[Drlee]

I was commenting on how you were correct to note SunTzu was trying to insert race baiting (which has become typical) to derail things, and that you are able to read properly and saw there was nothing focusing on race there. I think you may have overlooked I was responding to his race-baiting post, not you.

I get that. No worries.

Sunny’s a peculiar one. I don’t think he’s racist as much as he is just very good at statistics and noticing differences about race. Have you seen that show The Good Doctor? That’s who SunTzu reminds me of.

You are not than naive I hope. He is simply race baiting and that is the very definition of racism. He is actually very bad and conveying the truth. Rather he uses obscure facts to present a racist agenda. Notice the mention that one of the nurses in the study was black. This is completely irrelevant and an obvious attempt to somehow blame blacks for what happened. He claims a high IQ so there are only two possibilities. Either he is not telling the truth about that or he is deliberately racist. Right? Did he just conveniently forget that the study was run almost universally by white men?

I am getting a little annoyed at the mods for allowing him to do this racist stuff.

Do you want an example of race baiting? I could give you one. Watch:

There is a syphilis epidemic in the US. 88000 cases.

57% of all congenital syphilis cases were in black women.

The rate of congenital syphilis in black women is 8 times higher than in whites.

Many of the physicians and practitioners who miss this diagnosis are black.

Got it? Tell me. The average person reading this would come up with a conclusion and a number. What does the above tell us?

Nothing really. What are the facts?

Well I stuck in a word that most people do not recognize and thereby forwarded a racist agenda. The number was "congenital". So what was the percentage of all cases that were congenital syphilis transmitted from mother to child? (For that is what congenital means.) The number is .0018%.

But I certainly did not intend to or give that impression. Right?

From the standpoint of an epidemiologist this number is meaningless.

The comment about black physicians was true but, just like his comment about one public health nurse, designed to convey a racist message.

Remember that nothing I said was untrue.

By the way, why is the rate higher in black women? Well guess what. Some epidemiologists explored that too. The answer is much less comprehensive and delayed prenatal care. This does not point to any fault in the black community but rather a fault in our health care system that unfavorably slights poor people. (This CDC study by the way is incomplete but a good working start.)

There is far more to this and we could discuss the epidemiology of syphilis; a disease we were on the brink of virtually eradicating in the US but that is roaring back now. I have deliberately not torn into that to remain on topic. Bulaba's digression into this subject is instructive because it allows us to show how manipulating the data to forward a particular agenda can work quite well and has in this thread.

[ness31]

Well Drlee, I think you did a marvellous job at covering all bases there, racism, communicable diseases and epidemiology, high five *slaps Drlee’s hand*..

I don’t think anyone would mind you talking about the recurrence of syphilis, especially if it’s due to...um..what’s it due to? My first impression would have been because of antibiotic resistance

Just on the topic of the MMR vaccine, Wikipedia discusses the ramifications of the Wakefield controversy and it’s impact on Japan. It’s not used there at all it would seem....unless you specifically want it...and if you do..guess what, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT..

[Suntzu]

I get that. No worries.



You are not than naive I hope. He is simply race baiting and that is the very definition of racism. He is actually very bad and conveying the truth. Rather he uses obscure facts to present a racist agenda. Notice the mention that one of the nurses in the study was black. This is completely irrelevant and an obvious attempt to somehow blame blacks for what happened. He claims a high IQ so there are only two possibilities. Either he is not telling the truth about that or he is deliberately racist. Right? Did he just conveniently forget that the study was run almost universally by white men?

I am getting a little annoyed at the mods for allowing him to do this racist stuff.

Do you want an example of race baiting? I could give you one. Watch:



Got it? Tell me. The average person reading this would come up with a conclusion and a number. What does the above tell us?

Nothing really. What are the facts?

Well I stuck in a word that most people do not recognize and thereby forwarded a racist agenda. The number was "congenital". So what was the percentage of all cases that were congenital syphilis transmitted from mother to child? (For that is what congenital means.) The number is .0018%.

But I certainly did not intend to or give that impression. Right?

