The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The burden of proof > Comments

The burden of proof : Comments

By Martin Bouckaert, published 1/6/2012

Can you prove vaccines are safe?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. All
On the subject of HIV/Aids. We might be able to cure it with a combination of anti cancer and arthritis medications.
The anti cancer medication on its own may well kill the infection? Unfortunately the dose needs to be so strong as to prove fatal for both the virus and the patient? [We could conceivably cure the disease but lose the patient?]
However, the addition of a common anti arthritis drug, seems to greatly improve the efficacy of the leukaemia medication, which can then be given in combination as sub lethal doses.
Both of these common drugs are already approved and in current use; or frequently prescribed by Medical Practioners/Specialists.
We need to start working on and advancing "the cure"; given the way this disease mutates, meaning many of the anti virals becoming less effective or totally ineffective over time.
Unfortunately for big Pharma, the cure could cost them many billions in lost annual revenue, currently coming from the sale of anti-virals? It seems that in just the USA, there are over a million HIV/Aids victims, with each spending on average, in excess of $20,000.00 annually. [$50.00.00 before the generics hit the medical consumer Market?]
Even so, that adds up to well over twenty thousand million current reasons in the US of A alone, to keep milking a "medical management" captive market, but particularly when one extrapolates to a world wide market?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 2 June 2012 1:22:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Tony,

<<So who is qualified to assess the spiritual danger of vaccines? How do we establish if those people are properly qualified to assess spiritual dangers? How do we verify if their assessments are correct or not? If two qualified spiritual risk assessors come up with different answers. I to the same question how do we work out which one is correct?>>

In general, regarding how best to conduct one's life, one should consult all three: scripture, others who are closer to God than oneself, and one's own experience as a result of following the above two. If those three are not in agreement, then one needs to continue searching.

Specifically about the issue of vaccination, whatever "gods" (big and small) you consulted, it seems that their answers were right: FOR YOU, that is.

You see, Purity, cleanliness of mind and body, is an important spiritual principle and one who seeks to come closer to God should not burden his/her system with things that are not meant to be there. However, one should get cleansed of the most gross impurities first before worrying about the subtler ones: if one plays with ouija boards, has dirty thoughts (for example thinking badly of others) and takes on a regular basis drugs (illicit or prescribed), meat, tobacco and alcohol, then the spiritual effect of taking a vaccine once-off would only be like a drop in the ocean. In such case, before one succeeds in eliminating the most gross impurities - both mental and physical, it is best not to worry about the spiritual implications of vaccination and if one is concerned about one's physical health, just follow what the doctors say and if you believe that they are sincere in claiming that there is no significant physical risk in vaccination, then get vaccinated.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 June 2012 1:22:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If spiritual "purity" is that boring, then I'd rather not bother. I like my meat to much, and my beer. Nothing wrong with it except to the "morally superior" who insist they are more pure than me for not partaking. It must be nice to be so morally and spiritually superior to others that you know without a doubt that you have all the right answers, all the time. While you're up their with your head in the clouds, would you mind asking God why I never got that pet penguin I always wanted? It's really important - I've been wondering for a while what penguins might taste like. They sort of strike me as a bit of a cross between a fish and a bird, so maybe like a chicken crossed with a cod.

Anyway, I guess God never answered my prayers because I'm so spiritually unclean from all that steak I've been eating. Maybe if I hadn't had my vaccines, too, I might have been able to experience the spiritual enlightenment of pertussis or polio... if I got really lucky, maybe tetanus or rubella. I bet all those people on cancer meds wish they weren't on their treatments so their cancer could bring them closer to God...

You're right about one thing - attempting to justify a religious belief using bad science is dodgy, especially if proper science proves that belief wrong. However, attempting to justify refusing evidence-based science, which produces proof, based on religion or spirituality, is just as daft. For one thing, you may be completely unaware of the things that you are exposed to by nature itself on a daily basis. It may actually shock you to know that your body itself is producing many of the things that you would be horrified about and would call unnatural and spiritually unclean - like formaldehyde. And how is eating meat harmful to "spirituality" but eating plants is fine? You're still eating living beings, either way. If you REALLY wanted to be spiritually pure, you would be eating nothing but rocks and minerals.
Posted by Martin Bouckaert, Sunday, 3 June 2012 1:53:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Martin,

<<If spiritual "purity" is that boring, then I'd rather not bother>>

You are not alone. Most of us are disheartened and give up before we even started because we find the cognitive dissonance between where we are at and where we want to be, too painful. It takes courage to face this tension, this dissonance.

None of us, including myself, are pure, but it's the baby efforts that we make towards purity (as well as towards all other spiritual principles) which counts. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

However, attempting to justify refusing ancient and universal spiritual principles, based on science, is just as daft.

I respect science and it doesn't shock me that my body produces formaldehyde and other substances that are chemically identical to those present in vaccines. Such formaldehyde is natural, in the sense that it is not produced willfully, and therefore I cannot see why it should be of spiritual concern. As I have no medical background, I am not in a position to say whether or not this formaldehyde is medically harmful, but that's not my primary concern anyway.

<<I might have been able to experience the spiritual enlightenment of pertussis or polio...>>

Pertussis or polio do not bring enlightenment, that's daft of course, but one's surrendering to God, accepting His gifts with love, even if those happen to be pertussis or polio, that does!

<<If you REALLY wanted to be spiritually pure, you would be eating nothing but rocks and minerals.>>

Yes, but the aim is not to be spiritually pure, that is only the means, one of the means - the aim is to reach God, and it takes time and many baby steps. One can only begin from where one is at.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 June 2012 2:41:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You really have no grasp on the concept of sarcasm, do you?
Posted by Martin Bouckaert, Sunday, 3 June 2012 2:46:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Martin,

<<You really have no grasp on the concept of sarcasm, do you?>>

I prefer to always give others the benefit of the doubt. Unless proven otherwise, I rather err on the side of assuming that others are benevolent, mean what they say and want real answers to their real questions. Somehow I still believe that this is the case!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 3 June 2012 2:57:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 12
  12. 13
  13. 14
  14. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy