Let's play devil's advocate: How do you defend anti-vaxxer?

[mr moose]

40 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Do you REALLY think that's going to be disclosed in paper?

If it's true that vaccines are the majority cause, then yes, that will be released on paper.  Contrary to popular belief 99.9% of researching scientists (this includes doctors) are not interested in lying to get anywhere and credibility is still a currency.

 

40 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

You are obviously not reading everything else that I said.  The doctors who treated me (and several others) have stated that the vast majority of patients who got GBS recently had a vaccine, so it's more then a "small number" of cases.

This is just you trying to take your small experience and claim it as the majority,  when the research papers say that 60% of cases are directly after a respiratory infection and most of the rest are after some other major infection, then that is what the truth is.   Because even if your doctor said that exactly as you have posted, at best I would say they are assuming you are one of the rare cases and not the majority.

40 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

So you're saying that doctors don't use personal experience to make any calls?

Not sure how you drew that conclusion. what doees that eveen have to do with the conversation?

40 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

  That they all just go by the book?  That sounds rather insulting to medical professionals. 

Again not what I said.  Doctors don't understand the intrinsic nature and cause of conditions from patients, they might learn how to treat them and get a better understanding for patient responses to certain treatments, but when it comes to determining a causation they do rely on said research.

40 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case honestly.  Call me a tin foil hatter, I really don't care what you think about me.

 

You spend over a year in rehab and see the disgusting amount of legal cover ups and then you may see my point of view, and this is coming from someone who isn't strictly anti vax.  All I said is that vaccines like all medications have the potential to cause side effects, some of them severe, and that everyone should be well informed of the potential side effects before they agree to put something in their body, and maybe, just MAYBE not go all out auto attack someone who decides not to get vaccinated. 

I have good friend that I helped through rehab from GBS, I have several relatives that have required rehab for various other conditions, I know the system in Australia rather well.  Your country might be fucked up, but that doesn't change the causality of GBS nor does it change the nature of the scientific fraternity or the validity of the research carried out.

40 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

And instead you decide to make claims that you cannot back up, and get in an argument with me over me being skeptical of said claims.

What claims did I make that I can't back up? 

[Skanky Sylveon]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

when the research papers say that 60% of cases are directly after a respiratory infection and most of the rest are after some other major infection

What research papers?  You still haven't linked me anything stating that.

 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

What research papers?  You still haven't linked me anything stating that.

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

You claimed they were just saying stuff,  either read what they are saying and find evidence it's all made up to avoid legal trouble or stop making claims about such organisations.

That's it,  you get GBS 14 days after a vaccine. Last time I looked we call that anecdotal evidence, you cannot claim causation from what is observational in a small number of experiences/cases. 

 

 

That someone likely (read; most likely in most cases) gets all their information from the same research publications.

 

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/48/1/48/290409

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939842/

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)00564-X/fulltext

 

 

Now we have established where treating doctors get their information from and have presented some of the publications here, what are you going to argue next?  That the lancet et al are paid off by "BIG PHARMA"? 

 

Are you ignoring these on purpose?

[Skanky Sylveon]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Are you ignoring these on purpose?

Quote

Conclusions. Influenza viruses are infrequent triggering agents of GBS but may play a significant role during major influenza outbreaks. Influenza-related GBS displays specific features and is not associated with antiganglioside antibody response, which suggests the presence of underlying immune mechanisms.

Quote

Suffice to say Zika virus can be added to our list of viruses that can cause Guillain-Barré syndrome, and investigation of these cases should include tests for Zika when there is a possibility of infection by that virus. Whether Zika will be proven to pose a greater threat in causing Guillain-Barré syndrome than its various flavivirus cousins remains to be determined.

We declare no competing interests.

Quote

Background. In Western countries, the cause of 60% of all Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) cases remains unidentified. 

Quote

Methods. Of 405 patients with GBS who were admitted to a French reference center during 1996–2004, 234 had cases caused by an unidentified agent. We used time-series methods to study the correlation between the monthly incidence of such cases and influenza-like illnesses reported by the Sentinelles surveillance network. We analyzed anti-influenza antibodies using complement fixation testing and hemagglutination-inhibition assays. We studied etiological subgroups using Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests.

