Heavy fines for those that refuse vaccination in Germany

[Energize]

No I don't. I've said consitently that the medical profession knows more. My issue is putting it into law that the government can mandate what evidence it chooses to support from the medical profession as a blanket approach for all children. I fully support parents listening to the medical profession. I fully support the courts being used for individual cases where it is felt the child is in danger through action or inaction by their parents. But I don't support blanket decisions by the State on children where I do feel that most parents would act sensibly.

I think history has proven that parents are not capable of acting sensibly, look at what happened when Dr Fraud published his falsified link between MMR and autism. That makes for a very compelling case for government mandated vaccination in and of itself.

Your suggested approach makes no sense, if we accept that not giving the vaccine puts the child in danger then employing a judge would be moot, simply costing huge amounts of money and resulting in many more children being killed by diseases while legal processes go through.

 

[Angilion]

Dude I don't even know what you're ranting about. I'm sorry I've made you rant. Sufficed to say there are so many holes in your post it's unbelievable. I will have the respect to explain exactly how you are completely wrong though, only if you like. [..]

No you won't, because you can't. I know that. You know that. Anyone who's reading this silly exchange knows that. You made a false claim (that Andrew Wakefield had revealed a possible connection between MMR and autism). I explained why it's false (he was lying for the purpose of obtaining money by deception). You pretended you'd made a completely different claim (that he had claimed to have found a connection). Rather incompetently, since you didn't delete your original claim. You also made up some nonsense about acknowledging that Wakefield lied is the same as saying that no research should ever take place and then you pretended I'd written it. You're making yourself look bad.

 

[asim18]

You made a false claim (that Andrew Wakefield had revealed a possible connection between MMR and autism).

You are having a laugh. I didn't write that paper. So how the heck did I make that claim?

Falsely claiming something is true is not the same as it being true. I shouldn't need to explain that.

I didn't say whether the research was true or not lol. The people who wrote that paper, are referring to an actual documented event which you're also aware of, so what exactly are you denying? They are referring to that very debacle!

I'm not saying his research wasn't fake. The fact is that is the debacle was based around MMR=Autism. If you've got some argument about their choice of words to describe that particular event then don't aim it at me lol just post what you think or go ask the authors lol.

 

[Angilion]

You are having a laugh. I didn't write that paper. How the heck did I make that claim?

In post 282, in reply to a quote from the "paper" stating that Andrew Wakefield revealed a possible connection between MMR and autism, you wrote:

is there actually anything wrong with that? What's wrong with it? Did andrew wakefield NOT do that? Is that what you're saying?

So yes, you made that claim. And after claiming you didn't, you didn't even bother going back to post 282 and deleting the claim you made. Which has an appropriate symmetry with Andrew Wakefield, since he was also very sloppy with his untrue statements and just hoped nobody would check anything.

 

[asim18]

In post 282, in reply to a quote from the "paper" stating that Andrew Wakefield revealed a possible connection between MMR and autism, you wrote:



So yes, you made that claim. And after claiming you didn't, you didn't even bother going back to post 282 and deleting the claim you made. Which has an appropriate symmetry with Andrew Wakefield, since he was also very sloppy with his untrue statements and just hoped nobody would check anything.

No. I didn't make that claim you are continuing to lie. I am literally asking simple questions there lmao not making claims.

Seriously, you've literally quoted questions I'm asking and said It's a CLAIM, unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. What a painfully low level argument lmao.

I'm asking questions because at that point I had no idea who this guy was. Nor did I have any idea why this guy is relevant to any and all independent future scientific research.

I am asking questions about the ORIGINAL claim. I'm asking what's wrong with the guy and whether or not he did or didn't do that. I'm not making THE claim - nor am I saying anything about the invalidity of his "findings". Wow.


I'm not even sure what the heck this is about. If you think that claim IN the paper(NOT ME) endorses the guy or validates his "findings" in some way then that's cool just say it and move on. Or write to the authors or something asking for clarification.

