- This topic has 61 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Dear Milhouse,
You made me laugh. I could not care less about who is on which ticket. I will spell my point out clearly. Anti-science is found among all groups of people equally. You seem to have been surprised about Republicans (besides Trump) being called anti-science. It is an oft repeated concept. [Which nobody cares about.] You insisted that it it is not true. (Other than climate change.) So I looked into it. It seems like Republicans are more likely to oppose popular sciences, and Democrats are likely to refute the social sciences and the humanities. However, the Republicans are much better at getting into public fights with science. [The humanities are not suitable for public fights. V’hameivin] Robert Broun (evolution AND just about every scientific doctrine attached to it) and James Inhofe (climate change and see above) are the best at it.Your point about Darwin is not taken.I think Einstein and Fermi are far more to where we are today. And, Darwin was not much for the interplay between science and the common people. Einstein again, and Schlick are well suited for that. Your points about policy should (more or less) be effected. But science should not be held to what is believed to be, science can explain what is and demonstrate the possible on it’s own.
Science is not rational. Reason is based on what we experience. When science finds something unexplainable (e. g. massive gas clouds) the answer is ‘mystical’ until a formula is calculated for it. Your point about the Democrats with refusing to implement policies that are backed by actual science is truthful.DISCLAIMER, It could be Inhofe and Broun have a point or two. I never took him seriously. Many scientists who are not involved in evolution or climate change will be affected by their proposed policies.
health, i was just pointing that out, since the cdc is obviously the biggest advocate for vaccines out there. Also,would you like to post the whole study, or just agenda related snippets taken out of context? would you be so kind to yourself and look up how common BILATERAL orchitis is, let alone orchitis causing infertility? Anyway, as i said previously, it doesnt cause INfertility. YOU YOURSELF said it. you still havent mentioned a case where the subject was completely infertile. its so easy to prove you wrong, you do it for me. does that study even have anything to do with mumps?
thetruthiseek -“Also,would you like to post the whole study, or just agenda related snippets taken out of context? would you be so kind to yourself and look up how common BILATERAL orchitis is, let alone orchitis causing infertility? Anyway, as i said previously, it doesnt cause INfertility. YOU YOURSELF said it.”
Did your Yeshiva have High School?!?
There are many articles about Mumps Complications.
From EuropePDC:
“ Infertility After Mumps Orchitis” (Author’s Transl)]
[Article in German]
F L Bertschat, M Alexander
“11 of 23 patients were followed up, 9 answered a questionnaire. 11 spermiograms were available. 6 patients, 3 of them after bilateral mumps orchitis, had children.
12 patients remained at least subfertile (60%), 5 of them after bilateral mumps orchitis, 3 patients were almost infertile after bilateral mumps orchitis.”Is your Wife, if you have one, comfortable with these Statistics?
No wonder the Frum community has 2 orgs. for infertility!
We must have a lot of ANTI-VAXXERS!!!first off, interesting you assume i am a male who is above high school age. second, since when is studying 11 people considered a thorough study?! third, AGAIN, not totally infertile. I believe you are what they call a ‘glass half empty’ person. do you know your own fertility rate? no one is one hundred percent fertile. for someone who is ‘almost’ infertile, they can still have kids!
The Truth You DON’T Seek -“for someone who is ‘almost’ infertile, they can still have kids!”
True, but it becomes VERY Difficult!
From Above:
“No wonder the Frum community has 2 orgs. for infertility!
We must have a lot of ANTI-VAXXERS!!!”
From the CDC:
“Before the U.S. mumps vaccination program started in 1967, about 186,000 cases were reported each year, and many more unreported cases occurred. The disease caused complications, such as permanent deafness in children, and occasionally, encephalitis, which could rarely result in death.