Quote

GBS occurs after acute infectious disease (usually respiratory tract infection [RTI] or gastrointestinal illness [GI]) in 60%–70% of patients [3]. Campylobacter jejuni and cytomegalovirus are the most commonly identified infectious causes in Western countries, accounting for 13%–39% and 10%–15% of GBS cases, respectively [1, 4, 5]. Other possible infectious causes include Epstein-Barr virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, and Haemophilus influenzae [1, 4, 5]. Vaccinations have also been implicated in GBS; an example is the influenza vaccine used during the mass vaccination campaign against swine influenza in the United States from 1976 through 1977 [6]. However, 60%–70% of GBS cases in Western countries remain without any identified cause.

What you sent me simply suggests the possibility that vaccines could help reduce GBS, a 60% - 70% non conclusive cause is hardly conclusive. 

 

The flu vaccine is known to cause upper respiratory like symptoms as well since it, you know, tricks your body into thinking that you are suffering from an active infection, thus creating the appropriate antibodies. 

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

What you sent me simply suggests the possibility that vaccines could help reduce GBS, a 60% - 70% non conclusive cause is hardly conclusive. 

 

The flu vaccine is known to cause upper respiratory like symptoms as well since it, you know, tricks your body into thinking that you are suffering from an active infection, thus creating the appropriate antibodies. 

????

I know it's hard to read these papers but at least try.   You are literally taking snippets and applying your own understanding and not reading why the conclusions are presented the way they are.  Millions of people get the flu but not millions of people get GBS, therefore the flu itself is not the cause, that is why they say it is infrequent, not because there is a low correlation, there is in fact a high correlation between GBS and the flu (edit, this mention of the flu just confuses the message, ignore it) amongst other respiratory infections (respiratory infections is the key in this sentence).  In fact there is a higher correlation 60% of GBS after respiratory infection than there is any other correlating condition including vaccines.

 

It appears you just don't like the idea that vaccines are not main cause and that the specific cause (beyond it being an immune issue) is still largely unknown.

[thinwalrus]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

????

I know it's hard to read these papers but at least try.   You are literally taking snippets and applying your own understanding and not reading why the conclusions are presented the way they are.  Millions of people get the flu but not millions of people get GBS, therefore the flu itself is not the cause, that is why they say it is infrequent, not because there is a low correlation, there is in fact a high correlation between GBS and the flu amongst other respiratory infections.  In fact there is a higher correlation 60% of GBS after respiratory infection than there is any other correlating condition including vaccines.

 

It appears you just don't like the idea that vaccines are not main cause and that the specific cause (beyond it being an immune issue) is still largely unknown.

You really think you can reason with anti-vaxxers? It's a waste of time as they are like religious people. You would have to prove a negative. And vast majority of them would still reject that proof based on some paranoid ramblings of a non scientist.

 

No vaccines and child mortality rates will spike to early 1900:s numbers. You have to protect people from their own stupidity as the diseases can take innocents too.

[mr moose]

I think the problem here is this insistence that everything must be evidenced beyond absoluteness or it is dismissed as easily refutable.  There will never be a level of absoluteness that satisfies the needs of some people for several reasons, the main one being people can dismiss anything they want if they don't understand it or are unwilling to accept what the outcome might be. 

 

I see this problem a lot on these forums, many times general one fit claims are used to dismiss everything out of hand and not consider the details, sometimes people require a 100,000 word thesis with citations and independent verification before they will even entertain the idea they might be wrong.

 

Having debated many times with many people who simply do snot understand how the peer review process works let alone the difference between a peer reviewed journal any other journal (hint, its the peer review process), I can attest to the frequency with which people demand more specifics and further evidence until they get to the point where non can be presented and immediately claim victory.  Even though the evidence points 100 miles in the other direction, but because we couldn't provide absolute proof covering every single living cell on the planet, they think it must be wrong.

[Skanky Sylveon]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

????

