Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > My body,My choice!      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 LuvsLaughs
Joined: 4/14/2009
Msg: 201
view profile
History
My body,My choice!Page 9 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Oh, and mungojo... I don't have ADHD or Aspergers, neither does my ex or anyone in our families... diabetes, yes, but ADHD or any form of autism? NOPE.. so there goes your theory about it being families passing it genetically.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 202
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/24/2009 1:07:43 PM
Could this predispose a child to be more sensitive to mercury/toxins and possible be a reason for the increase in autism cases, I think it is an interesting question.

I almost forgot... the "increase" in autism cases, due to an increase in real prevalence, is by no means an established fact.

The single biggest reason for an apparent increase is due to changes made in the labeling criteria. Back in the day, we only had one type of autism, infantile/childhood autism. In the 80's Asperger's was recognized as a distinctly less severe sub-type and labeled as 'autism, asperger's type'. There is little disagreement on Asperger's as being autism with much milder symptomology. An experienced individual could 'line up' a group of autistic kids, from most severe to Asperger's and you would be able to actually observe the progression of severity of symptomology from worst to least, with Asperger's showing the least severe symptoms. The inclusion of Asperger's increased the prevalence rate for autism.

A few years later the label of 'autism spectrum disorder' was created and included a great many kids who did not meet the criteria for 'classic' autism or Asperger's but had some symptomology consistent with autism (PDD-NOS). This hugely expanded the prevalence rate, not because there were necessarily more autistic kids, but because the label was expanded to include large numbers of kids who would not otherwise have been labeled autistic. As a matter of common use, all these kids are now typically referred to as autistic.

It is still possible that there has been a small overall increase in the prevalence of autism, irrespective of this 're-labelling', but it is not the huge increase that the newly defined category of ASD makes it appear to be. The 'epidemic' size of the increase is largely due to the changes in labelling criteria.

Oh, and mungojo... I don't have ADHD or Aspergers, neither does my ex or anyone in our families... diabetes, yes, but ADHD or any form of autism? NOPE.. so there goes your theory about it being families passing it genetically.

Dear... your personal experience does nothing to change the fact that autism has been proven to be largely genetic in nature. The science is sound and your illogical, "not in my family it isn't" argument doesn't change that.

And are you SURE it has nothing to do with you? Did you know that maternal diabetes is a known risk factor for autism?

I'm not trying to be mean here but this absolute denial that is so common among parents of autistic kids does the kids NO good at all and often makes matters worse for the kids.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 203
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/24/2009 8:36:54 PM
@mungojoe

Have I ever told you, how hot I think geeky guys are?

Back to topic...


I'm sorry, but it is a fact, and an indisputable fact at that, that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence DOES NOT lead to a conclusion that Thimerosal is a factor in autism.


I'm sorry, but it is a fact, and an indisputable fact at that, that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence MAY or MAY NOT lead to a conclusion, that thimersol is a factor in autism.

The above statement, is a true statement. The cause of autism is still unknown. This is a fact. So one cannot rule out that, that the vaccines are a contributing factor in the cause of autism. The overwhelming evidence that you are pushing to be blindly accepted as fact, is a fallacy, since it cannot be proven true.

Welcome, confirmation bias.

I will leave mine at the door if you will. But the end result will be, we simply don't know. To claim that we do is an argument of statistics and speculative evidence, which could be proven either way. (Depending on whose research, and what source).

I am having a lot of fun, in this debate...


Your statement about science does nothing to change that...


It does have its purpose...


neither do a handful of methodologicaly flawed


Let me break it down for ya.

We currently lack the tools, and might not be asking the right questions, in order for a scientifically true statement to be provided...


and unreplicable studies...


In order to replicate the exact studies, one would have to set up a certain criteria, and undergo specific experimentation, in order to provide an absolute, conclusive, true statement.

I seriously doubt, that there will be pregnant women lining up at the door, volunteering their bodies and the health of their babies, in order to prove/disprove the proposed conclusion...

However, there is an embark of a major study, in the wake of society's concern with the possibility, of an escalation of autism...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153229.php


Maybe you want to go back and read the first part of post 212


Maybe you would like to go back and discuss the topic, which is essentially whether or not the government has the right, to mandate, what we put into our own bodies, as a recourse for an anticipated epidemic...

