Some noteworthy statements from our politicians regarding vaccines;

The Hon. Jill Hennessy MP Minister for Health Minister for Ambulance Services has stated that “there are no risks in vaccinating their children” prior to Victoria mandating compulsory vaccination.

The Hon. NIALL BLAIR (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water, and Minister for Trade and Industry) has stated in Hansard debate 6th April 2017 “vaccination is safe and highly effective in preventing the transmission of disease”.

The Hon. ERNEST WONG has stated in Hansard debate 6th April 2017 “They are a safe public health measure”.

And most recently, a letter from in NSW parliament, 'vaccination is safe and highly effective in preventing disease'.

Their statements have been completely contradicted by current 2017 peer reviewed research which just confirms previous years research.

See the following;

Christopher gill 'The relationship between mucosal immunity, nasopharyngeal carriage, asymptomatic transmission and the resurgence of Bordetella pertussis'.

“Fundamental aspects of pertussis epidemiology and immunology were left unexplained following the introduction of wP vaccines in the 1950s... The fact that we did not know then, and still do not know now, how wP vaccines did this was inconvenient and has remained problematic in the aP vaccine era...Had carriage studies been conducted in parallel with wP introductions, then this might have provided supportive evidence that infections were being blocked. But carriage studies were not done. Rather, it was assumed that because wP vaccines appeared to confer herd immunity, they therefore blocked carriage...But, while logical, that assumption appears to have been incorrect."

Not so highly effective in preventing the transmission of disease.

Also check out;

'Subcutaneous injections of aluminium at vaccine adjuvant levels activate immune genes in mouse brain that are homologous with biomarkers of autism"

This study found that repeated doses of Al hydroxide (in vaccines) may be insidiously unsafe especially in closely-spaced immune challenges presented to an infant..."

Not so safe after all.

Hey Freedomofchoice, how would you feel about somebody hitting a child with a car and crippling them?

Because that's what polio does to kids: it cripples them (if it doesn't kill them). And that, apparently, is what you would like to see inflicted on children by denying them the protection of vaccines.

You're a very sick individual. Please, for the love of god, get some professional help for your unhealthy sadistic impulses.

Are vaccines safe? For most but not for all.

As I am not a medical expert I will not comment on the medical safety or otherwise.

However, neither politicians nor researchers address the spiritual dangers of vaccines.

In case the vaccine contains ingredients from killed animals, then please give me the polio instead. I rather be physically crippled then spiritually crippled.

Toni Lavis - Someone has a thread regarding vaccines his argument is they are not safe and provided supporting claims.

So now do you argue the opposite no all you can come up with is polio at no stage did the author say don't get vaccinated.

Then you viciously attack the person with this totally uncalled for
Quote "You're a very sick individual. Please, for the love of god, get some professional help for your unhealthy sadistic impulses."

Can you please direct me to where in a so called civilized country like Australia this is acceptable behavior.

We do have a degree of freedom of speech in Australia in this instance just so long as it does not oppose your opinion.

//We do have a degree of freedom of speech in Australia//

Which I am exercising. If you don't like it, you're welcome to go and hide in your safe space or something, you sad little hippy.

Does the 'S' in your name stand for 'snowflake'?

No one here, including me, knows anything about vaccines except that they work 99.9% of the time and have saved millions of lives.

All I can say is that the Federal government's 'no vaccine/no benefits' rule is a good idea, and parents not having their kids vaccinated are child abusers and a threat to kids who have been vaccinated.

'No one here, including me, knows anything about vaccines except that they work 99.9% of the time and have saved millions of lives.'

don't be to quick to assume that ttbn. I know personally of at least 2 cases of people being severley disabled after receiving vaccinations. Could be just coincedence although seeing the totally dishonesty of 'scientist' with the gw religion does raise make me suspicious.

runner,

We can't reach conclusions on two cases nor on Larry Pickering's claim that vaccination is to blame for his son's autism or whatever it is he has; nor can we rely on scientists, who are human beings are are just as good or rotten as anyone else, as shown by your reference to the AGW fraud they have perpetrated on us. The problem is, many people have now given scientists the status of gods. Some of us are going backwards to the ancients and the many gods they had: the god of this, the god of that. The one God is out of date, only ever invoked when people want someone to blame for their own stupidity or shortcomings.

So, none of us really knows. All I do is think about the huge majority of kids who have not suffered from vaccination and who might have otherwise died of what seems to be an increasing number of thinning-out diseases

Even if a disease like polio might through vaccination be unusual in Australia, parents need to remember that when their unvaccinated children grow up they will probably be travelling to part of the world where the diseases are common.

Where parents are not seeing the disease around them they may consider that any slight risk of vaccination outweighs the benefit. You see the perfect infant in your arms and would do everything to protect it. That is when emotion cannot be allowed to rule and we should seek the informed professional opinion of the government health authority and doctors.

