If only…

submitted by wizzwizz4 from nature.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

“I told you, you have no choice.”

“Why? Because I disagree with you?”

For this first time, James's anger showed itself.

“No!” he snapped. “You don't get it! You're allowed to disagree with me, I want you to disagree with me! I'd love to engage in reasoned debate with you. But until you take the trouble to understand what you're talking about, you're not allowed science any more. Now, roll up your sleeve.”

Sacha muttered something under her breath.

“What's in the injection?” said James. “You know, you start asking questions like that, you might get science back...”

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

The obvious response to this "doctor" should be:

"if vaccines are "safe and effective", then why:

The appropriate VIS must be given prior to the vaccination, and must be given prior to each dose of a multi-dose series. It must be given regardless of the age of the recipient. See “Ways to give a VIS“.

Obviously, this low brow doctor wouldn't have any understanding of the facts, because they are supressed by the AMA, MSM, and recently Facebook.

Help educate these doctors, by forwarding them a link to this comment.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Obviously, this low brow doctor wouldn't have any understanding of the facts,

You didn't read the last few paragraphs, did you? If you presented most not-corrupt doctors with the good arguments, then they'd actually think about them. (My doctor isn't corrupt, for example.) Many of them care about their patients, so they'd be compelled to research it further – that doubt would be enough to cause them to research to convince themselves either way.

Only the penultimate thing you've written there, though, is evidence. And your general attitude suggests that you don't fundamentally care about the truth. You care about getting vaccines stopped.

I care about not dying. Convince me that that involves stopping vaccines, and I'll help you. You haven't yet. I can help you to convince people, if you like, but my bar for evidence is higher than yours. (That's why I reject 'most everything either way about most things.)

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

penultimate

You need to look up the definition of that word.

Also, you should reevaluate the nature story, cause the doctor is a moron.

....Aaaaand while you're at it. Read the links I provided, and get with the program.

Here's a visual comparison of vaccine schedules over the years...

[Have there been any disease epidemics since 1960 in the US?

The answer is yes. CANCER.

A CANCER EPIDEMIC THAT THE CDC DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTES TO CONTAMINANTED POLIO VACCINES, BUT LATER QUIETLY RETRACTED UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE VACCINE INDUSTRY.**

I don't care if you cannot understandcogent facts.

I am concerned about vaccination propaganda, and those who spread it. You are spreading this propaganda. The evidence that I have provided explicitly refutes your central point.

  • Vaccines are not safe as documented on the Vaccine Information Statements that must be supplied with every vaccine; by law. However, they are never provided... This should arouse suspicion. The tawdry article even mentions this.

“I don't need a leaflet, Doctor. I simply want your assurance that this injection will cause Willow and Gregory no harm...”.

  • Vaccines are not effective, as vaccines contaminated with the SV-40 polyoma virus *literally caused the modern cancer epidemic.* Since the 60's, no contracted disease has killed more Americans than SV-40 induced cancer.
  • **The average family doctor is completely unaware of these facts, and also never provided the Vaccine Information Statements that are supplied with every vaccine. They are breaking the law.

You're opinions parrot the MSM talking points; by your own former admission.

It is difficult for me to believe that you aren't willfully denying the facts.
The logical conclusion are apparent.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You need to look up the definition of that word.

Second-to-last (in reverse order: last, second-to-last, third-to-last), if I remember correctly.

Also, you should reevaluate the nature story, cause the doctor is a moron.

....Aaaaand while you're at it. Read the links I provided, and get with the program.

What, blindly believe you? You never listen to what other people say. You act like you know more than them and yet never accept criticism of your "evidence", repeating the same argument over and over again without acknowledging that you have unfounded priors. You're just as bad as the people you seek to criticise.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What, blindly believe you? You never listen to what other people say. You act like you know more than them and yet never accept criticism of your "evidence", repeating the same argument over and over again without acknowledging that you have unfounded priors. You're just as bad as the people you seek to criticise.

I am not asking you to believe me, or believe some absurd story from Nature.

Wouldn't you agree that the US Supreme Court is a reliable source of factual information?

It's surprising that you don't find it interesting that the CDC reported on the polio vaccines that were contaminated with SV-40 virus?

Isn't it suspicious that parents are given info "pamphlets" instead of Vaccine Information Statements; as required by law?

Vaccines are not safe; according to the Supreme Court in 2016.

The fact that vaccinations are the literal reason that millions of Americans are infected with SV-40, and have died from cancer is overwhelming evidence that they aren't effective at saving lives.

Vaccines have taken many more lives then they could conceivably have ever saved.

The evidence presented here explicitly refutes the central argument claiming that vaccines are safe and effective.