I think it should not be legislatively mandated...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 204
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/24/2009 11:09:10 PM
I'm sorry, but it is a fact, and an indisputable fact at that, that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence MAY or MAY NOT lead to a conclusion, that thimersol is a factor in autism.

The above statement, is a true statement. The cause of autism is still unknown. This is a fact. So one cannot rule out that, that the vaccines are a contributing factor in the cause of autism. The overwhelming evidence that you are pushing to be blindly accepted as fact, is a fallacy, since it cannot be proven true.

The statement is disingenuous at best... science rarely considers anything to be 100% proven beyond any question and typically acknowledges that there are other, albeit unlikely, alternatives... it is all determined on the basis of a balance of probabilities...

... And the overwhelming balance of probabilities based on observation... in otherwords the overwhelming preponderance of evidence... says that thimerosal is not connected to autism... the likelihood of the converse being true was slim to begin with and is becoming slimmer all the time...

You are right... the exact cause of autism is still undetermined... however... we do have a better handle on which factors are unlikely to constitute a causative factor... and which are highly unlikely...

You speak of it as if it is an equally likely prospect... or even a likely prospect period...yet it is neither of those things...

... One can argue the slim probabilities until the cows come home... but in the end... as in all science... the overwhelming balance of probabilities based on observation, the balance of the evidence, is the only proof we have for anything... and typically leads in the right direction...

... Your argument is rapidly becoming an "appeal to probability" fallacy.

Maybe you would like to go back and discuss the topic...

I am... I refer you to the OP...

I have been a long time avocate Against
Flu shots because I know for a fact...they do not work and the long term effects
from the POSION in these shots will do more harm than good. Here is a list
of what all Flu shots contain:
....
9) THIMEROSAL (MERCURY) - a neurotoxin linked to psychological, neurological & immunological problems. Nervous system damage, kidney disease, birth defects, dental problems, mood swings, mental changes, hallucinations, memory loss, nerve damage and inability to concentrate can occur. Symptoms also include tremors, loss of dermal sensitivity, slurred speech and, in rare cases, even death and paralysis. This additive alone was the catalyst for another recent Class Action Lawsuit organized by mothers of children born with Autism & the many related behavioral disorders associated with it. Autism is now occurring at levels never seen before in history, 1 in 67. The average used to be 1 in 20,000.
 Stormwolf
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 205
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 6:05:56 AM

.not that I'm expecting you to understand any of that as I suspect that the only "training" you have is in quackery, if that even...

Quackery in your opinion, is anyone who believes there are alternatives
to conventional medicine. Your reference to my training, doesn't deserve
a response. However, I question your motive! As I suspect, your ignorance to
to info provided, along with your COINSIDENCE stance and "quackery"
shouts from your pulpit, you appear to be none other than another
Whore from the big Pharma!
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 206
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 9:37:57 AM

However, I question your motive! As I suspect, your ignorance to
to info provided, along with your COINSIDENCE stance and "quackery"
shouts from your pulpit, you appear to be none other than another
Whore from the big Pharma!


Do you mean as opposed to preying on peoples' naivete, desperation and fears with snake-oil... rattles and chicken bones... "water memory" transmitted over the internet...?

Quackery in your opinion, is anyone who believes there are alternatives
to conventional medicine.

Not quite...

... my definition of quackery is people who spout uneducated crap about things they obviously know nothing about... those who pretend to be trained health professionals or misuse thier qualifications to prey on the naivete, desperation and fears of others to foist half-truths, exaggerations and out-right falsehoods... people who spread misinformation like that from the OP I have debunked here...
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 207
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 10:56:38 AM
The statement is disingenuous at best.


Pray tell, how is this statement unworthy or deceptive, when you have pretty much made my argument , in your qualifying statement:


science rarely considers anything to be 100% proven beyond any question and typically acknowledges that there are other, albeit unlikely, alternatives... it is all determined on the basis of a balance of probabilities...


Why, oh, why, do all of the hot, intelligent guys live in friggin' Canada? :cry:


... And the overwhelming balance of probabilities based on observation... in otherwords the overwhelming preponderance of evidence... says that thimerosal is not connected to autism...


