Godstud wrote:@Sivad No, at this point, that's you.  Drlee has posted these already. 

You know you've won an argument when your opponents have to start making up nonsense.  The idiocy is astounding, people can just click back through this thread and see for themselves. 

You can always find some stupid cunt who believes in something stupid. 

Bernadine Patricia Healy (August 4, 1944 – August 6, 2011) was an American physician, cardiologist, academic, and first female National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director.  She was a professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, chair of the Research Division of Cleveland Clinic, professor and dean of the College of Medicine and Public Health at the Ohio State University, and served as president of the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association. 

BabbittnounBab·​bitt | \ˈba-bətA narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority. 

Sivad wrote:Go read the Cochrane review and the 2004 IOM meta-analysis and you'll see that both find the body of scientific evidence is nothing but shoddy epidemiology and unsound methodologically flawed studies. 

It wouldn’t help because the overarching science is settled.  And it would have to be settled in order to take away parental rights regarding decision making.  You couldn’t pull off such a cultural seismic shift any other way. 

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think that vaccines had nothing to do with the near eradication of, for example, polio? 

The video posted actually didn’t take away from the success of vaccines in any way.  It simply called for more investigation into those who ‘might’ be susceptible to an adverse reaction.  But there’s no need for that when science is settled. 

ness31 wrote:It wouldn’t help because the overarching science is settled.  And it would have to be settled in order to take away parental rights regarding decision making.  You couldn’t pull off such a cultural seismic shift any other way. 

Yes, in order to make it illegal for parents to risk the health of their children and others, it would take a large amount of scientific evidence in order to convince many people that parents should not have that right. 

The video posted actually didn’t take away from the success of vaccines in any way.  It simply called for more investigation into those who ‘might’ be susceptible to an adverse reaction.  But there’s no need for that when science is settled. 

Okay.  Since no one has called for a halt to investigating adverse reactions to vaccine, I fail to see what the relevance is. 

But yes, we should continue to research adverse reactions to vaccines in order to improve them and make them safer for those few who cannot or should not receive them right now. 

47 states have either personal or religious exemptions and according to the most recent public survey 20% of Americans have little to no confidence in the safety of vaccines(up from 13% a few years ago).  So they're not really winning.  Bullshit and babbittry can't stand up to the facts and when people have unparalleled access to the facts the babbitts lose.  It's only a matter of time until the majority sees them for the intellectually bankrupt frauds that they are. 

BabbittnounBab·​bitt | \ˈba-bətA narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority. 

Given the safeguards already in place, stakeholder concerns alone are not sufficient reason to embark on costly clinical research, such as new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective cohort studies, without the existence of supporting signals or evidence of biological plausibility. 

and Recommendation 6-2: The Department of Health and Human Services should refrain from initiating randomized controlled trials of the childhood immunization schedule that compare safety outcomes in fully vaccinated children with those in unvaccinated children or those vaccinated by use of an alternative schedule. 

and

Given the opportunity available through NCS, the limits of studying distinct subgroups of naturally occurring unimmunized populations, and the high cost of pursuing prospective data collection, the committee does not consider the initiation of new prospective cohort studies to be the most feasible or fruitful approach to studying the recommended immunization schedule at this time. 

The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies. Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013 Mar 27.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206942/

BabbittnounBab·​bitt | \ˈba-bətA narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority. 

In summary, it is not possible to recommend studies with animals to inform the notion that the aggregate childhood immunization schedule results in the onset of chronic diseases.  The committee also recognized the role of animal models in understanding neurological diseases, which have made important contributions to the understanding of disease processes that affect the brain in terms of structural or motor changes, such as seizures.  In addition to the limitations described above in relation to chronic diseases, the study of neurological diseases such as autism has limited use for animal models since “no animal embodies the repertoire of behaviors seen in the human, and in particular, no animal has language equivalent to that of the human” (IOM, 2012, p. 86).  Thus, there are sizable barriers in using animal models to assess such neurological outcomes following administration of the childhood immunization schedule. 

So basically they recommend just relying weak ass epidemiology.  So much for hard science, eh? 

BabbittnounBab·​bitt | \ˈba-bətA narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority. 

Just to be totally perverse I don’t even think there is a link between autism and vaccines.  They just happen to occur at the same time imo. The autism link was a stupid platform to carry any kind of pro choice/anti vaccine argument. 

But there is something wrong POD.  Mandated vaccination and the usurping of parental discretion is a violation of a humans personal sovereignty.  It is that basic and it is that serious.  And nothing in this thread or any WHO website would be able to convince a real Conservative otherwise.