Why does the left feel the need to attack others all the tim

Post Reply New Topic

AspieUtah,

Also another thing that you should keep in mind is that a study with a relatively small number of people can have contradictory results, due to the randomness being increased. This is why it is so important that, if you are only going to look at a few studies, you focus on the meta-analyses and systematic reviews, because they aggregate the results from numerous studies, helping to remove that randomness.

me??

I object to mandating them. shouldn't force things like this on people. what goes in someones body is their choice. its their choice what goes in the kid too. they borned them , raised them, paid for them, etc they are expected to do this, if the government wants all the decision making then they should also be the ones to pay for everything(food, school, college, clothes, toys, everything) they should have to come and give pep talks, punish the kids, do all the raising. kids aren't property of the gov. they are children to the parents and thats who they belong to until they turn 18. we don't live in nanny state and I don't want to. if this continues those movies where children are raised in government factories taken away when the are 1 year old will come to be. heck the nazies acuatlly did this a bit. they deemed people weren't good enough to raise german babies so they took them and put then in a government facility where they were going be raised to be good little nazis. so future generations would be so loyal to the 3 thousand year reich.

children belong to the parents that birthed them. only time the gov should do anything is if they children are being abused(sexualy, pyshcially or mentally) a healthy kid whose parents disagree with a medical treatment is not abuse.

In US. democrat = left. Republican = right. so here when someone says left it means mostly democrats. left = anti gun, anti free choice, pro government control over everything.

this whole the democrats are not left is crazy, know what most right leaning people complain about the republicans say "they're too left leaning" this is why theres the tea party now cause for many the republicans are too left leaning.

as more and more atheist babies are born than religious babies I fail to see how that would happen. though if muslim population continues to grow as it is while other nationals decline, and if they don't believe in vaccines then that is a problem. but the left tends to support muslims should be able to do as they please so meh.

the christian 1/10 families that don't do vaccines isn't really a big national emergency that some make it out to be.

my problem is that the left never is for doing what they want and leaving others alone.
"i think kids should be vaccinated, so you have to too"
"I think guns are bad and don't want one, so you should be banned from having them too"
"I don't like eating fast food, so you should be banned from eating it to"
"I think soda is bad, so you shouldn't have it too"

I don't like weed, but think others who do should have it.
I don't drink but think those who do should have it.
I don't like speeding but I think those who want to own fast cars should be able to.
I don't like spaghetti, but I don't move to ban it.

now does the right do it too, yeah they tend to be against weed, and welfare and public education. many o them have rich mentality , but oh boy I've meed well off democrats and they fell the same about welfare. anti welfare isn't a right thing its a well off rich thing. of course its funnier with democrats, they vote for people are are pro welfare but then say the same complaint lines republicans do. makes me so confused. so they must vote democrat cause the guys a democrat, cause clearly the guy don't represent them and their anti welfare desires.

beneficii

humans are not perfect, things we make will never be perfect. how can you say vaccines are perfect. mistakes are made all the time and hushed by big company money.

i could see one day a vaccine causing a deadly virus and oh knows almost everyone took it. wups. might it happen yep, might it not yep. point is it could cause we aren't perfect. we make mistakes. we've made some pretty terrible things on accident. to say that the vaccine companies are perfect and should be trusted fully is crazy they only care about money if they could get away with infecting everyone with something that would then need daily doses made by their company they would. they're greedy corporations.

I choose to decide for myself you can too. dont' force others to think and do as you do. thats just wrong.

you hate the right for doing so with gays, cross genders people, etch but then you go and want to do the same with other issues. o.O freedom for some but not for all???

like our whole idea that we have to bring freedom to other nations at the end of a barrel. if freedom that we love is so great, then why would we have to kill them to get them to embrace it. if something is soo great people will do it willingly.

no one was forced to use the internet. it was just an amazing thing that everyone started doing it. the best products often only rely on word of mouth cause their product speaks for itself. if you have to make people do something then you're wrong. doing bad things for good reasons doesn't make it right.

sly,

Where did I say that vaccines are perfect.

you act like they are in how much you push and praise them.