From the standpoint of an epidemiologist this number is meaningless.

The comment about black physicians was true but, just like his comment about one public health nurse, designed to convey a racist message.

Remember that nothing I said was untrue.

By the way, why is the rate higher in black women? Well guess what. Some epidemiologists explored that too. The answer is much less comprehensive and delayed prenatal care. This does not point to any fault in the black community but rather a fault in our health care system that unfavorably slights poor people. (This CDC study by the way is incomplete but a good working start.)

There is far more to this and we could discuss the epidemiology of syphilis; a disease we were on the brink of virtually eradicating in the US but that is roaring back now. I have deliberately not torn into that to remain on topic. Bulaba's digression into this subject is instructive because it allows us to show how manipulating the data to forward a particular agenda can work quite well and has in this thread.

According to the CDC, the rate of syphilis in Blacks in 2016 was around 22/100,000 and for Whites it was around 4/100,000.

"African American/black people are most affected by HIV in the USA. This group accounted for 44% of all new HIV infections in 2014 and 43% of the total number of people living with HIV in the USA, despite only making up 12% of the population.16Among all African American/black people diagnosed with HIV in 2014, an estimated 57% (11,201) were men who have sex with men. Of these, 39% (4,321) were young men (aged 13 to 24).

In Sub-Saharan Africa, the rate of people with AIDS can be 25%.

What is the reason behind this?

[Drlee]

What is the reason behind this?

Here are two to chew on, so to speak.

Multiple LONG TERM sexual partners. Not one-time sex with an infected partner (such as a prostitute) but long term sex with an infected person and another. Or two.

Not being circumcised. In the predominately Muslim countries in Africa, where circumcision is common, infection rates from heterosexual transmission is rare. In non-circumcised areas it is quite common. Circumcision is not protective in the case of anal intercourse and the data show that MSM are almost equally at risk in both places. How effective? About 60%. That is about as effective as a vaccine.

In the US heterosexual HIV transmission among non inter-venous drug abusers is relatively rare. But when it happens the infection rate among blacks and Hispanics is well above those of white males. There are almost as many new infections among black males as white males though blacks are only about 13% of the population. The circumcision rate among white males 14-59 is over 90%. Much lower in black and Hispanic males.

I did not post all of the stuff nor the disclaimers. But these two should give you something to think about. Now if those heterosexual black males in the US had multiple long term sexual partners, we might really be on to something......

[Suntzu]

No doubt promiscuity is a big factor in both AIDS and syphilis transmission. In the U.S. something on the order of 99% of AIDS (hate to call them victims) are IV drug users or homosexual males.

[Drlee]

No doubt promiscuity is a big factor in both AIDS and syphilis transmission.

No Ya think?

In the U.S. something on the order of 99% of AIDS (hate to call them victims) are IV drug users or homosexual males.

Not quite. If you look at women for example, 86% were heterosexually transmitted infections and only 13% IV drug use. And women account for 24% of new cases in the year I had on my desk. (2015)

Why do you hate to call them victims? Were you a virgin when you got married? Or if not married, are you still one?

HIV is a disease. It is not naughty. It is not punishment for "bad" behavior. There are certainly risky behaviors. If you have never engaged in any you would be a rare case indeed.

[Suntzu]

AIDS is no more naughty than syphilis or gonorrhea. My guess is that many hetrosexual contacts are actually bisexual men giving it to there partner through anal sex.

[Drlee]

My guess is that many hetrosexual contacts are actually bisexual men giving it to there partner through anal sex.

Guess again.

[Suntzu]

Butt fucking and I.V. drug use probably account for 90% of the AIDS cases in the U.S. I think I will shed a tiny tear for the "victims".

[Drlee]

How old are you? Your posts are about the level of Bevis and Butthead.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. The first time I did it, you said you were not Romanian, which is not a rebuttal since measles does not check your kid’s passport before infecting and killing them.

But the second time, I specifically discussed US fatalities, just in case your weird rebuttal made any sense at all.

And you ignored that too.

