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

[Skanky Sylveon]

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

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

So because my stance isn't the norm I need to "prove myself"?  Fuck off, I'll have whatever stance and viewpoints that I want.

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

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. 

And just because you don't agree with my stance doesn't make it false either. 

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

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. 

I wasn't reffing to you, why don't you read the rest of the thread?

5 hours ago, Volbet said:

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. 

And I have not seen evidence from the other side as well.  The only way that I can give conclusive evidence about myself is if I release personal medical history, which I'm not about to do.

3 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

If someone doesn't want to vaccinate their kids (@Skanky Sylveon don't worry, not talking about you here),

Well, I didn't think that you were talking about me since I stated that I would vaccinate my kids.

 

Anyway, I understand your viewpoint and reasoning, I don't fully agree with it, but you at least seem to understand where I'm coming from. 

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

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

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. 

It does not matter that you are trying to claim doctors said it, you are repeating it and promoting it like it is a cold hard fact,  you are arguing from authority. That is you are endorsing those claims as if they have more merit than the 3 articles and ninds link I provided.  This makes it your claim and your making them in an absolute manner.

 

11 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

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

Keep telling yourself that, you said absolutely that you would trust the treating doctors over the ninds insinuating the ninds was funded by pharma, I pointed out that treating doctors get all their information on such conditions from ninds and their research.  You have yet to explain or address that.

 

11 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

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,

 

 

I did, you cherry picked some quotes and failed to understand the core conclusions.  Now you are ignoring the rest. 

 

You have made claims as I have already pointed out that many people (mostly rational people) will not accept,  you can argue as much as you want  but just saying "because my doctor said" does not make your claims valid.

[Skanky Sylveon]

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It does not matter that you are trying to claim doctors said it, you are repeating it and promoting it like it is a cold hard fact,  you are arguing from authority. That is you are endorsing those claims as if they have more merit than the 3 articles and ninds link I provided.  This makes it your claim and your making them in an absolute manner.

Your article didn't have definitive cause for the majority of cases, and there's a reason why I stated that's what I was told by doctors.  You interpreted my words in the worst possible way when I was fully disclosing where I was getting my information from.

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Keep telling yourself that, you said absolutely that you would trust the treating doctors over the ninds insinuating the ninds was funded by pharma, I pointed out that treating doctors get all their information on such conditions from ninds and their research.  You have yet to explain or address that.

And I would trust them over most research papers, I explained that personal experience can give valuable insight in something like this, you're just not satisfied with that statement. 

19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I did, you cherry picked some quotes and failed to understand the core conclusions.  Now you are ignoring the rest. 

 

You have made claims as I have already pointed out that many people (mostly rational people) will not accept,  you can argue as much as you want  but just saying "because my doctor said" does not make your claims valid.

People are allowed to make their own conclusions from the article that you linked me, I disclosed where I got all of my information from,  and no one needs (nor do I really care) to accept said claims. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

Your article didn't have definitive cause for the majority of cases,

you are just going around in circles, I have already addressed that argument:

 

14 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.

 

2 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

 

and there's a reason why I stated that's what I was told by doctors.

And I have already addressed that, that's an argument from authority. 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

  You interpreted my words in the worst possible way when I was fully disclosing where I was getting my information from.

I really think you are having trouble understanding what anecdotal evidence is and what an argument from authority is.

What you are claiming is no more silly than if I said my doctor told me the vast majority of people who get the common cold were cold just before it" then trying to claim that is some how true and relevant argument for causality.   It's not and it means nothing. just like your claims.

2 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

And I would trust them over most research papers, I explained that personal experience can give valuable insight in something like this, you're just not satisfied with that statement. 

People are allowed to make their own conclusions from the article that you linked me, I disclosed where I got all of my information from,  and no one needs (nor do I really care) to accept said claims. 

 

You really are just repeating your self, I have already addressed that and explained that those doctors you trust get their information from that research.  Stop ignoring that.

[Skanky Sylveon]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You really are just repeating your self, I have already addressed that and explained that those doctors you trust get their information from that research.  Stop ignoring that.

I am repeating myself because you are doing the same.

 

Everything that I have stated you have either dismissed, claimed that it's not enough proof, or are simply ignoring. 

[mr moose]

32 minutes ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

I am repeating myself because you are doing the same.

 

Everything that I have stated you have either dismissed, claimed that it's not enough proof, or are simply ignoring. 

 

You are using irrational arguments. You are dismissing the research in favor of an anecdotal claim. let alone addressing the conspiracies you promote, so of course I am dismissing that is not enough proof.  It isn't enough proof.  When you  have much more evidence pointing to some other cause it is illogical to be blinkered into thinking it is the one small thing that only carries plausible linkage and not a statistically significant correlation.

 

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You are using irrational arguments. You are dismissing the research in favor of an anecdotal claim. let alone addressing the conspiracies you promote, so of course I am dismissing that is not enough proof.  It isn't enough proof.  When you  have much more evidence pointing to some other cause it is illogical to be blinkered into thinking it is the one small thing that only carries plausible linkage and not a statistically significant correlation.

You're repeating yourself again, I'm done wasting my time with you.  At this point the debate isn't going anywhere. 

 

Have a nice day.

[Dash Lambda]

16 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

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?