But, my statement suggested that thiomersal remains in non-live-virus vaccines, and are administered to children at ages 7 years and older. You mightn't have implied this in your statement, but I did, and I disagree with the inclusion of thiomersal with other vaccines which are routinely administered to individuals older than age 6 years.


It might, but my opinion in this matter is informed by other research and opinions. I consider much of the research that appears to reject the vaccine-injuries theory dubious.


Of course, not. And … what? Sorry, but I don’t know what point you were making with that statement.


Just that a court of law found that the punitive actions of the U.K. General Medical Council “fitness to practise” panel finding of professional misconduct was astoundingly illegal. Where you have this level of ineptitude in professional review boards, is it too unlikely to wonder if Wakefield and Walker-Smith were targeted unfairly by those who stood to lose by such research?


Your statement seems to suggest, therefore, that the systemic problems of the vaccine court are acceptable and those who are forced to use it as the only avenue of redress made available to them are just expecting too much from the court. Furthermore, do you see any correlation between the staggering amount of money that has been paid out for settlements and the culpability of the vaccine manufacturers? Any at all?

sly,

What I'm asking is, Where did I say they were perfect?

I say they're good enough, but not perfect. I don't believe in making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Very little to no research shows that problem.



What research denies that injuries can arise from vaccines?



One thing laypeople have a problem with is in understanding science. They tend to have little appreciation for rigorous research. It's like they think a few anecdotes, which are generally unreliable, would beat out a double-blind study or even a review. Just thinking like that shows incredible ignorance. They should not decide scientific matters.



Oh, then why did Wakefield not take advantage of that?



I don't think it's problematic. They do have a list of things that can be caused by vaccinations and would assume it's because of vaccines if it's one of the "on-table" causation. You do, however, have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence in order to demonstration causation for "off-table" causation.

Nevertheless, even if you do lose, you can still get attorney's fees paid. You can also go to state court if you don't like the result.

AspieUtah,

Also, what you mentioned about the Italian case. I think I've read up on it, the one where the court ruled that autism was caused by vaccines back in 2012. That ruling was overturned in February of this year by a Court of Appeals in Bologna.

Here is an article from The Telegraph ruling on the overturning of Walker-Smith's stripping of his license:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... k-off.html

OK, looking in more detail at the problems with the Wakefield study, which was released in 1998. One, the Wakefield study's results were not repeated, even with broadly similar study designs. That suggests right there, because repetition, other researchers getting the same results as you, is very important to demonstrating a claim.

Two, there were undisclosed financial conflicts of interest. Researchers are expected to reveal potential conflicts of interest, or they are being unethical.

Three, Wakefield engaged in actual abuse of developmentally challenged children. The GMC said he showed callous disregard for the children in his study. He also conducted the study without regard to the ethics committee of the hospital he was working at.

Four, he failed to disclose how his patients were selected. In clinical studies, you must mention how your patients were selected. In meta-analyses and systematic reviews as well, you must mention the criteria you used to include and exclude the studies in your meta-analysis or systematic review.

Five, his fraudulent research led to lowering immunization rates that allowed for the comeback of measles in the USA.

Also, this Forbes article discusses how unreliable Italian courts are when it comes to science, mentioning for example that the courts convicted scientists back in 2009 for failing to predict an earthquake:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillin ... cine-link/

Indeed, it was overturned by a Court of Appeals in Bolognia, which said that relying entirely on Wakefield's study, which has been found fraudulent but which was not replicated regardless, and ignoring the other studies was not a valid way of looking at the science, and here an Italian court is actually correct:

http://sites.uchastings.edu/lawandvacci ... or-autism/

Governments and courts have terrible records on science. The current position of the government of the United Kingdom is that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin.

It is not sensible to look at the actions of governments and/or government officials and/or rich people generally when deciding good policy. Celebrities and government officials follow all kinds of crazy diets for no good reason.

No, look at the science. That's unambiguous - vaccines are safe, mostly effective (the big exception being the flu vaccines, which due to the nature of the virus will always be hit and miss), and save lives. Thiomersal is safe, and regardless, mercury poisoning doesn't cause autism.

Hi Walrus...haven't seen you in about three weeks.

One thing to keep in mind: autism existed before most of the vaccines were developed.