You are dismissing, the impact of metabolic waste on the central nervous system. I suspect that the underlying cause of autism will be found in a dysfunction of the endocrine system. Which could lead one to the hypothesis, that the study of nature (hereditary function of the metabolism) and nurture (environmental impact on the endocrine and central nervous system...such as vaccines...amongst other, very important indicators) might result, in a conclusive determination of the cause of autism.


we do have a better handle on which factors are unlikely to constitute a causative factor... and which are highly unlikely...


You are dismissing without evidence, to support your claim...I would like to see this evidence that you are referring to, since your source of evidence and my source of evidence are still in debate, and the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is based upon a confirmation bias, in which the jury is still out...

If one has a genetic predisposition to an insufficient thimerosal threshold, then introducing thimerosal to the compromised constitution will result in negative consequences to the biochemistry. Just like any overdose of a poisonous element...



You speak of it as if it is an equally likely prospect... or even a likely prospect period...yet it is neither of those things...


Again, your sources and my sources disagree...when you poison the body, the body reacts. Mercury is a poison, that affects the brain. Introducing a poison to a system which cannot handle it, (infantile, genetically compromised body) can result in debilitating affects. While such an infusion might be "safe" (I use that term loosely) for a healthy system, in a weakened one the same dose may be an overdose, and therefore toxic.


One can argue the slim probabilities until the cows come home... but in the end... as in all science... the overwhelming balance of probabilities based on observation, the balance of the evidence, is the only proof we have for anything... and typically leads in the right direction


I couldn't agree more. That is why this study:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/153229.php

will be pivotal, in autism research...

Back to swine flu...

Two words...Universal Precautions, and it should not be legislatively mandated, as that would be an imposition on fundamental rights...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 208
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 2:17:23 PM
Pray tell, how is this statement unworthy or deceptive, when you have pretty much made my argument , in your qualifying statement:

As I pointed out... more than once... you are generating a fallacy here... you present the possibility out of context to its real probability by saying, to paraphrase if I might, "There COULD be an endorine dysfunction so thimerosal COULD be one of the environmental causes"... you are layering possibility upon possibility while glossing over the real improbability that arises from the balance of evidence...

You are dismissing, the impact of metabolic waste on the central nervous system. I suspect that the underlying cause of autism will be found in a dysfunction of the endocrine system. Which could lead one to the hypothesis, that the study of nature (hereditary function of the metabolism) and nurture (environmental impact on the endocrine and central nervous system...such as vaccines...amongst other, very important indicators) might result, in a conclusive determination of the cause of autism.

No, I am not... the critical point here is that, if thimerosal were operating on such a compromised system, the linkage should be sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence to allow us to say that the balance of probabilities indicate such a linkage, even if the mechanism of action was unknown... just as we can say that there is a likely linkage, albeit small, between maternal rubella infection and autism risk... the evidence for it is far from conclusive but it is significant enough to rise to a statistical probability that is sufficiently strong to say that there is likely a linkage... the evidence for thimerosal's involvement, on the balance, does not rise beyond an unlikely level of statistical probability...

Yes... there is evidence of endocrine function being involved... evidence that is strong enough to rise to a level of statistical probability that allows us to say "There likely is something here"... but the evidence, in the majority, indicate maternal endocrine function over post-natal endocrine function... meaning that maternal endocrine dysfunction is more likely to be causative of autism, ruling out thimerosal in childhood vaccinations, than is an endocrine dysfunction in the child which creates an environmental sensitivity to certain toxins, the accumulation and/or metabolism of which produce the autistim... and, as I pointed out earlier... if the latter were the case, and thimerosal an environmental culprit... the association should be showing up in the data strongly enough to rise above being statistically unlikely... but it doesn't.

the "overwhelming preponderance of evidence" is based upon a confirmation bias...

Mmmm... so now we will go for the "well, you're just biased anyway" ploy will we...?

...will "which pharmaceutical company do you work for?" become the next question...?

Sorry... but I've read the "pro" and "con"... the evidence which supports and the evidence which doesn't... and the bulk of the evidence, the balance of probabilities, with regards to both thimerosal specifically, and post-natal causation generally (which also helps rule out thimerosal since it is administered post-natally), points strongly in the direction of unlikely...

