Are anti-vaccine people conspiracy theorists generally? - page 28

I have an old friend from years ago who I now keep in touch with on Facebook. Her posts are fascinating in the amazing variety of conspiracy theories, some outrageous, some maybe partially true.... Read More

  1. by   BostonFNP
    Quote from Horseshoe
    No. YOU read it again. Good grief. This is like someone insisting that 1 plus 1 equals 5, and who keeps insisting that everyone re-do the math.
    You only believe that 1+1=2 because you were told that: get woke!

    More evidence of BigCoffee helping out their partner BigPharma: dangers-of-pumpkin-
  2. by   elkpark
    Quote from BostonFNP
    You only believe that 1+1=2 because you were told that: get woke!

    More evidence of BigCoffee helping out their partner BigPharma: dangers-of-pumpkin-
    This is great news!! Maybe we can get all the antivaxxers to start avoiding pumpkin spice and not worry about childhood vaccinations. Let's get Jenny what's-her-name on this!
  3. by   Daisy Joyce
    LOL at the graph from gomerblog
  4. by   BostonFNP
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    You all accuse those who are unsure or who are anti-vax of being unscientific. But maybe those who believe anything they read from certain sources are no better, no different.
    I have yet to see anyone from the anti-vax side of the argument post a single scientific study, not even the study that was funded by the anti-vax group! It's that reason that makes the anti-vaxxers unscientific.

    This rather common assault from the anti-vaxxers that those that read and base their practice on the extant evidence are somehow "sheep" that "believe anything they read" couldn't be father from the truth (again see what I posted on the traits of conspiracists, this fits under number 3). We don't believe "everything" we believe that which has gone through the rigor of the scientific method and has been determined to be significant. On the other hand, the anti-vaxxers believe blogs and op-eds that they find via their confirmation bias.

    Again, please enlighten us to what you read that supports your position less you be labelled "unscientific".
  5. by   Horseshoe
    Quote from hherrn
    You think you are done.
    Probably not,
    Seems like people try to quit this thread, and they can't.

    ^^^Lol.
  6. by   LibraSunCNM
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    The Duggar's are entitled to their beliefs just as you are. I've already addressed the issue of their son.

    So answer my questions. What did I say about my religious beliefs except that I said "Jesus"?
    You're correct that the Duggars are entitled to their beliefs. Your statement that they should be commended for the way in which they educate (or really, refuse to educate) their children about sex is what I take issue with, because I see their beliefs as directly responsible for the behavior of their confused, repressed son taking his urges out on his sisters.

    And I answered your second question already in the post you quoted, so I'll just paste it here again:

    You stated that HPV could be prevented if people abstained from having sex, as if that should be the sole solution. Most people don't believe in or practice abstinence until marriage, but luckily there are still ways to prevent HPV---the Gardasil vaccine, and condom use---that don't involve imposing sexual repression on others.

    To conclude: since you state that abstention from sex before marriage is part of your religious beliefs, and you are insinuating that everyone should follow this mandate to prevent HPV, rather than get vaccinated against HPV or be taught how to practice safe sex, this is how you brought your religious beliefs into the conversation. Clearer?
    Last edit by LibraSunCNM on Nov 1, '17 : Reason: punctuation
  7. by   studentbear
    Wow, this thread went an interesting route. Came here to contribute my anecdotal experience as a former anti-vaxxer and somehow we've entered Duggarland.
  8. by   LibraSunCNM
    Quote from studentbear
    Wow, this thread went an interesting route. Came here to contribute my anecdotal experience as a former anti-vaxxer and somehow we've entered Duggarland.
    Roll with it and share away!
  9. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from LibraSunCNM
    You're correct that the Duggars are entitled to their beliefs. Your statement that they should be commended for the way in which they educate (or really, refuse to educate) their children about sex is what I take issue with, because I see their beliefs as directly responsible for the behavior of their confused, repressed son taking his urges out on his sisters.

    And I answered your second question already in the post you quoted, so I'll just paste it here again:

    You stated that HPV could be prevented if people abstained from having sex, as if that should be the sole solution. Most people don't believe in or practice abstinence until marriage, but luckily there are still ways to prevent HPV---the Gardasil vaccine, and condom use---that don't involve imposing sexual repression on others.

    To conclude: since you state that abstention from sex before marriage is part of your religious beliefs, and you are insinuating that everyone should follow this mandate to prevent HPV, rather than get vaccinated against HPV or be taught how to practice safe sex, this is how you brought your religious beliefs into the conversation. Clearer?
    Yes, it is now clearer about the religious beliefs.


    I don't know, nor do you unless you've checked with them, what the Duggars did or did not include in their sex education for their kids.

    They have numerous seemingly normal kids and one apparent problem child. Not too bad as far as the numbers go.
  10. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from wtbcrna
    You claim to be a nurse, and you have issues believing in basic medical/scientific facts. I don't care if you think I'm rude. I'm of the opinion that if you choose not to believe in those basic medical facts then you shouldn't be a Nurse. No one should need to give you an internet hug to make you feel at peace over your confirmation biases.
    Maybe you can breathe easier since I am pretty much retired.

    You seem to need some huggies yourself, my friend.

    And again, flies, honey, vinegar. I'm not the only one who has remarked on your rudeness.

    You claim to be a nurse but you're so belligerent. Your goal is not to educate, rather to be right. Arrogant.

    Today science backs up one view, tomorrow it stands behind the opposite one.

    Why is it that every Fall a little flu virus knows to come out of hiding? Hmm?

    How did the 2 get sick when 95% of their herd were vaccinated?
    Last edit by Kooky Korky on Nov 2, '17
  11. by   Kooky Korky
    Quote from hherrn
    Kooky-
    Thank you for keeping this thread going.
    If you're sincere, you're welcome. If not, well, why thank me?
  12. by   Anonymous865
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    Maybe you can breathe easier since I am pretty much retired.

    You seem to need some huggies yourself, my friend.

    And again, flies, honey, vinegar. I'm not the only one who has remarked on your rudeness.

    You claim to be a nurse but you're so belligerent. Your goal is not to educate, rather to be right. Arrogant.

    Today science backs up one view, tomorrow it stands behind the opposite one.

    Why is it that every Fall a little flu virus knows to come out of hiding? Hmm?

    How did the 2 get sick when 95% of their herd were vaccinated?
    Kooky Korky, here's an article that explains why the flu season in the northern hemisphere is from October to March.

    The Reason for the Season: why flu strikes in winter - Science in the News

    The short answer it that the flu virus survives longer at low temperature and low humidity. The longer it can survive floating in the air and on surfaces, the more people that it can infect.

    You can still get the flu at other times of the year. It is just less likely.
  13. by   BostonFNP
    Quote from Kooky Korky
    How did the 2 get sick when 95% of their herd were vaccinated?
    This is a basic and fundamental misunderstanding of herd immunity. Individual immunity it what protects individuals from an illness. Herd immunity is what prevents illness from spreading. Herd immunity does offer some indirect protection to those without individual immunity but that is not the "goal" of herd immunity: over time herd immunity results in eradication of disease.

    For example: in a 100 person population using influenza with an R0 of 10. If none of the population was immune, one person with influenza would produce 10 new cases of influenza. If 50% of the population was immune, it would cause only 5 new infections. If 100% was immune it would cause no new infections.

    We can then use basic math to determine what percent of the population must be immune to stop the spread of the disease (herd immunity threshold): 1-1/R0 or 1-1/10 in this case or 90%. If 90/100 people in this scenario are immune, the influenza will not spread through the population.

close