Strawman, that was not my point.

My point was that we are discussing vaccines and parental rights in an anglo-sphere context, and the data being discussed is from that region; hence, circumstances in Romania are irrelevant.

I will examine data for Romania from when the vaccines were first introduced in conjunction with the rate of measles cases and mortalities once both of those are provided by you.

Your religious ones, obviously.

We are discussing parental rights, religious beliefs are part of the protected parental rights in the United States and are thus relevant to question of exemptions.

Okay, so when I post information abour Romania, it can be dismissed because it assumedly has a different context where different diseases are more prevalent for different reasons.

But if vaccination schedules differ worldwide, assumedly because each has a different context where different diseases are more prevalent for different reasons, then they are obviously wrong.

Your logcial inconsistency is showing.

Actually I was mocking your inconsistency and you didn't get it, but under your argument just made, that vaccines might need mandated in Romania would be irrelevant to the question of whether they should be in the United States, so which is it?

Feel free to show me what I missed.

I did several times and you openly ignored it. Fact is, vaccines, statistically, did not significantly end the rates of mortality caused by those diseases, thus there is not argument for causation because there is no argument even for correlation regarding the introduction of vaccines and the end of those diseases being mass epidemics. Their decline to near current rates were projected to have occurred irrespective of the vaccine introduction just as was the case in several diseases that NEVER had a vaccine made for them that followed the same projection curves, thus indicating a distinct and universal cause was at work in the declines of these ailments which are independent of vaccination.

[Drlee]

Fact is, vaccines, statistically, did not significantly end the rates of mortality caused by those diseases, thus there is not argument for causation because there is no argument even for correlation regarding the introduction of vaccines and the end of those diseases being mass epidemics. Their decline to near current rates were projected to have occurred irrespective of the vaccine introduction just as was the case in several diseases that NEVER had a vaccine made for them that followed the same projection curves, thus indicating a distinct and universal cause was at work in the declines of these ailments which are independent of vaccination.

Here we go again. The above is objectively wrong.

So let this poor thread die the death it deserves.

[Godstud]

Fact is, vaccines, statistically, did not significantly end the rates of mortality caused by those diseases, thus there is not argument for causation because there is no argument even for correlation regarding the introduction of vaccines and the end of those diseases being mass epidemics. Their decline to near current rates were projected to have occurred irrespective of the vaccine introduction just as was the case in several diseases that NEVER had a vaccine made for them that followed the same projection curves, thus indicating a distinct and universal cause was at work in the declines of these ailments which are independent of vaccination.

Absolutely false. None of this is supported by actual fact or any study.

You can find, literally, hundreds of studies and scientific papers on the effectiveness of vaccines.

Vaccine Epidemiology: Efficacy, Effectiveness, and the Translational Research Roadmap
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/201/11/1607/850248

This is why homeschooling doesn't work. I'd hate for a parent to teach their children to ignore verifiable fact, just to support a belief.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Drlee

Yes, Pants asked to me resurrect this thread and continue a debate we had on the SJW thread, if you don't like it, blame him.

Absolutely false. None of this is supported by actual fact or any study.

You can find, literally, hundreds of studies and scientific papers on the effectiveness of vaccines

[Bulaba note: rule 2 removed], feel free to stick around.

This is why homeschooling doesn't work. I'd hate for a parent to teach their children to ignore verifiable fact, just to support a belief.

Apparently I need to repeat myself, so here we go:

I. First, Some Qualifiers.

1. The state does not have a moral right to violate voluntarism. My case of objective morality proves that these natural rights are objective and valid, thus the state is morally wrong for infringing upon them; ultimately, all arguments can be directed to that point as that is what ultimate matters in my perspective. Fuck the state and all statists.

2. I am open minded, My first child was fully vaccinated and developed what were obviously, and even diagnosed as, complications from a vaccine. Even after this, we still followed a partial schedule with our second child and after extensive research, we no longer vaccinate.