If anyone wants to know what horrendous damage results from anti-vax misinformation and scaremongering (that affects vulnerable parents), there is the example of thousands of Indian girls who because of a scare (misinterpretation run with by the media, 'false news') will never receive the protection of the Australian wonder vaccine against the scourge of the lethal papillomavirus that world-wide kills a quarter of a million people a year. It is the 9th common cause of infective disease death. It could have been practically wiped out in India, now generations of women will suffer.

leoj,

Not sure that there is much "informed professional opinion" to be had from health authorities and doctors these days. The general dumbing down has seeped into all levels. While I am pro- vaccination - more from the angle that anti- vaccinators have no right to put other people's kids at risk - I fully understand the mistrust of bureaucrats and 'experts'.

Human instinct for self-preservation is the prime factor in warding off diseases but, given the increase in deadly diseases, I can't help but ponder if nature is trying to do a bit of culling, which comes from burgeoning populations that can't look after themselves, nor live together peacefully together.

ttbn,

I don't believe that the parents who refuse vaccination for the children are always fools. Parents, especially mothers are protective of their infants and are very vulnerable. As a father I am very protective of my children, even though they are not minors. A mother's protection goes beyond that and I daresay that only mothers can understand the uniqueness of that caring.

Mothers especially need to be reassured of the enormous research and trials that vaccinations (and drugs) must go through. So onerous and the time lag is so long that it is only because government prevails on the good citizenship of the laboratories and helps with some sponsorship, that the work continues.

They should know too that a risk of 1:1000 presents a certainty of infection for (say) measles and even where the likelihood of some awful consequence could be lower, the consequence itself may be catastrophic for the child.

Mothers, parents, get the vaccinations up to date for yourselves and your infants.

To see how important some States consider vaccination/immunization see:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/national-immunization-day-president-pranab-mukherjee-launches-pulse-polio-programme-2017/articleshow/56837169.cms

I would not have dreamt of not vaccinating my children.
Of course vaccines, like other medicines can
have side effects. However, vaccines provide
benefits that greatly outweigh their risks and
the great majority of side effects that follow
vaccination are minor and short-lived.

The following link explains:

http://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets/science-immunisation/4-are-vaccines-safe

If there is any doubt consider smallpox, gone, wiped out !
Consider polio, gone from all countries that are not moslem.
The imans consider polio vaccine to be a western plot.

Toni,
Polio vaccines were the worst, turned like 10's of thousands of kids into tards...
http://humansarefree.com/2016/05/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused.html
Check this out, sketchy site but who knows?
http://www.naturalnews.com/047571_vaccines_sterilization_genocide.html

Hey, lets make it really easy;
Why don't you just google 'Fluvax causes death'

- That is of course as long as vaccine companies don't consider 'death' to be a serious side effect?
No?

I swear this whole thing that vaccines are safe is about as dumb as telling kids that Santa exists when they already know full well its a lie.

What fascinates me the most about this non-debate regarding vaccines, is that it is fast becoming a domain of the Right, despite the fact that it has traditionally been a far-Left position.

I attribute some of this to the fact that Donald Trump is somewhat anti-vax, the rest I suppose could be attributed to the fact that the Right is generally anti-intellectual and somewhat anti-science (climate change, evolution, and the social sciences being a case in point). It should, therefore, come as no surprise that runner is a bit of an anti-vaxxer.

Similarly, although ttbn accepts that the science behind vaccines is sound, there is what appears to be an attempt to at least meet his anti-science compadres half way by claiming that no-one here knows about the science of vaccines.

Sorry, ttbn, I may not be an immunologist but - far from it, in fact - but my knowledge of vaccines still extends well beyond the fact that they are 99.9% safe and effective. I have anti-vaxxers to thank for that.

--

Armchair Critic,

Natural News is a fake news website. Anyone who links to them immediately loses all credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites

Yes, right as always AC.

Diseases don't kill people, people kill people.

Especially doctors. Sociopathic maniacs, every man jack of 'em. That Shipman fella was just the tip of the iceberg. And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids...

Is Mise,

Thank you for that link.

My comment related to the papillomavirus vaccine. I sure hope the Indian authorities can turn public opinion around.

Hey Toni,

"Natural News is a fake news website. Anyone who links to them immediately loses all credibility."

What a well trained 'useless idiot' you are, no offense mate.
People try to act all smart and intelligent and knowledgeable...
In the time you wasted having an opinion, and advertising it to everyone like you thought you were smart, you could've just googled it yourself.

Hello? Washington Post
Good enough for ya?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/11/14/the-tense-standoff-between-catholic-bishops-and-the-kenyan-government-over-tetanus-vaccines/?utm_term=.434906543b2b

Yeah sure 'Natural News' is considered to be fake news, and I did post the link without first checking the story; but if you're smart - like you proclaim to be, why not just google 'the story' and try to see if there's any truth to it before you go off rambling, trying to score cheap shots?

