Date:   10/11/2005 5:17:44 PM ( 19 y ago)
Hits:   3,359
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=588541

1 readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

I don't know where you got most of the information from but it sounds like the type of facts I heard during grammar school and high school. Everything was laid out perfectly for you in class, in the textbooks, and in encyclopedias. Data or information that did not fit the known facts, or the current hypothesis, was not mentioned. People (either in the news or in history) who presented contradictory or different views (on some fact/hypothesis) were dismissed as being too few in number for their views to have any validity. Or some fact(s) a few students in class would bring up that backed up a minority view of the facts were deemed too inconsequential. It was usually stated during class that if you disagree with the facts as presented, you can read opposing views later on or on your own. Not enough time was the reason given.

These same problems arise in the mind of the bureaucrat collecting vaccine data in the field, and those processing it into graphs and encyclopedias. If you are the one sent out into the field where hundreds of people have died and there aren't any records, how do you decide? Is what you decide, going to be put into the graph the way you said it happened? All of these are gray areas. There are many. Yet the facts are presented in black and white, completely disallowing the huge amount of uncertainty from town to town regarding who you are going to listen to on cause of death.

How many students did reading on their own after they left school? Very few, judging by the number of schools that require vaccinations from parents. The conclusion to be drawn is that you need vaccinations and, more is better, according to the pre set facts (that you learned in school).

I wonder why your very interesting list of facts is not presented alongside those in E. McBean's* book? Finding the true hypothesis would be better served that way. Let the students come up with their own hypothesis and explain the methods they used to arrive at it. Is illness (the grave kind) or a weakend immune system, vaccine induced or not?

Is every student in the classroom unbiased? If a few students are unbiased, how are the rest going to explain the facts they present are without bias because their method or logic didn't allow bias to creep into them?

Most people will search for bias in an anti-vaccine study but not in a vaccine study showing how many lives it saved. Most people determine it is a good study, a priori, before the facts are known. This is why I would hesitate to interpret the facts you stated the way you did.

I think the main point of the article as stated is that vaccinations cause (unnecessary)illness, not that only those vaccinated died from an illness. Further, I think the article would agree that those vaccinated will add to the death toll, or total dead.

It is hard to keep out bias when combining the book excerpt with your list of facts.
Most people are acquainted with your list of facts, in some form, but not with the book. If you read closely the book article, she explains the reason her family did not die from the flu illness, a stronger immune system or they did not take in poison. If a person has poor eating and sanitation habits it is not a surprize he would die from the flu, without having been vaccinated. Under those conditions, the same thing would happen if you were vaccinated. A stronger immune system will enable you to outlive those with a weaker one.

Unvaccinated people are dying of flu illness therefore the flu vaccine is safe, is not a logical statement. This statement does not prove the vaccine is safer than being without a vaccine.

But this is the implication doctors, researchers and vaccine representatives leave in your mind when defending their research. Or defending their alleged right to vaccinate everybody.

For people who never manage to see prejudice or suppression in the news:
The news media will be filled with articles on why Creationism ought to be taught side by side with the theory of Evolution. The furor over Creationism in the schools comes and goes, like the tides. The news that vaccination could be bad for you, the way it is explained in the book, does not get 1/100th of the same amount of coverage (as Creationism). Yet that is a huge controversy too, if not bigger.

Am I supposed to be distracted by the hot topic of creationism versus evolution so that other controversies like vaccination don't matter? When the Creation controversy is back in the news for its media run, why doesn't the vaccination controversy ever compete for equal time in the minds of the majority of Americans? (That's what I'll be wondering while factory plants conjure up more vaccine uses.)


*E. McBean - "Vaccination Condemned"


 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.03 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=588541