There may be post-natal influences which impact severity... in a manner similar, but not likely exact, to that seen in PKU (which would be the endocrine/sensitivity point)... but the balance of the evidence does not make thimerosal anything more than unlikely to highly unlikely.
 RLC89
Joined: 5/18/2009
Msg: 209
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 2:31:12 PM
All I need to say is, I agree with you. Nobody should be forced to get the flu shot, not should employers force their employees to get the shot in order to keep their jobs.

I haven't had a flu shot in 5 or 6 years (I was about 16 when I got my last flu shot). Had it not been for parents and schools who "forced" me to get the shot, I would have stopped getting it a lot sooner.

At my university, there are A LOT of people getting the flu shot. I've talked to some of them, and I'd say roughly 97% of them got really sick within 48 hours of getting the flu shot.

Unless I already have some fatal disease and they know whats going to save me, nothing (including flu vaccinations) will be injected into my body.
 RLC89
Joined: 5/18/2009
Msg: 210
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 6:34:41 PM
You must be math illiterate or something, because you don't HAVE to talk to 100 people in order to get the 97% average. You can talk to 48 out of 50; 29 out of 30; 19 out of 20....whatever it may be...there are numerous ways to get a 97% (or close to it) average. And that was just an estimate. Notice I said "roughly 97%"

And am I exaggerating? No. Most people at my university have gotten the flu shot, and most of them did get sick right after receiving it.

Are these people really going to go back to the place where the got the vaccination and threaten them? No. Why? Because what good will it do? They (the citizens who received the flu shot) have no clue that the shot made them sick; rather, they must believe that they've come down with a little virus that was already spreading on their school campus, in their home, or maybe they picked the bug up while grocery shopping. I'm not saying this isn't possible, because it is, but isn't it just a little ironic that the ones getting sick so suddenly are those that got the shot?

The OP said for each of us to give our opinions, so that's what I did. I don't need people coming at me telling me I'm full of shit for believing what I believe. I'm not telling you that you're full of shit, am I? I'm just giving you my opinion, and stating the statistics I have come up with.

That's it.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 211
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/25/2009 9:08:16 PM

As I pointed out... more than once... you are generating a fallacy here... you present the possibility out of context to its real probability by saying, to paraphrase if I might, "There COULD be an endorine dysfunction so thimerosal COULD be one of the environmental causes"... you are layering possibility upon possibility while glossing over the real improbability that arises from the balance of evidence...


You are attacking an argument, that doesn't actually exist, (direct quote: you present the possibility out of context to its real probability), through distortion and misrepresentation, thereby dismissing my stance without ever addressing my original argument.



No, I am not... the critical point here is that, if thimerosal were operating on such a compromised system, the linkage should be sufficiently demonstrated in the evidence to allow us to say that the balance of probabilities indicate such a linkage, even if the mechanism of action was unknown... just as we can say that there is a likely linkage, albeit small, between maternal rubella infection and autism risk... the evidence for it is far from conclusive but it is significant enough to rise to a statistical probability that is sufficiently strong to say that there is likely a linkage... the evidence for thimerosal's involvement, on the balance, does not rise beyond an unlikely level of statistical probability...

Yes... there is evidence of endocrine function being involved... evidence that is strong enough to rise to a level of statistical probability that allows us to say "There likely is something here"... but the evidence, in the majority, indicate maternal endocrine function over post-natal endocrine function... meaning that maternal endocrine dysfunction is more likely to be causative of autism, ruling out thimerosal in childhood vaccinations, than is an endocrine dysfunction in the child which creates an environmental sensitivity to certain toxins, the accumulation and/or metabolism of which produce the autistim... and, as I pointed out earlier... if the latter were the case, and thimerosal an environmental culprit... the association should be showing up in the data strongly enough to rise above being statistically unlikely... but it doesn't.


hhmmm...


... Your argument is rapidly becoming an "appeal to probability" fallacy.


Strawman swallows the red herring...



Mmmm... so now we will go for the "well, you're just biased anyway" ploy will we...?


We both are, since we are faced with disputable, inconclusive evidence...

We are merely opining.

And that is my point. Stop trying to present it as a fact, as if it is conclusive evidence.


will "which pharmaceutical company do you work for?" become the next question...?


The question never crossed my mind...you are way too intelligent and informed (although somewhat misguided), to be a pharmaceutical rep...