I know it's hard to read these papers but at least try.   You are literally taking snippets and applying your own understanding and not reading why the conclusions are presented the way they are.  Millions of people get the flu but not millions of people get GBS, therefore the flu itself is not the cause, that is why they say it is infrequent, not because there is a low correlation, there is in fact a high correlation between GBS and the flu (edit, this mention of the flu just confuses the message, ignore it) amongst other respiratory infections (respiratory infections is the key in this sentence).  In fact there is a higher correlation 60% of GBS after respiratory infection than there is any other correlating condition including vaccines.

 

It appears you just don't like the idea that vaccines are not main cause and that the specific cause (beyond it being an immune issue) is still largely unknown.

I read the papers, most of the causes were non conclusive, an upper respiratory infection usally happening before symptoms appear doesn't lead to any solid evidence, furthermore, you stated that the flu was a more common way to get GBS then vaccines like it was fact when the cause was largely inconclusive.  Especially when a common side effect of vaccines is upper respiratory like symptoms. 

19 minutes ago, thinwalrus said:

You really think you can reason with anti-vaxxers? It's a waste of time as they are like religious people. You would have to prove a negative. And vast majority of them would still reject that proof based on some paranoid ramblings of a non scientist.

Why don't you read my previous posts before jumping to conclusions.  Due to my reaction to a vaccine, I will never get one again, and pretty much every doctor that I met agreed. 

 

I would still vaccinate my children though, at least from the major stuff, I also vaccinate my pets with pretty much everything available.  My only objection is with people like you that like to mock others for their choices on what they decide to put in their body, and perhaps to keep an open mind to others opinions.

 

EDIT:

 

Why would an anti vaxxer have vaccines in his fridge?  HMMMMM.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I read the papers, most of the causes were non conclusive, an upper respiratory infection usally happening before symptoms appear doesn't lead to any solid evidence, furthermore, you stated that the flu was a more common way to get GBS then vaccines like it was fact when the cause was largely inconclusive.  Especially when a common side effect of vaccines is upper respiratory like symptoms. 

Why don't you read my previous posts before jumping to conclusions.  Due to my reaction to a vaccine, I will never get one again, and pretty much every doctor that I met agreed. 

please read them again.  And my posts while your at it.

 

3 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I read the papers, most of the causes were non conclusive, an upper respiratory infection usally happening before symptoms appear doesn't lead to any solid evidence

 

You are doing exactly this:

 

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think the problem here is this insistence that everything must be evidenced beyond absoluteness or it is dismissed as easily refutable.  There will never be a level of absoluteness that satisfies the needs of some people for several reasons, the main one being people can dismiss anything they want if they don't understand it or are unwilling to accept what the outcome might be. 

 

I see this problem a lot on these forums, many times general one fit claims are used to dismiss everything out of hand and not consider the details, sometimes people require a 100,000 word thesis with citations and independent verification before they will even entertain the idea they might be wrong.

 

Having debated many times with many people who simply do snot understand how the peer review process works let alone the difference between a peer reviewed journal any other journal (hint, its the peer review process), I can attest to the frequency with which people demand more specifics and further evidence until they get to the point where non can be presented and immediately claim victory.  Even though the evidence points 100 miles in the other direction, but because we couldn't provide absolute proof covering every single living cell on the planet, they think it must be wrong.

 

There is substantial correlation pointing in one direction but you are adamant the cause lies in a different direction with much fewer cases and more anecdotal evidence.

[thinwalrus]

3 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I would still vaccinate my children though, at least from the major stuff, I also vaccinate my pets with pretty much everything available.  My only objection is with people like you that like to mock others for their choices on what they decide to put in their body, and perhaps to keep an open mind to others opinions.

But its not only your choice if you live in a populated area. Your choice affects other people too.

[Skanky Sylveon]

40 minutes ago, mr moose said:

There is substantial correlation pointing in one direction but you are adamant the cause lies in a different direction with much fewer cases and more anecdotal evidence.

