Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:See, and that's where "correlation doesn't equal causation" seems like a stretch at best and possibly tragically harmful at worst.

If causation can be shown then yea, but it hasn't been shown yet.

The saying is "correlation doesn't always mean causation", so it is saying you need to prove causation rather than just assuming it.

Then you should have the right to take that chance with your children and yourself, if you think the reward is greater than the risk.

But, those people who actually think the risk outweighs the reward, and the consequences of the vaccine could cause death or greater harm than not getting the vaccine, should not be forced to get the vaccine. And should not be ridiculed because they are trying to protect themselves and their children from serious injury or death.

EDIT

Dan wrote:
Vaccination is not mandatory in Australia, but you cannot attend a public school, receive certain benefits and in some cases doctors may refuse service and direct you too a hospital if you have not been vaccinated, these are not to penalise the people not getting vaccinated but to protect everyone else.

Dan, did you notice what you wrote? If people who aren't vaccinated are not allowed to enter school, not allowed in a doctor's office, to protect everyone else, why? EVERYONE ELSE BESIDES THE UNVACCINATED HAVE BEEN VACCINATED!!! WHY WOULD THE VACCINATED NEED PROTECTION IF VACCINES WORK LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO?

It seems much more likely that there's another reason why unvaccinated people are discriminated against, doesn't it?

Rick think about what you are saying, diseases that we vaccinate against don't always get vaccinated for until we are older, young children and especially newborn babies are still vulnerable. Mothers who take their new born babies to public school with them when they drop off their older children are at risk, mothers who take their babies to the doctors are at risk, immune compromised people, people who have had transplants, people with cancer, old people in general, people who had the vaccine but for some reason it didn't take. All these people's lives are at risk for you not vaccinating your children, so yes your children should be kept as far away as possible.

Education and health care are a privilege and not a right, if you abuse it you loose it, simple as that.

Dan,

If you read the link I posted, you'd see that's all hogwash.

It explains how over vaccinating has actually lead to worse immune systems and more sickness.

Besides, your argument about newborn babies who go to schools with their mothers is moot. If the newborns aren't vaccinated yet, according to you, they're not allowed at school anyways. Because they're not vaccinated. Unless you're saying that the schools are selectively discriminating against certain unvaccinated people, and not others.

RickD wrote:Dan,

If you read the link I posted, you'd see that's all hogwash.

It explains how over vaccinating has actually lead to worse immune systems and more sickness.

The article is hogwash.

Even my own experience let alone scientific evidence, says it's hogwash, never seen one case of measles in any children I know, the only whooping cough I have seen was in un-vaccinated people (newborns and people who choose to be not vaccinated), never seen polio in my life ever, never seen mumps ever, same for rubella and the list goes on. Before vaccinations these diseases where quite common, I just have to ask my parents and grandparents and they confirm all that.

The proof is in the pudding, and it's yummy.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:Dan,

If you read the link I posted, you'd see that's all hogwash.

It explains how over vaccinating has actually lead to worse immune systems and more sickness.

The article is hogwash.

Even my own experience let alone scientific evidence, says it's hogwash, never seen one case of measles in any children I know, the only whooping cough I have seen was in un-vaccinated people (newborns and people who choose to be not vaccinated), never seen polio in my life ever, never seen mumps ever, same for rubella and the list goes on. Before vaccinations these diseases where quite common, I just have to ask my parents and grandparents and they confirm all that.

The proof is in the pudding, and it's yummy.

You need to consider the point in the article that says there could be other reasons why you don't see those diseases any more. But vaccines get the credit. Which leads me to believe that at best, vaccines are ineffective. At worst, harmful. Just look at how many people get the flu, despite getting the flu shot. If the shot is only effective against one specific strain of the flu, then to me, it seems the odds are against you right from the start.


Otherwise, we disagree. Which is ok with me. As long as you aren't attacking people who choose not to vaccinate, then there's really no problem. That is really the only issue I have in all this. Forced vaccinations, and attacking those who believe the risks of vaccinating outweigh any rewards, and truly are doing what they believe is in the best interest of themselves and/or their family. Parents need to have that choice without being attacked in any way.

Edit

let alone scientific evidence,

Let's not go there. The same evidence you see, I believe shows vaccines do more harm than good.
So as you know from TE/creation threads, the evidence is in the eye of the beholder.

You may still get flu after a shot but I think it is not as bad as it would have been if you didn`t.

