Jump to content
The Corroboree
ace1928

Wish people would stop spouting pseudo bullshit

Recommended Posts

Vaccines don't cause autism.

1) That article you pulled up was written by Gayle DeLong (Thank you for pulling this one up, I love it when anti-vaxers do), this article hardly comes under peer reviewed science, let me tell you why. This paper appeared in Age of Autism, a US brand of Antivaxers, where the author of the paper herself, Gayle, promotoes her paper. How credible can it be if she has to promote her own work, not only that, but imagine the bias. You can also tell the paper is full of misinformation just from the abstract. She highlights how the rise in Autism has not been explained, but fails to highlight the change in reporting criteria and development of ASD diagnoses in the last few decades. She goes on to explain the dangers of Mercury and Aluminum in the introduction. The Mercury/Aluminum argument was disproven a very long time ago, and if people actually understood the basics of chemistry this argument wouldn't even exist. Lastly, Gayle quotes people who believe HIV/AIDS does not exist.

2) I am not a parent, I just believe in genuine, recent, unbiased, peer reviewed science.

3) Google Scholar pulls up results that are quite dated. I have access to journal databases, and trust me, all the recent journals relating to proving ASD and Vaccines is very unscientific and/or heavily biased.

People only tend to stick to what proves their opinion. Deniers readily pull up information that is very wrong, while ignoring 99% of genuine scientific work that proves otherwise. There is no genuine, recent, unbiased peer reviewed paper that proves a link between ASD and vaccines.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I say "I don't really hold a view either way, & make no recommendations, as I wrote its a tough call"

You are on the other hand apparently well informed

....at the risk of being pulled into a discussion, (chomped up & spat out) of which I know very little.....

there does seem to be an association between inflammation & autism, & other perceived neuropsychiatric diseases,,,,seemingly from conception (mothers environment) to death.

So do you consider that there has been no historical increase in the rate of perceived neuropsychiatric diseases, such as autism?

What I find of concern is an increasing trend towards the idea & implementation of compulsory vaccination. At a glance it seems like a great idea ...remove pathogenic virus's bacterium etc from the population.

But that seems to me to be a Pandora's box, due to the sheer complexity of body & cellular function. Many of these factors drive evolution.....It feels like comparing permacultural with monoculture.

How vaccines change the way we think about disease

Anti-vaccine mothers discuss their thinking amid backlash Edited by Dreamwalker.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like how do we really know anything is true? Just because a bunch of us say its so it must be so... sure there is evidence but what makes that a thing? Just a bunch of people saying its a thing... every thing is all just made up by us... its like the argument of good v bad I mean some cultures say something is good others say its bad... whos to say who is right?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still not moving this to bitches and gripes? Surprised it's still going lol

Because this thread obviously doesn't have enough opinions in it yet (:lol:), here's mine: it's all well and good to bash 'the majority' and feel superior, but I think it's just a very common hallmark of young/immature intellectuals. Often people who are more intelligent than the average are often treated less than kindly for being different in their formative years (just like anybody else who's a bit different), and arrogance is often a substitute for confidence or respect.

As one such individual, after a few years of experiencing the world and growing up a bit, not only did I start to find real self-respect, but I also found a sense of humility to keep that arrogance in check within myself - I realized that being smarter than average is kinda just like being taller than average. It doesn't make you better than anyone else, and it doesn't mean others don't have their own unique gifts to contribute to the world. And the arrogant kind of smart people (of which I was one for a long time, and some might argue I still am) tend to have a lot riding on their own intelligence in terms of self-concept and so it can be difficult to step back from, or to acknowledge that there are actually lots of other smart people out there. I've met a bunch through SAB.

But in the end we all (hopefully) learn to be humble and to stay grounded, to appreciate your gifts but also to recognize that you have lots of shortcomings as well - and that even your good points aren't perfect, but that's okay because nobody else is either. Not to mention that I can be properly dumb as much as anyone sometimes.

And a lot of what's being spoken about in this thread (around science and pseudo-science and conspiracy theories) actually has very little to do with intelligence. If you can read some books like The Righteous Mind or some of Chris Mooney's books it'll probably become much clearer that intelligence has little to do with this sort of thinking.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Werd ^^^

(can relate to the arrogance bit, too...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never intend to be arrogant, I am far from it, and I apologise for how it seems that way.

However, like the OP, I just have certain topics I am passionate about (and I also get involved in these topics when I am intoxicated most of the time).

I have nothing but respect for people on this forum, my intention was to try to have a debate about yhe issue.

All in all, if I seem arrogant or disrespectful I am sorry, it is far from my intention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we still not moving this to bitches and gripes? Surprised it's still going lol

It's not far away ! :) I don't like trashing threads into the bitches forum - people think its censorship. It's not, most of the time it just puts an end to an argument where people just can't let the other person have the last word!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccines don't cause autism.