Vaccines are only as effective as your immune system, which is definitely not perfect. A population of people resisting a disease's propagation is just as important, if not more important, a part of protecting people from that disease than those people's individual resistance after being exposed.

 

Personally, that fact makes this debate a bit of a dilemma for me, since I am very much in favor of people having authority over themselves in most cases, but if enough people refuse to vaccinate it can cause serious harm in public health. Thus the strongest claim I'll make is that people should be able to make an informed decision, and in most cases I hope that decision is to vaccinate.

(Of course, I am far less conflicted about childhood vaccinations against the more severe diseases.)

 

But I am curious about something: As you refuse to vaccinate for legitimate medical reasons, herd immunity is even more important for you. So shouldn't it irritate you when people refuse to vaccinate without legitimate medical reasons?

 

6 hours ago, Skanky Sylveon said:

So because my stance isn't the norm I need to "prove myself"? Fuck off, I'll have whatever stance and viewpoints that I want.

The default stance is not the normal or most accepted stance, it is the stance you take when no evidence either way is presented and you thus have nothing to reason on. The default stance on a claim that some entity, behavior, or connection exists is that it doesn't exist, which is why you must provide evidence for its existence. If the default stance were that it does exist, then the only way to refute it would be to prove a negative.

 

Of course, the default stance is not inherently strong, as there is not necessarily evidence supporting it. Thus, when caution is necessary (like in medicine), you must find evidence to support any stance before applying it.

[TopHatProductions115]

I won't take either side in this discussion, due to the politicised nature of the subject at hand (similar to the state of this thread). I even replied to that thread - and will be using a similar approach here. The topic of vaccination falls under the umbrella(s) of Medical Science, Disease Prevention (measures), and Biologics. First and foremost, vaccines are not drugs, and are not regulated in the same fashion as other pharmaceutical substances. As such, discussing them as such is futile from a regulatory stance, seeing that vaccines require the use of a biological component, while not all pharmaceuticals do. Here are a few off-hand sources:

• https://vaxopedia.org/2018/12/23/why-arent-vaccines-regulated-like-drugs/
• https://immunizebc.ca/what-are-vaccines

The second article is especially important due to how people use immunisation and vaccination interchangeably now. Stop it. It's wrong. Here's more clarification:

• https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-difference-between-immunization-and-vaccination-4140251

With that out of the way, the science of vaccines is just like any other medical science, and is therefore open to criticisms both internal (from industry proponents) and external (from end users and patients). Evidence from both parties, when documented properly, should be taken into consideration when making said decision. I personally have chosen to receive vaccines. But, the person next to me does not have to do so if they do not want to - especially for medical/safety reasons (immune system compromised, immune system over-reaction, etc.). I will be granted immunity to the diseases I was given vaccines for, assuming that the vaccine does not cause me harm, and that my immune system does not go into overdrive and attempt to kill me (or even some other medical complication - such is the risk I take when I make the choice, no matter how small the chances are). As long as the doctor actually says that there are risks, and lists out said risks, I have no issue. They should also check your medical records/history to see if said vaccine is right for you before injection. It's as simple as that - because nothing is 100 percent. This is science, not gospel.

[Skanky Sylveon]

8 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

But I am curious about something: As you refuse to vaccinate for legitimate medical reasons, herd immunity is even more important for you. So shouldn't it irritate you when people refuse to vaccinate without legitimate medical reasons?

I shouldn't and can't control other people's decisions, and vaccination isn't the only method of preventing illness, maintaining good health and hygiene goes a long way, washing hands when potentially being exposed and whatnot.  Those are measures that I can take to mitigate the chances of getting ill.

 

So instead of complaining about what others do, something that I cannot control, I focus on what I can control.

13 minutes ago, Dash Lambda said:

If the default stance were that it does exist, then the only way to refute it would be to prove a negative.

The default stance is that GBS can be caused by vaccines, I questioned the claim that the flu is more likely to cause GBS rather then a vaccine. 

 

So my stance on not to vaccinate is against the norm, but I have sufficient evidence to back up my decision. 

8 minutes ago, TopHatProductions115 said:

I personally have chosen to receive vaccines. But, the person next to me does not have to do so if they do not want to.

And that was what I was trying to say all along.  You can do whatever you want, and I can do whatever I want.

 

[Skanky Sylveon]

33 minutes ago, TopHatProductions115 said:

The second article is especially important due to how people use immunisation and vaccination interchangeably now. Stop it. It's wrong. Here's more clarification:

The purpose of vaccination is to help give someone immunity to a specific illness, usually by introducing a weakened (or more commonly) a deactivated form of the virus in question. 

 

So yeah, immunity with minimal risk is the vaccine's ultimate goal, it's not always successful and people can a lot of times still get sick so they are usally unsuccessful at giving full immunity (this is also dependent on the type of vaccine), but they more often then not give some form of resistance so said illness doesn't affect the host as badly. 

 

The question is how important said resistance is, those of poor health and/or on immuno compromised would in general benefit more then a healthy adult. 

This is also not talking about the potential side effects said vaccine can cause.

 

TLDR, vaccines do have their place, I do question the necessity of vaccinating healthy adults against influenza, but I have no problems with someone deciding to be vaccinated.  What I do have a problem with is people who demonize those who decide not to get vaccinated. 

[JiggyMcPeebles]

IDK, vaccines are just too mainstream.