I`m still not 100% with vaccines. I thought long and hard before allowing my daughter to have the MMR vaccine because I believe there is a risk but I think it should be up to the individual to assess those risks. Sometimes the disease itself outweighs the risk of the vaccine, sometimes not. I don`t think we should be forced to vaccinate but persuaded.

Well the Vaccine Court has already paid out $3 billion to vaccine-injured Americans.

Source: THE US GOVERNMENT HAS PAID OUT $3 BILLION TO VACCINE-INJURED AMERICANS SINCE 1989

Stu,

The video of the vaccine hearing in Massachusetts is EXTREMELY powerful. How Anyone can watch that video, and still claim that vaccines don't cause injury, is beyond reason. It was heartbreaking watching the mothers describe what their children went through after being vaccinated.

I have a friend who is a Pediatrician Consultant and he assures me that vaccinations are safe - and so my little one had had all her vaccines. The benefits far outweigh the risks by a huge margin. This is from someone who knows what he is talking about.

What are you guys on about? Smoking does not cause cancer!

Kurieuo wrote:What are you guys on about? Smoking does not cause cancer!

Is this WHO/CDC that says smoking does not cause cancer, the same WHO/CDC that says vaccines are safe?

If one should have the right to put others at risk by refusing to get vaccinated then society outght to have the right to isolate such person from society. It goes both ways. My wife runs a private pre-school, even if it weren't mandatory for children to be vaccinated to attend the school, it is well within her right to refuse attendance to any un-vaccinated child who can potentially put 50 other children at severe risk and possibly death.

But what about Rick's point above, Byblos? Suppose of the fifty children, 49 vaccinate. If one does not and he goes to the class, how is he putting the other 49 at risk? They have been vaccinated.

As I said before, I think that private businesses, including daycares and preschools, ought to be able to make their own policies on this. I am not sold on the idea that publicly funded institutions ought to be able to have such policies. It doesn't seem right to me to require someone to take a risk that in their assessment is not worth the possible benefits. And the other side of that is that we don't do that anywhere else in healthcare that I know of. I work in a hospital. Do you have any idea how many times I sit with patients and families while they debate on whether or not to accept certain procedures--even ones that the docs are adamant that the risk is relatively small? And, again, the possibility-of-harming-others argument seems to fail for two reasons: 1. what about the possible harm to me or my children in being forced to receive the vaccination, and 2. the only people at risk are those who have denied being vaccinated! That's part of the risk that they are accepting in not being vaccinated.

Jac3510 wrote:But what about Rick's point above, Byblos? Suppose of the fifty children, 49 vaccinate. If one does not and he goes to the class, how is he putting the other 49 at risk? They have been vaccinated.

I was just about to ask that. I don't know how I feel about this whole thing. If an un vaccinated child puts vaccinated children at risk then what's the point of being vaccinated at all?

Rob wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But what about Rick's point above, Byblos? Suppose of the fifty children, 49 vaccinate. If one does not and he goes to the class, how is he putting the other 49 at risk? They have been vaccinated.

I was just about to ask that. I don't know how I feel about this whole thing. If an un vaccinated child puts vaccinated children at risk then what's the point of being vaccinated at all?

You're both missing the point, that being once vaccination is optional then everyone is put at risk because everyone will be exposed to whatever it is they haven't been vaccinated for. Of the 49 who were vaccinated 10 did not receive MMR. It would take one child who is infected with the measles (even if vaccinated) to infect all 10 un-vaccinated. It's not a binary relationship.

Byblos wrote:

Rob wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But what about Rick's point above, Byblos? Suppose of the fifty children, 49 vaccinate. If one does not and he goes to the class, how is he putting the other 49 at risk? They have been vaccinated.

I was just about to ask that. I don't know how I feel about this whole thing. If an un vaccinated child puts vaccinated children at risk then what's the point of being vaccinated at all?

You're both missing the point, that being once vaccination is optional then everyone is put at risk because everyone will be exposed to whatever it is they haven't been vaccinated for. Of the 49 who were vaccinated 10 did not receive MMR. It would take one child who is infected with the measles (even if vaccinated) to infect all 10 un-vaccinated. It's not a binary relationship.

But Byblos,

If vaccination is optional, those who choose not to risk taking the vaccine, understand the supposed risks of not taking the vaccine. It comes with the deal. You don't get vaccinated, you run a risk (however large or small) of getting the sickness.

And of course that is assuming there is significantly more of a risk of contracting x sickness, if one doesn't get x vaccine.