There may be post-natal influences which impact severity... in a manner similar, but not likely exact, to that seen in PKU (which would be the endocrine/sensitivity point)... but the balance of the evidence does not make thimerosal anything more than unlikely to highly unlikely.


An "appeal to probability fallacy"...

A conclusive statement does not equate, to a prediction based upon probability.

After all, a prediction based upon probability is a disingenuous claim...

For the record, I am not against all vaccines...just the ones that could be resolved through preventive measures...
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 212
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 1:41:37 PM

through distortion and misrepresentation, thereby dismissing my stance without ever addressing my original argument.

Oh... there's no distortion or misrepresentation in this...

"you present the possibility out of context to its real probability by saying, to paraphrase if I might, "There COULD be an endorine dysfunction so thimerosal COULD be one of the environmental causes"

Throughout, you draw the attention back to 'vaccines' as a possible factor associated with a possible cause in such a vague way as to effectively disguise the real probability... in a way that leads it to appear as though it is more likely than it actually is based on the evidence... No, you haven't SPECIFICALLY said so... but your exposition of your is structured in such a way as to "dance around" the reality of the role that probability plays in determining scientific truth...

Shall I quote...?

children who have autism, have a significantly lower metabolic rate for mercury and other additives within the vaccine. Yes, this is hereditary. But it is also environmentally influenced. (Hence, vaccines...)


Thermisol is contained in the vaccine. Fact. Autistic children have a lower threshold for mercury..mostly, due to hereditary factors, this is again...a fact.


It is factual, that persons who have autism are less likely to process mercury...and it happens mostly in boys...due to the information gathered by those who have actually studied autism, and physiological congruences...

Hey, they may not be right. But they do provide overwhelming evidence, in the face, of the questions that are asked.


I'm sorry, but it is a fact, and an indisputable fact at that, that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence MAY or MAY NOT lead to a conclusion, that thimersol is a factor in autism.

The above statement, is a true statement. The cause of autism is still unknown. This is a fact. So one cannot rule out that, that the vaccines are a contributing factor in the cause of autism. The overwhelming evidence that you are pushing to be blindly accepted as fact, is a fallacy, since it cannot be proven true.


You are dismissing, the impact of metabolic waste on the central nervous system. I suspect that the underlying cause of autism will be found in a dysfunction of the endocrine system. Which could lead one to the hypothesis, that the study of nature (hereditary function of the metabolism) and nurture (environmental impact on the endocrine and central nervous system...such as vaccines...amongst other, very important indicators) might result, in a conclusive determination of the cause of autism.


Again, your sources and my sources disagree...when you poison the body, the body reacts. Mercury is a poison, that affects the brain. Introducing a poison to a system which cannot handle it, (infantile, genetically compromised body) can result in debilitating affects. While such an infusion might be "safe" (I use that term loosely) for a healthy system, in a weakened one the same dose may be an overdose, and therefore toxic.

...each of those statements have an element of rhetorical truth to them but "dance around" the question of probability... and we both know the importance of probability over rhetoric in determining scientific truth... a good argument can easily be rhetorically true without being scientifically true..
We both seem to agree with this notion below...

science rarely considers anything to be 100% proven beyond any question and typically acknowledges that there are other, albeit unlikely, alternatives... it is all determined on the basis of a balance of probabilities...

... And the point of this is that in science, especially the medically-oriented sciences, the standard for the truth or falseness of conclusions is the relative balance of evidence... the balance of probabilities... which outcome is favoured by the evidence... the more probable tending towards truth, the less probable tending towards falseness...

The elision of that distinction through arguments such as...

that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence MAY or MAY NOT lead to a conclusion, that thimersol is a factor in autism.

The above statement, is a true statement. The cause of autism is still unknown. This is a fact. So one cannot rule out that, that the vaccines are a contributing factor in the cause of autism, ever. The overwhelming evidence that you are pushing to be blindly accepted as fact, is a fallacy, since it cannot be proven true.

... is an old rhetorical trick that deliberately plays on the inherent uncertainty contained in scientific knowledge... scientific truth... by using an argument in the form "there is a chance it could still be true because you can't conclusively prove it isn't true" that attempts to ignore the role probability plays in determining scientific truth or falseness...