Please examine the factual evidence presented. Understand the facts, then reevaluate your views.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I have done several times. Providing the same "evidence" several times doesn't make it better evidence. Only one of the things you've listed there is evidence.

This is a work of fiction, so of course it's made up. This isn't about "haha antivaxers are STUPID". It's about people who— well, quite frankly, people who behave like you are at the moment. You're not asking questions or trying to determine the risks; you're starting from the assumption that vaccines are bad and then cherry-picking questionable evidence to support this.

 

That's exactly what you criticise the FDA and CDC and MSM and PGA and FBI and JPG for doing.

 

I'm fed up with you trying to control the course of discussion, and throwing offences at people who don't blindly accept what you say. It's frustrating. Please re-consider your approach. If you'd like to have a reasonable discussion then I'm happy to support you in that. I'm happy talking to other people about this topic. But it's extremely hard to talk to you.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The evidence that I presented explicitly refutes the central point of your position.

Rather than disputing the evidence that I've presented, you have begun to make accusations against me.

I'm fed up with you trying to control the course of discussion

Why then, are you posting links on a debate forum?

The purpose of providing evidence during a debate is to influence the debate.

The Pyramid of Debate is the explicitly stated foundation of SaidIt. The evidence that I provided meets the the top-tier requirements of the pyramid.

So, if you don't like it, then post your fictitious pro Vaccine dialogue stories on Reddit.

and throwing offences at people who don't blindly accept what you say.

This is an interesting thing to accuse me of.

  • The entire point of the story you posted was a mother asked for assurance from a doctor that the vaccine wouldn't injure her child. The doctor dismissed he request.
    The mother went to leave.
    The doctor scared her with a red yellow and green flashing screen, which supposedly denied her "science" (which could not be more nebulous).
    The doctor then talks down to the woman (who had bad grades, and teachers didn't like her) for the remainder of the story.
    The story ended with him shutting the mother up, and giving her child the vaccine without any assurances.

This is the essence of the story you posted. It is completely devoid of any evidence, or facts. It even creates a fictitious flashing screen to scare the mother.
However, I wouldn't be surprised to hear this actually happening in the future.
Seeding this idea, may be the actual purpose... That is point is purely speculation, on my part. However, is worth considering.

The this story's entire premise is based on the pyramid's lower-tier arguments.

Your response to my evidence uses the following fallacy's.

  • Ad hominem
  • Responding to tone
  • Contradiction.

You're not asking questions or trying to determine the risks; you're starting from the assumption that vaccines are bad and then cherry-picking questionable evidence to support this.

The information that I have provided explicitly refutes the provaccine propaganda story.

The doctor even refused to give safety assurances in the provaxx story you posted. They are backing away from their own claims. The reality is apparent.
VACCINES ARE NOT SAFE.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The entire point of the story you posted was a mother asked for assurance from a doctor that the vaccine wouldn't injure her child. The doctor dismissed he request.

The point was that she expected something that she knew couldn't be given: an assurance that there was no risk. There is risk in walking to the shop. There is risk in literally everything. The doctor could not assure that there was no risk because there was a risk.

The final two lines of the story were:

Sacha muttered something under her breath.

“What's in the injection?” said James. “You know, you start asking questions like that, you might get science back...”

The problem was not that she was criticising vaccines. The problem was that she had decided that vaccines were unsafe, and was cherry-picking evidence to support that.

The reaction would be the same to people who say "vaccines are safe because I've never got ill from them" or "can you assure me that this seat belt will not harm my child?". Very few people use science properly; even I don't, most of the time, which I frequently beat myself up about.

I'd like to have a nice, sensible reasoned discussion about this topic. But you keep calling me a shill and criticising me personally to discredit my arguments. We've never even agreed on what we're arguing; you seem insistent that no things called vaccines are effective and all things called vaccines are unsafe when I know for a fact that that's not the case.

So. Are we ready to be civil, and discuss this as close to rationally as we can? And ready to accept criticisms of our arguments, without going on the defensive (because making a flawed argument doesn't mean what you're arguing is wrong)? If so, I'm happy to engage in reasoned discussion with you about this, without the criticisms I've been making.

I will. Will you?

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is the main message of the story.

“I'm sorry, Ms Melham...” he began, and then more kindly. “I'm sorry, Sacha, but you've crossed the threshold. I'm afraid to say, you're not allowed science any more.”.

“I'm what?”.

“You're not allowed science any more,” repeated James.

Sacha's lips moved as she tried to process what he had said.

“You're saying that you're refusing my children treatment?”.

“No,” said James. “Quite the opposite. You and your children will always be entitled to the best medical care. It's just that you, Sacha, no longer have a say in it. I shall administer the vaccination immediately.”.

Do you support Dr James assertion that the mother should no longer have a say in the healthcare that is provided to her children?
Explicitly forced vaccination.