Orchitis occurs in approximately 20–30% of unvaccinated and 6–7% of vaccinated postpubertal male mumps patients. Mumps orchitis has not been linked to infertility, but may result in testicular atrophy and hypofertility.”Dear Thetruth,
What do you think about the “most unvaccinated children have autistic parents”study?numesorah : studies show that trolls who say stupid things and pretend to know what autism is, are stupid people who pretend to know things they don’t.
health, like measles and other previously common childhood illnesses, complication and death rates had been dropping drastically BEFORE the vaccines came out in the 60’s, due to environmental changes societal changes etc, including indoor plumbing, laws regulating the factories from working children to death and releasing toxins into the water supplies and atmosphere. in short, we became a lot more health conscious WITHOUT the immunizations and would have a death rate of almost none even with 3 million children getting measles mumps etc. per year. again, due to vaccine unrelated health advances.When i read a paragraph that contains the word vaccine and the word autism, I cringe. I might entertain discussions about other negative effects, and would still insist on hearing the conclusions of the experts that reviewed reliably scientific information. But we are struggling to find that here. The vaccine-autism issue was based on fabricated data, and passed off as science. I have done research before, and am familiar with the trust that must be present to consider any research useful. Meanwhile, theories were written to explain something that has no basis in truth. And the oilem goilem hears something like this and runs with it. So we have large crowds of believers that these vaccines are the conspiracy of government and big pharm, decorated with anecdotes, and enhanced by the anti-science movements.
I well understand caution with introducing a vaccine into a system. It needs to have demonstrated safety and effectiveness. It must also be needed for individual and public health. Understood. And the outbreaks that can affect others negatively must be addressed by the medical field as well as the government that attends to public safety. But if we allow the introduction of hysteria into the scene, and we give credence to utter fiction, we are set up for doom.
The COVID-19 is still new, and has been studied comparatively little in the short time of its appearance in the science world. We might choose to be cautious about vaccinating, as long term results have yet to be observed. I would not be so paranoid to project another conspiracy, with as little truth as the last ones.
The Truth You DON’T Seek -“we became a lot more health conscious WITHOUT the immunizations and would have a death rate of almost none even with 3 million children getting measles mumps etc. per year. again, due to vaccine unrelated health advances.”
Thanks for repeating the Anti-Vaxx propaganda!
You people are Never interested in the Truth.
Well here’s the Truth from Science Based Medicine:
“The United Kingdom is an excellent illustration of this trend. Back in the mid-1990s, it declared measles as under control, thanks to the MMR vaccine. Then came Andrew Wakefield in 1998 with his trial lawyer-funded, incompetent, and possibly even fraudulent study claiming to link the MMR vaccine to “autistic enterocolitis,’ and a credulous, sensationalistic British press to spread his message that the MMR vaccine causes autism. The result was that measles came roaring back in the U.K. to the point that two years ago measles was declared endemic again there.”what are you trying to prove LACK of health? (yes i can play the immature nickname game too) i just said even with measles present, the death rate would be very low. and you answer that there was measles?
anyway, i hate that people say that because wakefield lied it must be false. if a random moron said that vaccines are one hundred percent effective with no possibility for side effects (no this is NOT true) and people realized he was lying does that mean vaccines are completely ineffective and always cause side effects? of course not. it goes both ways. be logical.The Truth You DON’T Seek -“we became a lot more health conscious WITHOUT the immunizations and would have a death rate of almost none even with 3 million children getting measles…”
IDK what type of Anti-vaxx are you. Are you interested in the Truth or you don’t care about it?
If you are interested – here it is:
From the Conversation:
“Deaths from measles have risen to new heights in Europe in the past year. The rapid spread of the measles virus has led to more than 3,300 cases and 35 deaths in Romania, Italy, Germany and Portugal.
Nearly all of the recorded deaths have been in unvaccinated individuals, despite there being a safe and effective vaccine against measles, routinely used in the UK since 1968 and, as part of a triple measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, since 1988.
Successful implementation of the MMR vaccine was interrupted in the early 2000s following publications by Andrew Wakefield linking it to autism. These claims have since proven unfounded in large epidemiological studies – but, for a period between 1998 and 2004, MMR coverage fell dramatically enabling measles epidemic outbreaks…”Dear Truth,
You made points in all different directions. I was pointing out that you are responding to people’s opinions. Nobody mentioned any studies before you referenced the CDC. Than you said you do not rely on the CDC. Then you get into an argument about a different study. I think you could just say I do not care about studies. Either way you contradicted yourself on the basis of why you disagree with the original point.Comment 1 Vaccines cause lower fertility.
Comment 2 In fact, NOT getting the Mumps vaccine can make a boy sterile.No studies mentioned. You did not say you agree with the first comment.
The joke I mentioned was not meant at your expense. It posted right after comment 1. I assumed you saw it already. I should have realized that you could have seen it as a personal attack. I’m sorry.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.