... and you use it's inverse... "there is a chance it could be wrong because you can't conclusively prove it is true"... here...

An "appeal to probability fallacy"...

A conclusive statement does not equate, to a prediction based upon probability.

After all, a prediction based upon probability is a disingenuous claim...

... again attempting to ignore the pivotal role probability plays in determining "conclusiveness"... scientific truth or falseness...

...What you are really doing is arguing the philosophical question of "what is truth?" rather than the scientific standard of proof/"conclusiveness"/scientific truth...

...Oh... and in the realm of scientific knowledge... scientific truth... a conclusive statement does equate to a prediction based upon probability...

... the fact that scientific proof... scientific truth... is determined based on the higher probability indicated by the preponderance of evidence... and that the probability will almost always less than 1... is a given... more than a given actually... a necessity, if scientific truth is to have any meaning...

...As such the "appeal to probability" fallacy only occurs in science when you argue for the unlikely outcome over the likely outcome based on the premise "but it COULD be true/false because its probability is not zero"... and especially so when you add some extra "ifs" on top of it... as in... "IF it is an endocrine issue then it COULD be vaccines"... so... while such a statement is technically true in the way it is formed it is not a valid rebuttal in the context of scientific truth if its probability does not rise to a likely level relative to the conclusion being rebutted... again, because... scientific truth... or falseness... is entirely dependent on the relative probability of each possibility
 daynadaze
Joined: 2/11/2008
Msg: 213
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 2:28:05 PM

At my university, there are A LOT of people getting the flu shot. I've talked to some of them, and I'd say roughly 97% of them got really sick within 48 hours of getting the flu shot.


I would love to see proof of this If this is in defense of the OP, no wonder he's having so much trouble trying to prove his point.

When I was a kid, we use to take thermometers apart and play with that little ball of mercury, nobody told us it was dangerous.

Anyway, back to the claim of 97% of bad reaction to the flu shot to the point of being sick, I use to work in a factory where a good 500 people got the flu shot on the same day and none of them ever seemed to get sick or even use it as an excuse to call in sick, and believe me if they thought they could have, a good 100 would have. Ninety-seven percent got sick, that's hilarious!
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 214
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:02:51 PM
Wow, this is still going, think I'll add my 2 cents. This whole debate comes down to this, when does one's personal choices/rights end and the rights and personal choices of another begin. Most times when we make a choice the consequences of that choice is ours, but what happens when that choice can potential harm another. I fully understand why the OP didn't want to be forced by the government to take a flu shot, but in healthcare our choices can directly impact pts who are vulnerable, does that Pt not have the right to be in a place that is as safe as possible, do they not have the right to ask for caregivers that have had the flu shot to minimize their exposure to something potentially harmful. An example, I was in the bank, an older man comes in with 2 grandkids, as we are waiting in line the child begins to cough and sneeze, you could tell the child was very ill, he had her sit in a chair and wait for him to finish. From my point of view I thought you ass, that child should be home and in bed not out spreading it around and from the looks on peoples faces and the teller who made a comment about it none of us were impressed. So this person's choice could have potentially caused several people and their families to become sick, but things will probably not change because we view things from our own perspective and don't see the consquences we can have on others.
 Super_Eve
Joined: 10/23/2008
Msg: 215
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/26/2009 4:43:56 PM
Is it getting hot in here or what?

Mungo...you so turn me on...

Sorry. I just had to get that out of my system...

Oh, yeah...back to the discussion. (I got hormonally distracted for a moment.)

Let me first state the obvious.

Of course I am debating within the rhetoric. We both are. The classic definition of the rhetoric is, "the art of persuasive speech". (red herring, btw)


Throughout, you draw the attention back to 'vaccines' as a possible factor associated with a possible cause in such a vague way as to effectively disguise the real probability... in a way that leads it to appear as though it is more likely than it actually is based on the evidence... No, you haven't SPECIFICALLY said so... but your exposition of your is structured in such a way as to "dance around" the reality of the role that probability plays in determining scientific truth...


Your are basing your premise on probability theory and the transferable belief model, when there has simply not been enough time to gather empirical evidence and statistical data to support an informed conclusion.


and we both know the importance of probability over rhetoric in determining scientific truth... a good argument can easily be rhetorically true without being scientifically true..


