…Continued

You can’t win with people like this. Nothing will ever be good enough. They continue to shift the goalposts. As soon as it’s proven that GMOs are safe, suddenly it’s a case, “Oh, but we can’t know what the effects are over multiple generations.”

It’s quackery at its finest, and it’s costing lives in parts of the world that don’t care if their food is genetically modified, they just want to eat. Your concerns are First World problems.

<<I shouldn't be considered a crazy person just for wanting to be informed and decide for myself as a consumer.>>

You’re not.

<<If your kid has been vaccinated then they should be immune.>>

Immunisation doesn’t always work, and that’s when a reliance on herd immunity comes into play. Plus, there’s also infants and those children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. They rely on herd immunity.

<<As a consumer or parent, what I want is 'informed consent'.>>

There’s a difference between ‘informed consent’ and ‘ill-informed consent’.

<<...the ultimate decision to choose what I put in mine or my childs body is up to me.>>

Fine. But you don’t have the right to put other children’s lives at risk by compromising herd immunity.

<<Why do you think so many people have peanut allergies these days? Could in not be because they use it as an adjuvant in the vaccines?>>

No, consuming something doesn't give you an allergy to it, as far as I know.

<<It's that I think we are being taken for a ride by some used car salesmen with a financial agenda.>>

So why did you not apply this logic to the fossil fuel industry too?

<<There's reasons to think climate models are wrong.>>

If the first thing you mention with regards to AGW is the models, then you have demonstrated that you have no idea of what it is that you’re talking about. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco) The science behind AGW does not depend on climate models at all.

<<Reasons to think the process of homogenising data is skewing the findings (purposely)…>>

Such as?

AC,

Reading your posts, it is clear why you come up with illogical conclusions.

Anything in life has positives and negatives. To make any decisions you need to logically measure the positives and negatives, and to be careful that the information you use to make the decision is sufficient and from a reputable (non biased) source.

For example, a wide variety of GM foods have been tested in the EU government laboratories, the US FDA laboratories etc, and have not yet found one single health risk. That big business makes a profit is political one not a health one.

The same goes for vaccines. There is no link to autism, many large scale studies have disproved it, and for every person that has an adverse reaction there are hundreds or thousands that are saved from disability or death.

Both you guys have foolishly and inadvertently provided me with points needed to win this argument, only the problem is that I was never trying to win.
(Sorry AJ I don't have time right now to answer all your questions, but maybe later I'll come back to your points)

All I want is safeguards against harm and for people to be informed and have a choice.
In this regard neither of you have got anything to argue with.

AJ Philips - "Immunisation doesn’t always work, and that’s when a reliance on herd immunity comes into play."
Shadow Minister - "There is no link to autism, many large scale studies have disproved it, and for every person that has an adverse reaction there are hundreds or thousands that are saved from disability or death."

We're all told that vaccines are safe and effective.
By your own admissions, you both just admitted they're not.
Neither safe nor effective.

Now if they are neither safe or effective, and we're told they are, then we have to consider that they might just push an unsafe product onto the market for the sake of profits, and there is nothing you can do to help a kid once you've turned them into a vegetable.
The only 'vaccination' that is actually effective here is the one that allows the manufacturers of the vaccines to be immune to prosecution when your kid becomes a tard.

Take Monsanto's Roundup for example.
How many years has it been on the market for and now its being banned everywhere as a known carcinogen?
This is the company you're willing to trust for GMO seeds for food?
You do realise the staff at Monsanto refuse to eat the stuff? (GMO)
What does that tell you?

But NO go ahead, label me and my kind as the stereotypical nutcases if you want.
Buy into the crap they've brainwashed you with and don't think for yourselves.
Don't pay any attention to the fact that my opposition to these things is based on valid logical points and because I care about our well-being.

"We're all told that vaccines are safe and effective.
By your own admissions, you both just admitted they're not.
Neither safe nor effective."

The Nirvana fallacy. In fact what we are told is that vaccines are mostly safe and effective. The diseases they protect us from are not. Two doses of measles provides immunity in more than 98% of cases and serious side effects occur in about 3 in 100,000 children http://www.ncirs.edu.au/consumer-resources/mmr-decision-aid/comparing-risks-measles/ Compare that to getting measles.

"Take Monsanto's Roundup for example.
How many years has it been on the market for and now its being banned everywhere as a known carcinogen?"

It is not a known carcinogen. The IARC declared it a probable carcinogen (they did the same to bacon), but even that declaration is hotly contested by regulatory agencies, most of whom consider it not to be a carcinogen http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302. It is also banned in very few places. Bermuda being the main one.

"You do realise the staff at Monsanto refuse to eat the stuff? (GMO)"

This is an internet myth.

"Don't pay any attention to the fact that my opposition to these things is based on valid logical points and because I care about our well-being."

In fact your opposition to these things is based more on seeking out information that confirms your existing beliefs and ignoring any information that conflicts with them.

//We're all told that vaccines are safe and effective.
By your own admissions, you both just admitted they're not.
Neither safe nor effective.//

They are definitely effective. They significantly reduce the incidence and mortality of the diseases they are designed to combat.

Ever heard of anybody dying of tetanus, diptheria, pertussis, measles, poliomyelitis? No? You should count yourself bloody lucky then. There was a time when a lot of those diseases would have had a very high mortality rate - a time before we learnt to vaccinate against them.

Ever heard of rabies? We don't have it here in Australia, thank God. It's a horrible disease: if you get infected and you don't get the vaccine in time, you're dead. It has the highest mortality rate of any disease known to man; before Louis Pasteur showed up a rabies infection was a death sentence (and an unpleasant one at that). But Pasteur figured out how to save people from rabies. Pretty neat trick. Maybe you'd like to tell us all how he really did it with magical healing crystals, psychic massage and lots of incense?

Ever heard of smallpox? We don't have it anywhere any more, thank God. It's a horrible disease too: not quite the mortality rate of rabies but air-borne, so overall it is far more virulent. People don't get smallpox at all any more, because we eradicated it. And we eradicated it with the awesome power of vaccination.

But if I know you, ArmchairCretin, you'll find some new angle to argue that smallpox eradication was a part of the International Communist-Jewish Conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

AC,

I see that you have clearly joined the fruity tooty brigade that takes whatever the anti vax nuts post on blogs as the gospel truth.

Here are some facts:

Roundup (glyphosate) is not a proven carcinogen. In fact there is been no link between those using the weed killer and cancer, and being non persistent is not in the food one eats. Because of the way it acts it is regarded as a possible or even probable cause, but way less risky than alcohol.

There is no link between vaccines and autism as many large scale studies have shown.

All vaccines while not 100% safe are all many many times safer than not using the vaccine. Similarly while no vaccine is 100% effective, it is nearly impossible for a disease to spread amongst a vaccinated population.

Nothing is 100% safe. People get killed by car seat belts, but because vastly many more are saved, they are now compulsory.

You care less about "our well being" than the nutty anti vax propaganda.