1976 Swine Flu Vaccine Scandal

[Scribe]

U didn't have to i was just playing around...
Hey what are you doing in the avatar? It looks like your singing.
What r u singing there? Sinatra, New York New York? On Broadway?

Or maybe doing a comedy stand up... Are u a comedian?

It does look like New York doesn't it. I was IN New York. I am preaching a sermon on The Kingdom of God has come nigh unto You. In a church.

 

[PC123]

@Scribe

Hey don't u reckon u were a little bit harsh on anti-vaxers?
"stupid ignorant antivaxxers who are thumbing their nose at science"
"It is like arguing with an insane patient in a mental institution"

Like cmon now. I wasn't even arguing strongly. It was just a simple argument against blackmail, especially of doctors.
Im not a pro-vaxer or an anti-vaxer. I believe each vaccine ought to be considered separately according to the patients health.
Thats why the opinion of the physician/pediatrician is important. They know the patients medical history, medications, allergies, etc.

Your saying that the medical boards directive to mandate a vaccine makes the doctors opinion invalid...
Its the doctor that knows my health and if im ok to take it, not these bureaucrats. Blackmailing them is dangerously insane.

I wouldn't say that anti-vaxxers are thumbing their nose at science... Heaps of scientists and doctors have concerns about vaccines.
It may be a minority but disregarding them with ad hominem doesn't convince me at all...
There are experts that are anti-vaxers and experts that are pro-vaxers... Have a debate then. A proper scientific debate.
I heard the pro-vaxers don't want that debate. Why not. If they are so wrong then it should be easy to win the debate...

Imposing a treatment, against our will is in opposition to the international rights for patients.
Like ive said before, censorship in science makes me extremely skeptical... Censorship doesn't belong in science or politics.

 

[Scribe]

@Scribe

Hey don't u reckon u were a little bit harsh on anti-vaxers?
"stupid ignorant antivaxxers who are thumbing their nose at science"
"It is like arguing with an insane patient in a mental institution"

Like cmon now. I wasn't even arguing strongly. It was just a simple argument against blackmail, especially of doctors.
Im not a pro-vaxer or an anti-vaxer. I believe each vaccine ought to be considered separately according to the patients health.
Thats why the opinion of the physician/pediatrician is important. They know the patients medical history, medications, allergies, etc.

Your saying that the medical boards directive to mandate a vaccine makes the doctors opinion invalid...
Its the doctor that knows my health and if im ok to take it, not these bureaucrats. Blackmailing them is dangerously insane.

I wouldn't say that anti-vaxxers are thumbing their nose at science... Heaps of scientists and doctors have concerns about vaccines.
It may be a minority but disregarding them with ad hominem doesn't convince me at all...
There are experts that are anti-vaxers and experts that are pro-vaxers... Have a debate then. A proper scientific debate.
I heard the pro-vaxers don't want that debate. Why not. If they are so wrong then it should be easy to win the debate...

Imposing a treatment, against our will is in opposition to the international rights for patients.
Like ive said before, censorship in science makes me extremely skeptical... Censorship doesn't belong in science or politics.

I concede to your first point. I did get harsh. I apologize.

I think everyone agrees that a vaccine should not be forced on someone who does not want it. Who is doing that? The school law does not force it. Just because you have to find another way to school your kids if you do not want to vaccinate them is not the same as someone holding you down and forcing an injection.

If your point is vaccines should not be forced. I agree.

What is a fact check site response to an antivaccine post or video being shared on social media if not a debate? You make your antivaccine case and I present science that refutes your claim we are in a debate aren't we. And the fact checking sites are doing a good job of citing resources for one to read more on each point that is being raised by the antivaccine crowd.

I do not agree that there is an equal case between anti-vaccine crusaders and vaccine experts (immunologists, viriologists)
The anti-vaccine arguments are almost always false, misinformation, out right lies, or exaggerations of a known problem that has occurred in the past.

I am not an expert, but just by Googling I can usually fact check antivaccine claims and they are almost always false. What makes you think we don't want to debate. That is not the case at all. The reality is that when we present data that proves that the antivaxxer claim is false they don't concede. They loose the debate but just won't acknowledge it. When their false posts are struck down by social media platforms they cry "censorship" because they are sore losers. Am I getting harsh again?

 

[GaryA]

I am not an expert, but just by Googling ...

Just remember - and never forget - when you query Google, you are going to get left-leaning biased results.

 

[PC123]

You make your antivaccine case and I present science that refutes your claim we are in a debate aren't we

U mustn't have understood what i was saying... I did say i was NOT an anti-vax. I made that clear.
Im not arguing the science im arguing its morality.

I said that the decision to take a vaccine should be left to the individual and their physician... Not the medical establishment
And that its unethical for doctors and people to be blackmailed, or extorted, doxed, sacked, etc for their opinions and choices

Thats the guts of my argument. No fact checking required, no misinformation.
You agreed that it should be a choice which is my first point...
It seems the only thing we disagree on is my second point which im already comfortable to agree to disagree

 

[Scribe]

Just remember - and never forget - when you query Google, you are going to get left-leaning biased results.

You judge the links by their source and content. A scientific study published in medical journals available from sites that publish them for public consumption are not left nor right nor associated with Google corporation. It is not that hard to skip ads clearly marked at the top of the list and go to straight to relevant links. A 90 year old grandma who has never used Google might click on the ad at the top of the list but I expect most people who are serious about finding information have been able to learn how to Google and find relevant data without being directed only to sources that are in line with the Google executives political beliefs.

It might be true (I have not tested the theory) that if I google "who should I vote for for president" I just might get some kind of left leaning biased results. I will have to give it a try. But that does not hold true if I google "1976 Swine Flu Vaccine Scandal."

 

[ev4989]

Just remember - and never forget - when you query Google, you are going to get left-leaning biased results.

You are too funny! First, it was the news suddenly became fake. next google. What is going to be next. Fact finders? It is truly sad when people would rather believe lies because it benefits their beliefs.

 

[GaryA]

You are too funny! First, it was the news suddenly became fake. next google. What is going to be next. Fact finders? It is truly sad when people would rather believe lies because it benefits their beliefs.

And, you are not funny - you only think "you're so smart"...

The news didn't "suddenly become fake" - it has become more and more fake over decades - but, at an exponential rate...

Google started out intending only to make a good search engine so a couple of guys could get rich. And, they did. Then, Google became more interested in selling out to agendas. Today, that is all that they are about. The search engine is not even as good as it was in the beginning. Back then, you could actually find what you wanted to see. Now, they just want to feed you what they want you to see (as much as they can get away with) based on the agendas.

I personally have found sites like snopes in error telling lies (years ago). They seemed to be okay in the beginning. Eventually, they "sold out" to Satan.

And, of course, wikipedia - from its inception - has had the chief goal and purpose of "changing history" and other forms of departure from the truth.

It is truly sad when people would rather believe the lies of Satan because they are too apathetic towards the truth and lackadaisical in upholding it.