Evidence for God from Science

Ok people's lets ave' it.

Vaccination's in my opinion are worth the .001 % (not sure of accuracy, but you get the point) risk, if we didn't vaccinate we would still have polio and a whole host of other diseases which would have killed and maimed millions.

Yes vaccinations contain "harmful" chemicals, but the dosages we are talking are minuscule and are within safe limits.

I don't know what other countries are like but in Australia, these vaccinations are rigorously tested before the government gives it the stamp of approval, we actually have one of the most stringent guidelines in the world for pharmaceuticals products.

To read more about immunisation shots in Australia:

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... tions?open

https://www.science.org.au/immunisation

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/

http://www.immunise.health.gov.au/inter ... -guideprov

The basic assumption is that the benefits outweigh the risks, and massively so. I'll let others who are interested talk about statistical matters, correlation, causation, etc. Here's to me the more fundamental question: if we know that there are some risks, that in a large enough population that some people (even one) are going to be adversely affected, then what right do we have to mandate something that we know is going to positively harm some people? Because it's better for the rest of us who aren't harmed? That's just utilitarian reasoning, and that's an ethic I strongly reject. You don't make fun of one kid so that one hundred have fun. You don't enslave ten people so that a thousand live better. You don't mandate something that you know will hurt some for the benefit of others. That's just unethical.

Of course, if someone wants to to take on the risks themselves, then fine. I'm even okay with encouraging people to take on the risk. But to mandate it? That seems wrong to me.

Jac3510 wrote:The basic assumption is that the benefits outweigh the risks, and massively so. I'll let others who are interested talk about statistical matters, correlation, causation, etc. Here's to me the more fundamental question: if we know that there are some risks, that in a large enough population that some people (even one) are going to be adversely affected, then what right do we have to mandate something that we know is going to positively harm some people? Because it's better for the rest of us who aren't harmed? That's just utilitarian reasoning, and that's an ethic I strongly reject. You don't make fun of one kid so that one hundred have fun. You don't enslave ten people so that a thousand live better. You don't mandate something that you know will hurt some for the benefit of others. That's just unethical.

Of course, if someone wants to to take on the risks themselves, then fine. I'm even okay with encouraging people to take on the risk. But to mandate it? That seems wrong to me.

I agree, we are free to make our own choices and should never be mandated by the government, although personally I find it quite selfish, not only to your children but to everyone else's, letting everyone else take the risk so your children can be safe is terrible.

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.

Well, that was easy to find agreement. That's kind of the thing I have in mind when I talk about encouraging people. Each one might have to be looked at in more detail, but in general, I'm completely okay with the idea of such incentives.

Here is a recent article on the current measles outbreak in the US

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/ ... bsolutely/

It has to be a choice parents make and never mandated.
Here in Australia its a choice but you are left with very little options. There are day care centres, Pre-schools, and primary schools who will not accept your child if they are not immunised.
Even though my children are immunised, I did so somewhat reluctantly. My eldest son was late in getting his initial shots because I wasn't sure. It was for me a very hard decision to make and for good reason. My family has been affected by this in a tradegic way.

In the early 70's before I was born my Aunty had a daughter Jackie. I have seen her pictures and she was adorable. My mum doted on her as she was yet to have children herself. She was bright, alert, healthy and happy. She had never had any developmental or health problems. At 2 she was talking, walking doing all the right things. Then she was immunised (I dont know which injections she was given, I will ask my mum). The very next day things started going down hill very rapidly. She started having fits to which no cause could be found. Then her development started to digress, she was losing coordination and her ability to speak. The doctors diagnosed autism. She continued having seizures and digressing till she was just not the same little girl. A year and a half later she had a massive seizure and died.
I understand that many children at around 2 are diagnosed with autism and it could be a coincidence but none of my family believed this to be the case. Not my Aunty, my mum, my grandparents or my great grandparents who I heard all talk about it growing up. Her digression was a lot more severe and rapid than a 'normal' autism case and the seizures never explained, even though tests were carried out.

I have in the past and when I was considering whether to immunise my own children done some research. There are parents who have eerily similar situations happening to their children as what happened to Jackie. I don't think anyone can say that the correlation between vaccination and autism is a myth. Its very rare, but I believe a very real risk.

I think private businesses should absolutely be allowed to make the call to limit services to vaccinated people. I'm not so sure public services should be so limited. I think there are other ways to encourage vaccination. There's more than one way to mandate something (see Obamacare).

I'm for vaccinations,not sure if it should be mandated but I'm for it.

Dan wrote:
Vaccination's in my opinion are worth the .001 % (not sure of accuracy, but you get the point) risk, if we didn't vaccinate we would still have polio and a whole host of other diseases which would have killed and maimed millions.

Why do you think other diseases would still exist if we didn't have vaccines? This article says differently.

melanie wrote:It has to be a choice parents make and never mandated.
Here in Australia its a choice but you are left with very little options. There are day care centres, Pre-schools, and primary schools who will not accept your child if they are not immunised.
Even though my children are immunised, I did so somewhat reluctantly. My eldest son was late in getting his initial shots because I wasn't sure. It was for me a very hard decision to make and for good reason. My family has been affected by this in a tradegic way.

In the early 70's before I was born my Aunty had a daughter Jackie. I have seen her pictures and she was adorable. My mum doted on her as she was yet to have children herself. She was bright, alert, healthy and happy. She had never had any developmental or health problems. At 2 she was talking, walking doing all the right things. Then she was immunised (I dont know which injections she was given, I will ask my mum). The very next day things started going down hill very rapidly. She started having fits to which no cause could be found. Then her development started to digress, she was losing coordination and her ability to speak. The doctors diagnosed autism. She continued having seizures and digressing till she was just not the same little girl. A year and a half later she had a massive seizure and died.
I understand that many children at around 2 are diagnosed with autism and it could be a coincidence but none of my family believed this to be the case. Not my Aunty, my mum, my grandparents or my great grandparents who I heard all talk about it growing up. Her digression was a lot more severe and rapid than a 'normal' autism case and the seizures never explained, even though tests were carried out.

I have in the past and when I was considering whether to immunise my own children done some research. There are parents who have eerily similar situations happening to their children as what happened to Jackie. I don't think anyone can say that the correlation between vaccination and autism is a myth. Its very rare, but I believe a very real risk.

Really sorry to hear that has happened in your family, nothing has happened to me personally but I do know lots of people who have lost children for all sorts of reasons and it's a pain that is not describable, I imagine that's what God feels when a soul is lost to Satan.

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

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.

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

So, you're saying that it seems like it's at least possible, but probably likely, that vaccines cause serious injury or death? And if that's the case, the govt. should not force them on people?

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?

RickD 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.

So, you're saying that it seems like it's at least possible, but probably likely, that vaccines cause serious injury or death? And if that's the case, the govt. should not force them on people?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Completely.

RickD wrote:

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?

Sheesh. That strikes me as a really good point. I hadn't thought about that.