3. My arguments are going to proceed along several lines as far as parental rights and exemptions: I. The philosophical objection is legitimate, II. the religious objection is legitimate, and III. the physical exemption is legitimate, but is legally stifled, and IV. compulsory vaccinations should not be the case unless the clear cronyism of the system is addressed.

II. The Case For A Philosophical Exemption.

The Philosophical objection is that vaccines, on the whole, are unnecessary and that the end of most of the epidemics that faced the west in the early-to-mid twentieth century are easily explained by public nutrition, sanitation, and sterilization.

Now, the objection to this argument, is that after the vaccines were introduced, there were drops in mortality. This is a fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

Just because something occurs after an event, does not mean the preceding event has any causal relationship to it in sequence. Indeed, given the charts here demostrated, it appears that the vaccines contributed nominally, if at all, to the declining rates of mortality for these diseases that had been occurring at a drastic levels before their introduction.

Thus, the ball is in the court of the Pro-Vaxxer to prove that the vaccines did actually save lives sufficient to warrant compulsory vaccination for children against the rights of the parents who voice legitimate concerns over their contents.

Here are the charts:

Measles, England & Wales 1900-1999


Measles U.S.A 1912-2010.


Dyptheria England and Wales 1901-1999


Scurvey 1901-1967.


England and U.S.A Typhoid 1901-1964
[img]https://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-uk-typhoid-1901-1965.gif?w=464&h=310&zoom=2][/img]

England and U.S.A. Scarlet Fever 1901-1964


Typhoid Rate of Decline: No Vaccine.


Scarlet Fever Rate of Decline: No Vaccine.


Measles Rate of Decline in Australia v. Vaccine Introduction.


U.S. Mortality Rates of Decline in Relation to Vaccine Introduction.


Whooping Cough Mortality Rate



Whooping Cough Mortality Rate in Relation to Vaccine Introduction.

[/quote]

To Sum: Philosophical exemptions are valid, because the decline in mortality from all of these said diseases occurred most drastically prior to the introduction of the vaccines that allegedly stopped them, did not affect the trends of decline once introduced, and in many cases such diseases ended following the same trends without ever having a vaccination. In light of these facts, parents ought to have the right to decline for their children that which is medically unnecessary, as vaccines certainly are, unless a pro-Vaxxer can prove, against the graphs above, to the contrary.

III. The Case For A Religious Exemption.

It is already a precedent now, in U.S. Law, that religious business ought not to pay for procedures that violate their conscience on religious grounds (Hobby Lobby among others). Indeed, how much more so if such a procedure involved having to ingest, in some manner, the product of that conscience-violating activity in its worst manifestation?

Indeed, the most common and widespread vaccines in the United States are made, in part, and/or may contain either aborted fetal cells or aborted fetal tissues.

If Christians are not obligated to pay for procedures against conscience, then they are not obligated to both pay for such and have such injected into their children by compulsion, that which most defines this objection is seen in the following list:

NOTE:

U.S. approved vaccines from aborted cell lines by Disease, Vaccine Name, Manufacturer, and Cell line:

1. Adenovirus
Barr Labs., Inc
WI-38

2.Chickenpox
Varivax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

3. Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio, HIB
Pentacel
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

4. Hepatitis A
Havrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

5. Hepatitis A
Vaqta
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

6. Hepatitis A-B
Twinrix
GlaxoSmithKline
MRC-5

7. Measles, Mumps, Rubella
MMR II
Merck & Co.
WI-38

8. Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox
ProQuad
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38

9. Rabies
Imovax
Sanofi Pasteur
MRC-5

10. Shingles
Zostavax
Merck & Co.
MRC-5

To Sum: If the rights for the religious hold as upheld in the Supreme Court, parents should not be compelled to force the injection of such into their children.

IV. The Problems With The Invoking of The Medical Exemption.

The vaccine companies themselves have argued that the affect on a given person, including the effectiveness of the vaccine itself, varies from person to person. This is due to factors that could only be called epi-genetic, as both environmental and genetic factors seem to relate to why persons vary in their reactions to vaccines. Children and the elderly are both the most targeted for vaccinations and, ironically, the most likely to have adverse reactions to them, both for typically immunological reasons.