I agree...


... And the point of this is that in science, especially the medically-oriented sciences, the standard for the truth or falseness of conclusions is the relative balance of evidence... the balance of probabilities... which outcome is favoured by the evidence... the more probable tending towards truth, the less probable tending towards falseness...


The balance of evidence is based upon the information at hand. Again, politely, I suggest the idea that there is simply not enough evidence gathered, to draw broad-sweeping conclusions based upon inadequate study.

To attain a statistical inference would require time...


What you are really doing is arguing the philosophical question of "what is truth?" rather than the scientific standard of proof/"conclusiveness"/scientific truth...


I do tend towards the philosophical. Thank you for noticing that about me...


...Oh... and in the realm of scientific knowledge... scientific truth... a conclusive statement does equate to a prediction based upon probability...


A conclusive statement can only be drawn from a prediction based upon probability, when all of the evidence is known...


... is an old rhetorical trick that deliberately plays on the inherent uncertainty contained in scientific knowledge... scientific truth... by using an argument in the form "there is a chance it could still be true because you can't conclusively prove it isn't true" that attempts to ignore the role probability plays in determining scientific truth or falseness...

... and you use it's inverse... "there is a chance it could be wrong because you can't conclusively prove it is true"... here...


If you are going to use the probability theory as the premise of your refutation, then stop ignoring the random variable.


so... while such a statement is technically true in the way it is formed it is not a valid rebuttal in the context of scientific truth if its probability does not rise to a likely level relative to the conclusion being rebutted... again, because... scientific truth... or falseness... is entirely dependent on the relative probability of each possibility


Okay. So technically you might be correct, based upon current evidence...or not.

The empirical evidence points both ways...

There is no way to get around that. We simply do not have enough data, to draw a conclusive statement, with regards to this topic...
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 216
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:37:42 AM
OP

You have rights.
Don't do it if you don't want to. If you lose your job because of this there is something incredibly wrong with that.

I saw an ignorant post suggesting you were the one in the wrong.
We live in a democracy people! The government doesn't force us to do anything like that and if it attempts to there is something wrong!

Plain and simple! :)
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 217
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:51:26 AM

this whole debate comes down to this, when does one's personal choices/rights end and the rights and personal choices of another begin. Most times when we make a choice the consequences of that choice is ours, but what happens when that choice can potential harm another. I fully understand why the OP didn't want to be forced by the government to take a flu shot, but in healthcare our choices can directly impact pts who are vulnerable, does that Pt not have the right to be in a place that is as safe as possible,


ah, utilitarianism, the greater of the good if you will!

There is an article that discusses Post 9/11 "Security and Liberty: the Image of Balance" Waldron.

This is what came to mind when I saw this thread.

So if we give up our rights to the government for security for the greater of the good, who is being affected?

In the Post 9/11 context it's those that are being denied their civil liberties of due process and all that wonderful stuff.

So here, if these workers HAVE to take these injections are we allowing them to give up their right to do what they want with their body for the greater of the good?
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 218
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 12:57:59 PM
good point sweet, as I said I do understand why the OP doesn't want to be forced to get the flu shot, I was simply pointing out how we look at personal choice, we each have one. What if my personal choice put you or a family member at risk, would it make me right, would my civil liberities be more important then yours, of course not. This is the balance we have to try and keep in a society, yes each person has to make a choice if they want to get the shot, but in healthcare we also have an ethical obligation not to hurt others in our care who are vulnerable. If the OP had not been in healthcare, which increases our risk of catching the flu/cold and passing it to our pts, people probably would not have cared in the least if he got the shot or not. This is also about numbers, healthcare facilities run on limited staff due to budget cuts in recent years as the OP stated previously, if a sufficent number of staff are off sick, then a hospital/clinic can't function properly and can adversely effect the quality of care to the public. Again people will proclaim civil liberities for all right up until if adversely effects them or their family directly.
 Stormwolf
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 219
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 5:13:30 PM

So here, if these workers HAVE to take these injections are we allowing them to give up their right to do what they want with their body for the greater of the good?