 

[Schizo]

you've not heard of the Dr who was struck off as a result of his fabricated results causing a huge news story that occurred re: the MMR vaccine with major consequences thanks to worried parents then not vaccinating their kids... yet you're happy to pick up and post dodgy/obscure articles by anti vax loonies?

I wonder how you sourced your latest nonsense article... did you by any chance go read some conspiracy sites and then find it linked on one? Presumably much like the previous one you posted?

OMG so my assumption was right. Yet you've denied it and then just exposed yourself 2 minutes later.

Wow. I just literally assumed you're trying to discredit all future research into vaccines as "anti-vax conspiracy", And then you denied it, and then you've gone and done precisely that, 2 minutes after denying it! Amazing.

Trololololol.

And no, I did not find that on a conspiracy website I dont even go on conspiracy websites lmao. I went on research gate looking for research on autoimmune diseases. Actually I've already explained that the article isn't specifically targeting MMR, it's just that the researcher found the chemical in MMR amongst many other things!

But yeah the whole of researchgate is a conspiracy website just because a conspiracy website may have external links to research gate. Very good logic.

@asim18 @dowie

You 2 need to stop this now,all i see is you 2 bickering over the smallest thing,you either stop or ignore each other,enough is enough of this childish behavior !

 

[Sankari]

I do feel that most parents would act sensibly.

'I feel' is not a valid basis for a logical, rational argument.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Wakefield did reveal a "possible connection" but that's pretty meaningless when the truth is he "made stuff up". I could reveal any number of "possible connections" right now with a bit of imagination. A bit of cash would certainly help to inspire me.

 

[Orionaut]

I suspect the Wakefield claims would have had far less impact on vaccination rates if Blair hadn't been so evasive as to whether or not his own children had been given the MMR jab...

 

[dowie]

@asim18 @dowie

You 2 need to stop this now,all i see is you 2 bickering over the smallest thing,you either stop or ignore each other,enough is enough of this childish behavior !

Sorry but I'm not 'bickering' in this thread I'm quite legitimately objecting to the arguments presented and the very dubious papers that have been posted here - it isn't my fault that the other poster has a tendency to blow up and go off on rants. I'm happy to do so while trying to avoid quoting the poster directly if you like though I'd dispute that presenting these arguments is 'childish'. I'd note that I'm hardly the only one in the thread to have taken issue with the nonsense that has been posted by him.

 

[Armageus]

Sorry but I'm not 'bickering' in this thread I'm quite legitimately objecting to the arguments presented and the very dubious papers that have been posted here - it isn't my fault that the other poster has a tendency to blow up and go off on rants. I'm happy to do so while trying to avoid quoting the poster directly if you like though I'd dispute that presenting these arguments is 'childish'. I'd note that I'm hardly the only one in the thread to have taken issue with the nonsense that has been posted by him.

You two are unable to get along in every thread you both post in, and has been noticed by plenty of other people.

Take it to the FCD subforum because we are not going to discuss it further here

 

[dowie]

I'm perfectly happy not to quote the other poster or respond directly - I've got no interest in discussing anything with the other poster in this thread going forwards.

I'd like to highlight a couple of things about two papers that have been presented and simply present a few things as I think this is important - firstly the anti vax paper:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21623535

This was a paper written by an economist, who hasn't published anything else in the field and who has essentially relied on some dubious data in order to try and find spurious correlations:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ience-in-the-service-of-the-discredited-idea/

for example the 'autism' data she used wasn't actually autism but is also conflated with kids with speech difficulties etc.. that in itself just makes the study nonsense:

First (and most egregious), there’s the issue of why DeLong combined SLIs (see abstract above) with autism diagnoses to do her analysis. DeLong appears to have used statistics that states are required to maintain under federal legislation, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under IDEA, every school is required to provide data on children who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP), including the students’ primary classification. As Liz Ditz pointed out, IDEA classifications are not medical diagnoses. A child with a diagnosis of autism under IDEA may or may not really have autism. Also, children with an IDEA classification of SLI are most commonly children with problems in fluency, articulation, or voice, not autism. Examples include apraxia and aphasias, voice disorders, stuttering, and language-based learning disabilities. It’s not for nothing that James Laidler characterized IDEA data as not being a reliable measure that can be used to track autism prevalence accurately.