This is all well and good, but the problem is that a medical exemption is not usually granted until damage has been done already by a vaccine and even then the doctor is the final authority as to whether he will count that prior damage, in spite of correlation, as related to the administration of the vaccine itself. Further, there is no validated and widespread system to pre-screen children or seniors as to whether a vaccine would possibly have an adverse reaction in the patient. This essentially making the medical exemption a load of bull-shit.

To Sum: My position, which given my first two points and the data at hand, is this: If something that is already unnecessary and immoral is being prescribed, and it may have adverse effects, and more likely so in children than any other group other than seniors, deferring on vaccinations for this age group is not only reasonable, but the only legitimate and sane choice. To be honest, parents who vaccinate their babies with Hepatitis vaccines immediately following birth, are child abusers in my opinion.

V. The Crony-Capitalist Bullshit Exemption (my personal favorite).

If a parent does not have direct legal recourse against the manufacturer of vaccines in an impartial court of Law for damage claims resulting from that product, then a parent should not be forced to consume the product. PERIOD.

That is, if it were illegal for you to sue an automotive manufacturer for demonstrable damages in a court of law due to, lets say, faulty brakes, you should not be required by law to purchase that automobile against your will.

42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 - Standards of responsibility, provides that vaccine companies cannot be sued directly for damages by U.S. citizens in a court of law. Why? Because the vaccine manufacturer lobbied for this protection due to the fact that volume of justifiable suits for damages would have bankrupted them.

So here is a question for you, if the evidence of vaccine damages could not be demonstrated in a court of law, why would the vaccine manufacturers need to be protected from said litigation?

[Godstud]

@Victoribus Spolia Since you want to go there...
[Bulaba note: rule 2 removed], as everything you posted is easily explained by science. The diseases are mostly gone because of the vaccines AND improved sanitation and hygiene. The correlation and facts support this, and vaccines are proven effective. Science on bullshit pseudoscience that you ascribe to.

That is objectively true, and factual, even if you want to [Bulaba note: rule 2 removed] deny it in favour of some idiotic unscientific belief that David Avacado Wolfe told you about on YouTube, or something you saw someone say in 4chan/reddit.

[Victoribus Spolia]

The diseases are mostly gone because of the vaccines

Please quote the pseudo-science I referred to. I only showed the correlative data and projection charts which show that the claim that vaccines had any statistically significant effect on the rates of mortality is horseshit.

That is objectively true, and factual, even if you want to be a total moron and deny it in favour of some idiotic unscientific belief that David Avacado Wolfe told you about on YouTube, or something you saw someone say in 4chan/reddit.

What the fuck are you talking about? [Bulaba note: rule 2 removed]

You have addressed nothing I wrote, NOTHING. You've made accusations and a bunch of blustering, but thats about it.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Admin note: multiple rule 2 violations have been removed from this page. @Victoribus Spolia @Godstud It is a waste of my valuable time to have to clean up posts between adults who can't refrain from childish insults. Remain civil and act your ages, please. No warnings have been issued, but further violations will.

[Drlee]

That's right Godstud.

People are wrong or to be charitable read a study that is meant for professionals who are trained to understand it, and promulgate false ideas. Not much of a problem if it is the reliability of Ford versus Chevrolet but when it is something as important as vaccination children die because of their stupidity.

[Victoribus Spolia]

children die because of their stupidity.

Except thats not what the stats on mortality rates state and clearly the majority of the duly elected legislatures in the U.S. tend to think parental rights can trump vaccine mandates in certain instances. So I ain't alone.

Mandating people to do things against their will without compensation.....sooo conservative Dr. Lee...SOOOO conservative.

People are wrong or to be charitable read a study that is meant for professionals who are trained to understand it, and promulgate false ideas.

Appeal to authority. Fallacy.

[Godstud]

@Victoribus Spolia correlation does not imply causation. How nice of you to dismiss facts in favour of something you THINK supports your argument, when it does not.