1) That article you pulled up was written by Gayle DeLong (Thank you for pulling this one up, I love it when anti-vaxers do), this article hardly comes under peer reviewed science, let me tell you why. This paper appeared in Age of Autism, a US brand of Antivaxers, where the author of the paper herself, Gayle, promotoes her paper. How credible can it be if she has to promote her own work, not only that, but imagine the bias. You can also tell the paper is full of misinformation just from the abstract. She highlights how the rise in Autism has not been explained, but fails to highlight the change in reporting criteria and development of ASD diagnoses in the last few decades. She goes on to explain the dangers of Mercury and Aluminum in the introduction. The Mercury/Aluminum argument was disproven a very long time ago, and if people actually understood the basics of chemistry this argument wouldn't even exist. Lastly, Gayle quotes people who believe HIV/AIDS does not exist.

2) I am not a parent, I just believe in genuine, recent, unbiased, peer reviewed science.

3) Google Scholar pulls up results that are quite dated. I have access to journal databases, and trust me, all the recent journals relating to proving ASD and Vaccines is very unscientific and/or heavily biased.

People only tend to stick to what proves their opinion. Deniers readily pull up information that is very wrong, while ignoring 99% of genuine scientific work that proves otherwise. There is no genuine, recent, unbiased peer reviewed paper that proves a link between ASD and vaccines.

So how do you explain what is written in this Flu Vaccine package insert?

http://www.naturalnews.com/048422_flu_shot_scientific_fraud_controlled_trials.html

-It openly admits to having Mercury in the shot.

-It openly admits that there have been no scientific trials done.

-It openly admits to a variety of negative side effects.

-It openly admits that it doesn't even prevent the flu.

I can't fathom that just because you saw on television that the vaccines are effective that it must be true!

Here is a story of a CDC whistleblower exposing the cover up of the link between vaccines and autism:

http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistleblower_public_confession_Dr_William_Thompson.html

Do I take all this info with a grain of salt? Of course. Just like I take all the info that anyone presents me with a grain of salt. Do I know? No, I don't know, and neither do you, so stop pretending like you do.

Absolutely get where your coming from ace, the only difficulty is that if there was no superficial chit chat relaying wonky belief systems then there would be very little being spoken at all. Not that I'd mind.

I find if I'm not 'talking shit' or in a state of being, I'm left complaining about how we, the masses, get fucked over everyday. People would rather talk about football, or worse still their faith.

Being over anilitical certainly can seem a gift at times, being able to keep your head above the surface, but sometimes I do wish I could switch it off and listen to ke$ha.

I think this is funny coming from a guy who didn't check his own post before posting and misspelled analytical.

IMO, this forum is a fantastic place where people can come and bounce ideas off of each other and share experiences with one another. Is everything in here "fact?" No. I'm glad it's not. The more interesting threads aren't based on facts, they are based on people trying to move forward and make sense of an inherently contradictory universe.

I hope that one day, the people that have become frustrated with their own lack of understanding of themselves, as well as others, and have decided to take that frustration out on others by insulting them, will eventually find some sort of closure, like you know, putting a shotgun in their mouths, and leaving the rest of us alone to enjoy and contemplate our measly existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thug Life.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, i know with high accuracy and certainty that my missus cat needs a top up of anti flea vaccine.

How? Cos i seem to get the fleas just as bad, no shit.

Iv come to the conclusion that if enough people get vaxed for something that there is a point where i will not need the injection myself, no shit, think about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of fleas i used to live in a derro flat that was infested with them, they'd jump all the way into my beer sitting 1.5m off the ground

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do you explain what is written in this Flu Vaccine package insert?

http://www.naturalnews.com/048422_flu_shot_scientific_fraud_controlled_trials.html

-It openly admits to having Mercury in the shot.

-It openly admits that there have been no scientific trials done.

-It openly admits to a variety of negative side effects.

-It openly admits that it doesn't even prevent the flu.

I can't fathom that just because you saw on television that the vaccines are effective that it must be true!

Hi Roops, can I give you my interpretation of this?

1. -It openly admits to having Mercury in the shot.

Well, it's admitting it. You can look up the effects of the tiny amount this is and see if it will kill you or give you autism if you like. Honesty in pharmacology is good. I don't exactly know the science here but I'm going to assume that the amount is so small you probably already have that kind of amount floating around in the general environment or in food or already in your blood and that nothing untoward can or will happen. I'm all ears to hear if that's wrong, or whether to worry about if the mercury level might vary or something.

2. -It openly admits that there have been no scientific trials done.

The vaccines that have been accused of creating autism have usually been around for some time and there have been trials done. Each vaccine is different and should be treated as such. Flu vaccines are created quickly as the virus mutates quickly and no trials are possible between creation and delivery. I mean, that's not ideal but there's a difference between vaccines like this and those that target really nasty diseases like measles and polio, that have been around for a long time and have been proven to be effective.