At this point I feel the same way towards you, and I didn't state that GBS was largely caused by vaccines, I stated that's what the doctors who treated me have experienced, and I asked you to give solid proof about your statement about GBS being more common with getting the flu over a vaccine.  Instead I got anecdotal evidence, with the majority of causes being inconclusive.  Correlation doesn't equal causation, something that you were willing to point out when I had a reaction in the right timeframe for it to be flu shot related. 

29 minutes ago, thinwalrus said:

But its not only your choice if you live in a populated area. Your choice affects other people too.

Go fuck off with that logic.  Tell you what, you loose the ability to walk for 2 years and then go tell me that.

And even so, most people get their flu shot, so they should be protected, or are you saying that vaccines are ineffective at mitigating the flu?

 

How dare I put you at risk, aren't you so special?  Tell you what, why doesn't the entire American workforce allow people to rest and get better when sick?  It's quite a problem here you know.  Call me selfish, but I reserve the right to do what I want with my body, minimize the spread of infection by washing my hands and whatnot, and you can choose to vaccinate so you can protect yourself from people like me?

[Skanky Sylveon]

 

Oooo look at the big bad anti vaxxer having RABIES VACCINES IN HIS REFRIGERATOR so I can help contribute in preventing a serious infectious disease that's mostly eradicated in the United states.  Aren't I such a selfish person?

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

At this point I feel the same way towards you, and I didn't state that GBS was largely caused by vaccines, I stated that's what the doctors who treated me have experienced, and I asked you to give solid proof that your statement about GBS being more common with getting the flu was correct.  Instead I got anecdotal evidence, with the majority of causes being inconclusive.  Correlation doesn't equal causation, something that you were willing to point out when I had a reaction in the right timeframe for it to be flu shot related. 

Go fuck off with that logic.  Tell you what, you loose the ability to walk for 2 years and then go tell me that.

And even so, most people get their flu shot, so they should be protected, or are you saying that vaccines are ineffective at mitigating the flu?

It seems you don;t know what anecdotal evidence is,  you telling me you got it after having a vaccine is anecdotal evidence, the ninds and the 3 papers I linked are not.

 

[Volbet]

3 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

48 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

 Instead I got anecdotal evidence, with the majority of causes being inconclusive.

 

This is a completly unreasonable and hypocritical stance to take. You're basing your entire argument on anecdotal evidence, yet you expect other people to do more than that. 

 

What you're doing here is conducting scientific positivism, which is not a great way of getting to any kind of conclusive truth. This is why it's not been used to draw conclusions in any major capacity any any kind of natural science since the 50's. 

You don't know if the nameless doctors you cite has a bias (although, your fast to point a completely unfounded conspiracy theory), or have any other kind of error in their data gathering. 

Your own personal experience, however tragic and debilitating it has been, count for absolutly nothing, since the sample size and data is completely impossible to do anything with. 

 

Even if no one else in this thread have no conclusive evidence for the contrary to your point, then that doesn't mean your point is correct. It's not like your personal experince (and the alleged experience of unnamed doctors) is the default position on this topic.  

[Skanky Sylveon]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It seems you don;t know what anecdotal evidence is,  you telling me you got it after having a vaccine is anecdotal evidence, the ninds and the 3 papers I linked are not.

What's not anecdotal is the fact that 60% of sufferers get upper respiratory like symptoms.

 

What is anecdotal is stating that 60% of the causes of GBS is caused by the flu.

2 minutes ago, Volbet said:

This is a completly unreasonable and hypocritical stand to take. You're basing your entire argument on anecdotal evidence, yet you expect other people to do more than that

My argument being?  My stance was simply that vaccines can have potential side effects that should be disclosed, and that people should be free to make their own decisions. 

4 minutes ago, Volbet said:

 You don't know if the nameless doctors you cite has a bias

Which is why I didn't state it as fact, and just said that the doctors alleged experiences don't line up.

5 minutes ago, Volbet said:

(although, your fast to point a completely unfounded conspiracy theory), or have any other kind of error in their data gathering. 

Your own personal experience, however tragic and debilitating it has been, count for absolutly nothing, since the sample size and data is completely impossible to do anything with. 

The conspiracy theory is largely irrelevant, I mostly cited the reason the doctors gave me because good luck trying to get financial compensation for said injury. 