Why would an economist who doesn't have anythng to do with this field publish such a paper? Apparently she is or at least was on the board of an anti vaccine group 'safe minds'.

This sort of thing really ought to be taken into account when looking at these papers - there are a few people out there with an anti-autism agenda who seem to botch together scientific looking papers that essentially boil down to finding or engineering some spurious 'correlation'

thus people should keep in mind the phrase ' correlation does not imply causation'

not wanting to make this post too long or repeat the same arguments but if anyone is interested the author of another paper posted in here along anti-vax lines is a computer scientist (again this isn't her field) and seems to have a history of this stuff too - I'll leave the below links for anyone interested:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/10/31/and-now-death-by-gardasil-again-not-so-fast/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/20/dumpster-diving-in-the-vaers-database-again/

Main point is that there isn't a proven link between vaccines and MMR, this has been studied plenty of times. There are however some very bad papers out there that are often cited by anti vaccine groups online - when these are brought up it simply adds confusion to the debate for some people not otherwise aware of them. I think it is rather important to highlight that these papers are flawed as it wouldn't be particularly good if people read them unchallenged and then go on to believe there might be 'something' to the anti vaccination argument.

 

[Vonhelmet]

There's been early research suggesting that autism can be detected using brain scans at ages well below the age at which mmr is given, which would knock the whole mmr/autism thing into a cocked hat.

 

[Sankari]

There's been early research suggesting that autism can be detected using brain scans at ages well below the age at which mmr is given, which would knock the whole mmr/autism thing into a cocked hat.

It has been repeatedly confirmed that autism begins in the womb, long before any vaccinations are given. This is an established fact.

 

[Werewolf]

There's been early research suggesting that autism can be detected using brain scans at ages well below the age at which mmr is given, which would knock the whole mmr/autism thing into a cocked hat.

I think the issue with that might be that it would be a huge waste of time/money/equipment to give every baby/toddler an mri so the anti vaxxors won't believe it as it's not routinely done, and even if it is done they'll simply disregard it, or claim the CT's are doctored or something.

They're' rather like CT's in that regard.

 

[asim18]

There's been early research suggesting that autism can be detected using brain scans at ages well below the age at which mmr is given, which would knock the whole mmr/autism thing into a cocked hat.

Absolutely not. Explanation below.

It has been repeatedly confirmed that autism begins in the womb, long before any vaccinations are given. This is an established fact.

Firstly, thank you for keeping to a discussion and not attacking me.

Autism is a Neurodevelopmental disorder, it's not some virus you catch from aluminium exposure or whatever. If the brain is made in the womb, then neurological development can certainly be disturbed by toxins such as glyphosate before birth. There's no doubt about it! This goes hand in hand with newborn babies being addicted to heroin. The foetus isn't chilling in the womb injecting himself with drugs, it is because the toxic baby has been formed out of a toxic mother.


Furthermore, because it's a neurodevelopmental disorder, it can still be effected after birth, as long as the brain is developing. The brain is developing all throughout childhood.

You don't suddenly get a 50 year olds turning into autistic people. But 50 year olds with fully developed brains can still be effected by neurotoxins. It's just that the effects are neurodegenerative as opposed to neurodevelopmental.

This is why autism can begin in the womb, it's because neurodevelopment begins in the womb also!

I think the issue with that might be that it would be a huge waste of time/money/equipment to give every baby/toddler an mri so the anti vaxxors won't believe it as it's not routinely done, and even if it is done they'll simply disregard it, or claim the CT's are doctored or something.
They're' rather like CT's in that regard.

