to understand a complex situation with serious implications on both sides.


What's your take on your OP now?


The same as it was when I wrote it. There are many and varied reasons for questioning vaccinations, as exemplified by the many and varied doctors who have expressed concern with vaccinations for many and varied reasons. I don't know what the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is. I am not anti-vax. The all-or-nothing dialogue is disturbing. Forced vaccination is unacceptable.


I'm curious. Do you still feel that you were just dropping another "perspective" into the discussion that you found during your research?


I have no doubt that I was dropping many and varied perspectives into a thread for information purposes and for discussion. Obviously. I seriously have no idea what other purpose you think I could have, but I would love to know because it would tell me much about where you're coming from and how your thought processes work...



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Pardon?

Seriously. I don't need you to reexplain your position. My point is that you won't reach anyone with ridicule and condescension.

Like anti-vaxxers, you don't have much use for common sense though.



If people are genuinely looking for advice I'm happy to give it.
And I'll give it hopefully in a way that's easy to understand.

If people are posting fallacies and lies deliberately due to their belief system then I may appear like I'm making them look ridiculous.
What makes it look like I'm being condescending is when these posters ask questions or cite information in such a way to try to make them look like they know what they're talking about.
I show them that they don't.
Simple as.



The only thing I really raised my eyebrow at -- with regard to you -- was the meme you posted and said was spot on:



I don't see how making fun of someone's opinion is going to help enlighten, educate, and bring them into the fold.

Sure, you can do that. I understand the scientific evidence is on your side. I just think it will cause people to tune out.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Amazing. I replied to GetHyped, Pardon jumped in, and I am somehow needling Pardon by responding.

So. Uhm...ok.


You're not needling me at all.
I felt I need to explain what the "debate" is as I didn't think you'd got it.

But I've got a very long fuse.
I have to have on this site.


You think I don't know what the debate is? Seriously?

Forgive me for finding that condescending. I'm a 44 year old woman who has vaccinated all three of my children. I understand the debate.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ah, but you did "jump in there", didn't you?


Yes and no...yes, I did jump in and give credit where credit is due, but no, I did not jump into your argument.


And as your evidence and/or justification, you're counting stars. LOL.


Nope, neither "evidence" nor "justification," just confirmation... and I didn't count either. Just couldn't help but notice a few bright green pointy spots right there by her moniker. And it made me smile.


You're okay with someone posting off-topic in your thread ... so long as they're on your side of the argument, eh?


Actually, given that my OP did express an issue with how the national dialogue is being framed and debated, I would say that her comments were in fact quite topical. And as far as being on my "side" of the argument, not totally. We agree that government mandated forced vaccination is unacceptable. Not to speak for her of course, but I believe I have more concerns about the adverse side effects of vaccines than she has expressed; however, I would also assume that we both understand all medical procedures have potential adverse affects. If we were to have an in-depth discussion, I'm sure we would find further areas of both agreement and disagreement. That's life.

But more important, I'm sure we could discuss it in a reasonable and friendly fashion, without insulting each other, or asking gotcha questions, or quibbling over semantics, and we could both respect each other's positions, knowing that neither of us have all the answers and we're both just doing our best to understand a complex situation with serious implications on both sides.


What's your take on your OP now?


The same as it was when I wrote it. There are many and varied reasons for questioning vaccinations, as exemplified by the many and varied doctors who have expressed concern with vaccinations for many and varied reasons. I don't know what the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is. I am not anti-vax. The all-or-nothing dialogue is disturbing. Forced vaccination is unacceptable.


I'm curious. Do you still feel that you were just dropping another "perspective" into the discussion that you found during your research?


I have no doubt that I was dropping many and varied perspectives into a thread for information purposes and for discussion. Obviously. I seriously have no idea what other purpose you think I could have, but I would love to know because it would tell me much about where you're coming from and how your thought processes work...


You've got a thing with "mandate" and "forced".
When you realise the difference you may be able to see better.

Going back full circle though, the doctors opinions you cited aren't based upon fact.
Therefore the doctor's opinions are worthless and don't justify any debate.
If you believe them then that is entirely up to you but don't be upset when you're told that your belief is unfounded and wrong.

And once again as I think you need it, NO-ONE IS FORCING VACCINATIONS ON ANYONE.
There's no semantics there either.



posted on Oct, 11 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Pardon?

Seriously. I don't need you to reexplain your position. My point is that you won't reach anyone with ridicule and condescension.

Like anti-vaxxers, you don't have much use for common sense though.



If people are genuinely looking for advice I'm happy to give it.
And I'll give it hopefully in a way that's easy to understand.

If people are posting fallacies and lies deliberately due to their belief system then I may appear like I'm making them look ridiculous.
What makes it look like I'm being condescending is when these posters ask questions or cite information in such a way to try to make them look like they know what they're talking about.
I show them that they don't.
Simple as.



The only thing I really raised my eyebrow at -- with regard to you -- was the meme you posted and said was spot on:



I don't see how making fun of someone's opinion is going to help enlighten, educate, and bring them into the fold.

Sure, you can do that. I understand the scientific evidence is on your side. I just think it will cause people to tune out.


If someone is shown how and why their opinion is wrong time and time again and refuse to accept or even in some cases acknowledge it and still carry on pushing it, I see no issue with ridiculing their belief.
That might seems harsh but these are people who have made up their mind and will not accept any other viewpoint.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join