 

As far as my experience goes, I'm not using it as a sample size, I am not saying that vaccines are bad, all I'm saying is that people should stop blindly attacking anti vaxxers. 

8 minutes ago, Volbet said:

Even if no one else in this thread have no conclusive evidence for the contrary to your point, then that doesn't mean your point is correct. It's not like your personal experince (and the alleged experience of unnamed doctors) is the default position on this topic.  

It doesn't invalidate my stance either though.  And keep in mind that you are talking to someone that has rabies vaccines in his fridge, so clearly I'm not against vaccines. 

[Volbet]

13 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

My argument being?  My stance was simply that vaccines can have potential side effects that should be disclosed, and that people should be free to make their own decisions. 

You did pose it as an argument for your position on the risk of vaccines. 

You're basing you thesis on an anecdote, but you never really leave that position. You have written several times that you trust your doctors over other doctors, meaning you push their anecdotal experiences to the forefront of your argument for the risk of vaccines. 

 

Even if there's a risk by being vaccinated you're anecdote is not evidence of that risk. 

 

13 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Which is why I didn't state it as fact, and just said that the doctors alleged experiences don't line up.

When you bring up anecdotes as your only source, and you're basing your entire argument around them, then you're presenting them as evidence for your claim. 

Something you have no basis for. 

 

13 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

The conspiracy theory is largely irrelevant, I mostly cited the reason the doctors gave me because good luck trying to get financial compensation for said injury. . 

It's absolutly not irrelavent, since it shows that you're capable of critical thinking, but is either unwilling or incapable of extending that critical thinking to your own experience and the stories you've been told. 

 

13 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

It doesn't invalidate my stance either though. 

It does. Becuase it means your stance is unreasonable.

If you're ademant about 2+2=5, and I disprove that, then it's unreasonable to keep to that position eventhough I can't provide the correct answer. 

 

13 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

And keep in mind that you are talking to someone that has rabies vaccines in his fridge, so clearly I'm not against vaccines. 

That's completely irrelavent and borders on being an argument from authority.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

What's not anecdotal is the fact that 60% of sufferers get upper respiratory like symptoms.

 

What is anecdotal is stating that 60% of the causes of GBS is caused by the flu.

My argument being?  My stance was simply that vaccines can have potential side effects that should be disclosed, and that people should be free to

Your argument has changed as I have presented evidence, until you got to the point where the evidence suggested something you didn't like.

 

Remember these:

3 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

The doctors who treated me (and several others) have stated that the vast majority of patients who got GBS recently had a vaccine, so it's more then a "small number" of cases.

 

 

3 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

 

The incubation period for GBS is about 14 days, I got a vaccine and around 2 weeks later started showing signs of weakness, I got a spinal tap to confirm that I was indeed suffering from GBS, and I got an antibody blood test indicating that I recently received a vaccine.  So if all of that isn't sufficient evidence to back it up, what is?

you are directly making claims here that are wrong, you claim to have the evidence to support it (which is only anecdotal) while dismissing every peer reviewed study I linked and the official publication from the ninds.

 

you then went on to say:

3 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

 

Here you are literally dismissing all the major researchers and experts on the topic out of hand using the catchall "BIG PHARMA" cry.

[Skanky Sylveon]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Your argument has changed as I have presented evidence, until you got to the point where the evidence suggested something you didn't like.

 

Remember these:

How is my story now?  Said rehab hospital gets most of the GBS patients in the area, and that's what they said.  I don't see how I changed my story. 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

you are directly making claims here that are wrong, you claim to have the evidence to support it (which is only anecdotal) while dismissing every peer reviewed study I linked and the official publication from the ninds.

 

you then went on to say:

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Here you are literally dismissing all the major researchers and experts on the topic out of hand using the catchall "BIG PHARMA" cry.

What's your point?  I don't care whether you believe me or not, that's my stance on the pharmaceutical company.  Hence why I said stuff like.

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

That's my personal viewpoint on the matter.  You don't have to like it, and you certainly don't have to agree with it.

 

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to pull, perhaps since you didn't have concrete evidence you are now trying to make me look like a hypocrite. 