I don't believe so. It's because neurodevelopment begins in the womb and autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Ok, so are we just talking about autism in general with no reference to vaccinations?

 

[asim18]

Ok, so are we just talking about autism in general with no reference to vaccinations?

I had to talk about autism in general because it appeared as if some posters didn't understand why neurodevelopmental disorders can still be effected from within the womb.

I simply had to explain why and how it can be effected in the womb, because the womb was used as a reason to say that neurodeveopmental issues cannot be caused by neurotoxins if the baby is still in the mother.

 

[Angilion]

No. I didn't make that claim you are continuing to lie. I am literally asking simple questions there lmao not making claims.

Seriously, you've literally quoted questions I'm asking and said It's a CLAIM, unbelievable. Truly unbelievable. What a painfully low level argument lmao.

I'm asking questions because at that point I had no idea who this guy was. Nor did I have any idea why this guy is relevant to any and all independent future scientific research.

I am asking questions about the ORIGINAL claim. I'm asking what's wrong with the guy and whether or not he did or didn't do that. I'm not making THE claim - nor am I saying anything about the invalidity of his "findings". Wow.


I'm not even sure what the heck this is about. If you think that claim IN the paper(NOT ME) endorses the guy or validates his "findings" in some way then that's cool just say it and move on. Or write to the authors or something asking for clarification.

Putting a question mark at the end of a statement does not make it a question.

Or should I write: Putting a question mark at the end of a statement does not make it a question?

Besides which, your statements with a question mark malarky doesn't apply anyway. You asked an actual question - did Andrew Wakefield do what the quoted text said he did. I answered it - no, he didn't. You didn't like the answer, so off you went continuing to treat it as true and ranting somewhat to deflect attention away from the simple fact that the paper is wrong - Andrew Wakefield did not do what the paper claimed he did. And you know that but continue to try to pass it off as truth anyway because it's convenient for your belief and you have no evidence.

 

[asim18]

Putting a question mark at the end of a statement does not make it a question.

Or should I write: Putting a question mark at the end of a statement does not make it a question?

Ok lets look at the quotations, again: the following are the 4 questions I asked as quoted by you:

is there actually anything wrong with that?
What's wrong with it?
Did andrew wakefield NOT do that?
Is that what you're saying?

I don't believe those are quite like your example.

Besides which, your statements with a question mark malarky doesn't apply anyway. You asked an actual question - did Andrew Wakefield do what the quoted text said he did. I answered it - no, he didn't. You didn't like the answer, so off you went continuing to treat it as true and ranting somewhat to deflect attention away from the simple fact that the paper is wrong - Andrew Wakefield did not do what the paper claimed he did. And you know that but continue to try to pass it off as truth anyway because it's convenient for your belief and you have no evidence.

Still have no idea what this argument has to do with anything. Perhaps if you could explain what it has to do with

You asked an actual question - did Andrew Wakefield do what the quoted text said he did. I answered it - no, he didn't.

So I didn't ask a question - but I did ask a question. Make your mind up.

Your answer of "no, he didn't" was based on the invalidity/fraudulence of the papers. NOT the fact that he made claims.

Just because his papers were for fraud purposes doesn't mean the claims that were made somehow magically vanish of the face of the earth lmao. The paper still exists lol

If I claim that i have a 12 inch ruler for sale, but when you open the box to find a 6 inches of poop, then it doesn't suddenly mean that I never claimed to have a 12 inch ruler! (sorry I have a ruler on my desk and I also need to poop right now)

I didn't validate or endorse any of his claims. You keep accusing me of passing some crap on as truth when I have explicitly stated that I'm not endorsing his claims whether they were fake or even written by him in the first place.

I've already accepted this guys claims were phoney at lest twice. Can we forget about this guy now?