Pure! To reiterate "for the greater of the good"... seriously, if we let such a
Mandate happen, what's next? Perhaps all people without Children or family
who are deemed healthy, are Mandated by the Government to give up a Kidney
and Bone Marrow for the "greater of the good?" Liver Transplants have made
overwhelming progress in the last 15 years. In Fact, just part of your liver is
required in some cases for a successful transplant. Can we add , you must also
give up part of your liver " for the greater of the good?" How about imprision
every person who has HIV "for the greater of the good?"
I know I'm on the extremist end here, however, what I've just written is a possibility
considering the question of "for the greater of the good!"


If the OP had not been in healthcare, which increases our risk of catching the flu/cold and passing it to our pts, people probably would not have cared in the least

I believe just the opposite. I believe School teachers, food workers, Bus drivers
and anyone other than healthcare workers who work with public mass, increases the risk of passing flu/cold or any contagious affliction TEN FOLD over healthcare
workers. Any Nurse. MD, Tech, or Therapist, wash their hands constantly, perhaps
hundreds of times a day and put new gloves on with each person we deal with.
How many times do other professions that deal with MASS PUBLIC wash their hands or wear gloves before and after dealing each person they come in contact with??

To revisit a point made earlier by a poster, can not be stressed enough.
Hospital Admins, are notorious for hounding healthcare workers who
take sick leave. From my experience and observances, Nurses are the
most abused healthcare workers of all when they take sick leave. I've wittnessed
too many times...a Nurse working while having cold/flu symptoms. I've wittnessed
those same Nurses asking to go home because they felt sick, only to have the
Nursing Supervisor tell them NO.."we are too short staffed." I've wittnessed
Nurses showing me written disciplinary actions because of calling in sick.
In the real world, this is what happens, not what you see on TV.
 Casper66
Joined: 3/2/2007
Msg: 220
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/27/2009 11:29:02 PM
Have to agree with you stormwolf, we have only so much staff to cover shifts and I myself have had to go into work with a cold because there was no one to cover my shift, unfortunately this just spreads it around to other staff and Pts, but we have no choice in the matter we have to work. Yes we use universal precautions and even wore masks our entire shift when SARS hit Toronto and if we get sick ourselves, but sick people do come to us and unless you are a wearing a mask the entire time you are still at risk, but you are right anyone who works with the public can be a risk.
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 221
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 3:29:56 AM

At my university, there are A LOT of people getting the flu shot. I've talked to some of them, and I'd say roughly 97% of them got really sick within 48 hours of getting the flu shot.
Since we're tossing out stats here, I have some of my own...

100% of the people I know personally in the health care profession are getting vaccinated as well as bringing their families in to get the vaccine. 0% of these people have fallen ill as a result of this.

Pretty damned good odds if you ask me...
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 222
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:21:19 AM

100% of the people I know personally in the health care profession are getting vaccinated as well as bringing their families in to get the vaccine. 0% of these people have fallen ill as a result of this.


Your 100% is equivalent to how many people? 5? 12? 4000?
Do you personally know the health conditions of 4000 people?

Like what are you talkin' a boot?
 Lint Spotter
Joined: 8/27/2009
Msg: 223
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 6:29:55 AM

Like what are you talkin' a boot?
Well, considering you've chosen to not quote the comment I was directing my post towards, it's no wonder that you are unsure of where the conversation came from... perhaps your reading it in context to the thread and the quote I originally made would clarify this for you...

100% is everyone... the qualifier is that I know them and their families personally.
 Stormwolf
Joined: 2/23/2009
Msg: 224
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 7:16:02 AM

100% of the people I know personally in the health care profession are getting vaccinated as well as bringing their families in to get the vaccine.


"The Vaccine." Would you care to share the exact vaccine and profession
you claim is 100% ? Of the thousands of healthcare workers I work with
I would estimate 8 out of 10 are not getting the H1N1 shot. As for there family,
I have yet to meet any healthcare worker in mid-town Manhattan who
claims their children have taken the H1N1 vaccine.
 Sweet_Le_Senza
Joined: 6/1/2007
Msg: 225
view profile
History
My body,My choice!
Posted: 10/30/2009 5:48:36 PM

Go ahead - protect your rights. It's a pity you don't realize that with rights and freedom come responsibility.

What responsibility are we talking about? Giving up rights? Cuz if so we're right back to where we started again!

Utilitarianism! For the greater of the good.
You people are funny!
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > My body,My choice!