10 minutes ago, Volbet said:

You did pose it as an argument for your position on the risk of vaccines. 

You're basing you thesis on an anecdote, but you never really leave that position. You have written several times that you trust your doctors over other doctors, meaning you push their anecdotal experiences to the forefront of your argument for the risk of vaccines. 

 

Even if there's a risk by being vaccinated you're anecdote is not evidence of that risk. 

Even the research papers that I was presented confirmed that vaccination is a potential risk.

11 minutes ago, Volbet said:

When you bring up anecdotes as your only source, and you're basing your entire argument around them, then you're presenting them as evidence for your claim. 

Something you have no basis for. 

I asked for evidence for a counter claim.

12 minutes ago, Volbet said:

It's absolutly not irrelavent, since it shows that you're capable of critical thinking, but are either unwilling or incapable of extending that critical thinking to your own experience. 

So I repeat what a doctor said, and all of a sudden I'm a conspiracy theorist?

 

You can interpret my reasoning skills all you want, I don't care what a stranger on the internet thinks about me.

14 minutes ago, Volbet said:

It does. Becuase it means your stance is unreasonable.

If you're ademant about 2+2=5, and I disporve that, then it's unreasonable to keep to that position eventhough I can't provide the correct answer. 

My stance was that vaccines could cause complications, which nobody argued against, and that people should have the freedom to choose whether to be vaccinated or not, which people did argue with me against. 

 

Also just how large the risk of complications was, which wasn't really my stance to begin with. 

16 minutes ago, Volbet said:

That's completely irrelavent and borders on being an argument from authority.

When somebody calles me an anti vaxxer, it's very relevant. 

[mr moose]

Just now, Skanky Sylveon said:

How is my story now?  Said rehab hospital gets most of the GBS patients in the area, and that's what they said.  I don't see how I changed my story. 

 

What's your point?  I don't care whether you believe me or not, that's my stance on the pharmaceutical company.  Hence why I said stuff like.

That's my personal viewpoint on the matter.  You don't have to like it, and you certainly don't have to agree with it.

When you make a claim (especially absolute claims) you have to remember that you are only entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to the facts.

 

Just now, Skanky Sylveon said:

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to pull, perhaps since you didn't have concrete evidence you are now trying to make me look like a hypocrite. 

I'm not trying to make you look like a hypocrite, your are making you look like a hypocrite.  If I can show you several of your posts that contradict what you are trying to claim then they are your words coming back to bite you,  I did not force you to say anything nor did I engineer the conversation to make it look that way. 

 

It's a little sad that you are now trying to blame me for your failures in the discussion.  Is it really that hard to admit your opinion doesn't have much supporting it?

 

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

So I repeat what a doctor said, and all of a sudden I'm a conspiracy theorist?

 

No,  claiming an Entire field of doctors and researchers have been paid off by big pharma made you a conspiracy theorist.

[Skanky Sylveon]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When you make a claim (especially absolute claims) you have to remember that you are only entitled to your opinions, you are not entitled to the facts.

I didn't make absolute claims, the closest to absolute was when I stated that it was more than a "small number of cases".

32 minutes ago, mr moose said:

have stated that the vast majority of patients who got GBS recently had a vaccine

That is what you put in bold, and I bolded "have stated", and it was a fact that I was told that, so calling me a liar won't make you look any better. 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'm not trying to make you look like a hypocrite, your are making you look like a hypocrite.  If I can show you several of your posts that contradict what you are trying to claim then they are your words coming back to bite you,  I did not force you to say anything nor did I engineer the conversation to make it look that way. 

 

It's a little sad that you are now trying to blame me for your failures in the discussion.  Is it really that hard to admit your opinion doesn't have much supporting it?

The thing is, I didn't change my story, I didn't petal back on anything, and I certainly didn't lie.

 

I stated my injury, you said that GBS is more common with the flu then in vaccines, I asked you to state actual research papers, then i decided to disclose my (admittedly biased) opinions about the United states pharmaceutical company, as well as state the doctors experience.  You then showed me a few articles, all which were inconclusive, I stated that,  and for some reason that indicates that I backtracked on my previous statement for some reason.  Meanwhile, you are trying to prove that I'm either a conspiracy theorist or a hypocrite by showing previous statements which is quite amusing to be frank. 