3. -It openly admits to a variety of negative side effects.

So do most medicines. Herbal ones too. Occasionally even food. It's nice when you are informed so that you can make a choice to see if the side effects outweigh the advantages. If you've ever opened a packet of prescription medicines the list of potential side effects can be terrifying. It's figuring out whether you actually get these or not, blood tests (with the help of your doctor) and monitoring yourself can help. Most of the time, the possibilities are small yet the main effect of the drug is very beneficial.

4. -It openly admits that it doesn't even prevent the flu.

Some anti-depressants don't always prevent depression. I think it's a case of figuring out if the small amount of side effects outweigh the disadvantages of getting the flu. That might vary depending on your age, health, and potential exposure to the flu. With many vaccines, it's a case of deciding whether you want to risk the tiny amounts of possible side effects versus eradicating a disease from the population permanently. With flu, that isn't going to be possible yet so your decision to or not to effects no-one.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a shame to loose Archaeologistintraining from the thread

copy paste from wiki -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaturalNews#cite_note-35

According to John Banks, Adams is "seen as generally a quack and a shill by science bloggers".[32] One such blogger, David Gorski of ScienceBlogs, called NaturalNews "one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet," and the most "blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet",[33] and a one-stop-shop for "virtually every quackery known to humankind, all slathered with a heaping, helping of unrelenting hostility to science-based medicine and science in general."[10] Peter Bowditch of the website Ratbags,[34] and Jeff McMahon writing for Forbes commented about the site.[35] Steven Novella of NeuroLogica Blog called NaturalNews "a crank alt med site that promotes every sort of medical nonsense imaginable." Novella continued: "If it is unscientific, antiscientific, conspiracy-mongering, or downright silly, Mike Adams appears to be all for it – whatever sells the "natural" products he hawks on his site."[4]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh c'mon, quoting from wikipedia has about as much cred as quoting from the Daily mail!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i've come to recognise that science isn't impartial! it should be of course but it's not!!

exhibit A, doing science requires money. i rest my case.

oh and Gman.. great post.

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some anti-depressants don't always prevent depression. I think it's a case of figuring out if the small amount of side effects outweigh the disadvantages of getting the flu. That might vary depending on your age, health, and potential exposure to the flu. With many vaccines, it's a case of deciding whether you want to risk the tiny amounts of possible side effects versus eradicating a disease from the population permanently. With flu, that isn't going to be possible yet so your decision to or not to effects no-one.

I'd argue all antidepressants don't prevent depression.. They don't even target any known underlying illness. Check out Joanna Moncrieff, David Healy, Ben Goldacre, Robert Whitaker.. I'll dig up some papers when i could be bothered. The same also applies to antipsychotics.

Also, for the record, I'm not an anti-vaxxer -- but very critical of psychiatry.

Edited by goneski
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh c'mon, quoting from wikipedia has about as much cred as quoting from the Daily mail!

Did you even try the link? He's quoting a citation of an article that was referenced within the body of the wikipedia page.

You click the citation and read the article for the info on the other website that posted the article, not just look at wiki.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/12/does-natural-news-do-cover-ups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antidepressants don't prevent depression, they CAN however be beneficial in managing it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we can all agree that the science behind neurochemistry is patchy at best. And, drug companies like to make a profit and have been known to push drugs without knowing the full consequences of the side-effects. But I do know quite a few people who have benefited greatly from anti-depressant use, both short and long term, so I'm in two minds about this.

Oddly, just the other day I went to my doc with a request for counselling sessions, and she set up a mental health plan and suggested quite strongly I take anti-depressents - sertraline. I didn't quite know what this was, so I declined and promised her I would consider it. So I went back and did my research (some of the best info to be found was right here :lol: ) and realised very quickly that some of the side effects were identical to the long-term medication I am on already, meaning that those could well have been exacerbated quite strongly. Since she had no experience of my current meds I'm not surprised, but hey drug interactions and existing neurochemistry can have a huge impact on whether your meds will work or not. Since I have a friend who is now on 3 anti-depressants and has been on various combos to get this right OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS I do wonder that the docs are a bit over-keen to give it a go and not tackle the underlying issues. Not even to mention he's been seeing a psych for 10 years, so you'd think there would be some improvement by now.

I'd go on about vaccines too but they are quite a different kettle of fish and I see a lot less harm in them and often a great deal of positive effects.

Edited by whitewind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you even try the link? He's quoting a citation of an article that was referenced within the body of the wikipedia page.

You click the citation and read the article for the info on the other website that posted the article, not just look at wiki.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2011/04/12/does-natural-news-do-cover-ups

yeah fair call zedz, teach me not to skim & post when munted (probly not :lol: )

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×