Poll of the Day > Pros and cons of getting a flu shot?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Revelation34 posted...

You think vaccines cause autism which is ridiculous on its own but literally only one person made that claim. A FORMER doctor. Yet you think somebody who lost his medical license is valid.

Ive never once mentioned his name.

---

zebatov posted...

Ive never once mentioned his name.

You don't have to since it all originated with him.
---

zebatov posted...

How many of those lives have been super important outside of surviving and paying taxes? How many of the would-be deaths turned into criminals? Carbon footprint?

You're really so bent on sticking to "vaccines are bad" that you're going to try "all those people they've saved probably should have died" as an argument? For real?

zebatov posted...

Again, I need food to survive. I dont need vaccines.

Fortunately, I listed a bunch of other things there that also aren't necessary for survival, as well as explaining the broader reasoning in a manner that clearly outlines how it can apply to everything you do, regardless of how necessary it is. If you need it spelled out for you: You trust countless things every day that you do not and cannot have a comprehensive understanding of, even when that's not a risk you have to take in order to survive.

Further examples? You did not build the device you are currently using to browse and post here (and when I say "build," I mean from scratch, personally mining and processing all of the materials and creating the components yourself, not just slapping parts into a box), yet you still use it despite being able to survive without it. You did not personally direct, film, and edit every TV show, movie, or youtube video you watch to ensure there are no harmful subliminal messages in them, yet you continue to watch video content despite being able to survive without it. And I'm sure you could find plenty more if you take a closer look at your life than I'm able to.

Quite simply, you can't live your life being that paranoid. It's simply not possible to hold everything you experience to that kind of scrutiny. Instead, you use available evidence to make reasonable risk assessments and act accordingly as you go on with your life. The vast majority of sound-looking buildings don't spontaneously collapse, so you trust that any sound-looking building you walk into probably won't kill you. The vast majority of gardening and kitchen tools do not contain toxic metals that will leech into your food (... anymore >.>), so you trust that you can buy a knife off the shelf instead of forging your own from scratch. And the vast majority of vaccines do not harm the people receiving them, so you can trust that you'll be safer for having been vaccinated than you would otherwise.

zebatov posted...

What you just said is the exact argument Id use for pro-vaxxers.

Yes. That is the point. If you use exactly the same argument for literally anything else (necessary to life or not), it very obviously sounds ridiculous. The reasonable conclusion to draw from that is that it's also ridiculous to use for vaccines. You can make reasonable risk assessments by looking at statistical evidence. You don't need to invoke this "unless you personally run a comprehensive battery of spectroscopic tests to know exactly what's in it, you can't trust it" nonsense. That's ridiculous and paranoid, and at that point you're just desperate to validate your preexisting position because somehow that's preferable to letting reasonable data tell you your position is wrong.

zebatov posted...

The presumably part is where youre wrong, obviously, because youre presuming, and youre wrong.

I'm presuming for the sake of giving your doctor the benefit of the doubt. There are exactly two explanations for a doctor telling his patient that their ASD might have been caused by the vaccines they received:

• It's 1998/early 1999 and the doctor in question works hard to keep abreast of current medical research. Wakefield's study has recently been published and received enough attention for the doctor to be aware of it, but the study has not yet been refuted, so the doctor considers it a plausible explanation for the diagnosis
• It's any other time and the doctor in question ignores current medical research and gets most of their understanding of medicine from blogs and online videos that conform to their preexisting biases

If you were not diagnosed in 98/99 (heck, we'll lump 2000 in there to give a bit more breathing room), then your doctor suggesting that your vaccine may have caused you to develop Asperger's means your doctor is not a competent doctor. Those are the only two possibilities, aside from the third possibility that your doctor didn't actually say that and your parents just told you that lie because it was easier to accept than being told that there was no explanation (which is also plausible, and indicates nothing about your doctor's competence).

I presumed competence because it seemed like the polite thing to do. If you're telling me that my presumption is incorrect, then you're telling me that your doctor is incompetent (or that your parents lied). There are no other possibilities.

zebatov posted...

Reasoning is I got the shot and then I got this.

That's a correlation. If I take a drink of water and then need to poop five minutes later, that does not mean that drinking water causes me to poop. A correlation can be the basis for suspecting a causal link, but it does not in any way indicate one, and inferring causality involves far more rigorous study and reasoning than merely noticing a sequence of events like that. That's not reasoning, that's mindlessly jumping to conclusions.

---

Revelation34 posted...

You think vaccines cause autism which is ridiculous on its own

Eh, I'll happily concede that there was reason to entertain the possibility and study a potential link. Diagnosis of autism tends to happen within a year or two of the MMR vaccine, diagnosis rates have been increasing in loose correlation with vaccination rates... It was a question worth asking. It's only considered ridiculous now because only one study has been able to find such a link in over 20 years of trying to replicate its results, and that study was fraudulently published for financial gain.

---

Pro - Significantly reduced chance of catching the strain of Flu most likely to be endemic that year
Pro - Not dying if you may be vulnerable to potential flu symptons

Con - Feeling like crap for a day or 2 after it

---

Revelation34 posted...

You don't have to since it all originated with him.

the fact he needed this explained, speaks a lot about him, ok?
---