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

No,  claiming an Entire field of doctors and researchers have been paid off by big pharma made you a conspiracy theorist.

Are you talking about this?

16 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I would trust someone with the actual experience of treating said disease over an entity that is probably in the pocket of big pharmaceutical companies, yes.

Or this?

Quote

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case honestly.  Call me a tin foil hatter, I really don't care what you think about me.

I suppose I did tell you to call me a tin foil hatter if you wished.

 

Anyway, everything that I said previously stands here as well. 

[Drak3]

Here we have a practical demonstration why some people don't listen to staunch pro vaxxers over anti vaxxers.

[Volbet]

5 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

So I repeat what a doctor said, and all of a sudden I'm a conspiracy theorist?

When you repeat it with no fact checking, yes. 

 

5 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

My stance was that vaccines could cause complications, which nobody argued against, and that people should have the freedom to choose whether to be vaccinated or not, which people did argue with me against. 

That is not a default stance and therefore it requires evidence. Just having some doctors tell you something is not evidence, 

 

5 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I asked for evidence for a counter claim.. 

And you haven't earned the right to any evidence for a counter claim, since you've yet to provide any evidence for your own claim. 

Just becuase you're opponent can't provide any evidence for their claim it doesn't translate into your position being correct. That's the fallacy of excluded middle. 

 

Quote

You can interpret my reasoning skills all you want, I don't care what a stranger on the internet thinks about me.

That's what we call intellectual dishonesty. you essentially don't care that your reasoning is extremely faulty. 

I'm pointing this our for your own benefit. 

 

5 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

When somebody calles me an anti vaxxer, it's very relevant. 

I didn't call you anything of the sort, and therefore it's completly irrelavant. 

It didn't serve any purpose and didn't strenghten your argument. 

 

What you seem to forget is that I'm not arguing for any position, nor do I care what other people have said. What I care about is your faulty reasoning, and the complete lack of a proper argument and evidence from your side. 

[NeuesTestament]

These are the arguments to come to my mind:

 

1. Vaccines are produced by the pharmaceutical industry therefore we have economic interest interfering 

2. Vaccines can have potentially deadly side effects 

3. Not every vaccination is necessary (though I guess this argument does not really apply here since those people are against vaccinations in general.) 

4. It’s their child and as a parent they have the authority to decide what kind of medical treatment it receives (although there are obviously limitations)

5. The state would extent its power over the way children should be treated and how they should grow up.

 

From a public health perspective it is impossible to justify anti vaccination. While vaccines can have tragic consequences in individual cases there is no denying that they make our lives a lot less dangerous over all. 

[dalekphalm]

6 hours ago, thinwalrus said:

But its not only your choice if you live in a populated area. Your choice affects other people too.

Let's be clear - whether @Skanky Sylveon was actually injured by the vaccine or not, for medical reasons, they cannot risk getting more vaccines. So, I would say that's a pretty good reason for they themselves to be medically exempt.

 

With that in mind, I'd advise anyone who has no abnormal risk to GBS to seriously consider vaccinating. The risk of getting GBS at all is incredibly small, let alone getting it from a vaccine.

 

@Skanky Sylveon I have no issues with you personally deciding to not vaccinate yourself anymore, due to your injury. I would classify that the same way I would a little girl with leukemia.

 

As long as people are making an informed decision, and not frightened into not vaccinating (incorrectly thinking that the chances of getting GBS from a vaccine is very high, for example), then that's all I can hope for. I hope that any rational person would decide to vaccinate, assuming no abnormally large risk to any of the side effects (such as GBS).

 

And I whole heartedly 100% support mandatory vaccines for children to attend public schools (unless a valid medical exemption). I do not support vaccine exemption based on non-medical grounds. If someone doesn't want to vaccinate their kids (@Skanky Sylveon don't worry, not talking about you here), that's fine, but they can home school their kids, or pay for a private school.