You lost your own credibility opening your piehole without checking things out first. Yes?
Thinking you knew something.
But you didn't know squat.

So now you're guilty of being the easily lead moron who believes 'narrative' over checking the facts.
You should try to guard against having the wool pulled over your eyes and being taken for a ride Toni, in all things, just some free advice.

I openly said Natural News was considered sketchy, I wasn't misleading anyone.

So 2.3million girls go to get a tetanus shot and they're all sterilised?
- Allegedly - Alledgedly!! -
*Vaccines are still safe everyone - Come get your shots -

I'm not against the science of inoculation I'm against unsafe vaccines told ya a million times.

Ooops - Remove 'Toni' add 'AJ Philips'

- Well I admit it, I sure messed that one right up...

Armchair Critic,

This seems to be the good oil on the tetanus vax,
http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/tetanus.asp

Toni Lavis your reply adds evidence to my thought you are nothing but a troll and do not even warrant replying to anything you say.

You add virtually nothing of substance to a thread just childish personnel attacks on other contributors.

I for one will totally ignore anything you have to say, this is a course of action that if also taken by others will improve the substance of the site.

Thanks for that, leoj.

--

Armchair Critic,

No, the Washington Post is not good enough for me when it comes to science. Where science in concerned, I rely almost entirely on peer-reviewed articles. That should be plain enough to anyone who has read my posts.

<<You lost your own credibility opening your piehole without checking things out first. Yes?>>

No, I didn't.

Good bye, Armchair Critic. I have little time for your utter madness and conspiracy theories. You have absolutely no grasp on reality whatsoever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMmDMH8EUck

//What fascinates me the most about this non-debate regarding vaccines, is that it is fast becoming a domain of the Right, despite the fact that it has traditionally been a far-Left position.//

Yeah, you're right: one of my uncles married an anti-vaxxer. She's a lovely person, but very much of the hippy-dippy new-age mindset. Fond of quackery in all its many different hats, and so anti-vaccination is just an (il)logical extension of her batshit crazy belief in homeopathy and other similar follies.

Whereas there seem to be more anti-vaxxers that herald from the tin-foil hat wearing camp these days, people who may not necessarily doubt the wisdom of conventional medicine when it comes to treating their headache or their hypertension, but have adopted the idea of Big Pharma secretly trying to poison us all through vaccination as one of their conspiratorial beliefs.

//Toni Lavis your reply adds evidence to my thought you... do not even warrant replying to anything you say.//

Ummm... hate to break it you, but you just did.

No thoughts on the topic of vaccination then? Just wanted to shake your tiny fist at me in self-righteous indignation?

Maybe get back to us when you've got an actual point to make.

//I for one will totally ignore anything you have to say//

Yeah, doing a sterling job their champ.

Yes, Toni Lavis, it's becoming known as "crank magnetism":

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Crank_magnetism

According to crank magnetism, it was only matter of time before our climate-change-denying, right-wing friends boarded the anti-vax wagon.

It looks like ttbn is fighting the Dark Side of the force. But I fear his strength will only hold out for so long...

Vaccines work similarly to seatbelts. While there are a few recorded cases where people died because of seatbelts where they would have lived without them, these few cases are outweighed by hundreds of thousands of lives saved. No vaccine is 100% safe, but the chances of living a long life are greatly enhanced by getting vaccinated.

As for the anti-vaxxer movement becoming a policy of the right, I think that that is complete bollocks. While one or two might take it up as an issue of free speech, the vast majority of anti-vaxxers still sit firmly on the left.

Notably, it is the conservatives that are pushing to increase vaccinations by scrapping the "conscientious objection excuse änd giving preschools the right to exclude those not vaccinated.

Shadow Minister,

If you can write off the groundswell of anti-vaccine sentiment on the Right side of politics as “complete bollocks”, then you haven’t been paying much attention.

http://www.businessinsider.com/anti-vaccination-beliefs-dont-follow-typical-liberal-conservative-divide-2017-8?IR=T

Yes, anti-vaccination sentiment is still predominantly a domain of the Left, but to brush off any anti-vaccination sentiment on the Right as just a few concerned over freedom of speech issues is dishonest.

I’d further point out that the most public faces in opposition to the anti-vax movement are far from right-wing (e.g. Michael Shermer, Steve Novella). Follow any pro-vaccination page on Facebook, too, and you will see that these are pages overwhelmingly Left:

http://www.facebook.com/AustralianSkepticsInc
http://www.facebook.com/theskepticsguide
http://www.facebook.com/groups/SkepticsAustralia
http://www.facebook.com/RtAVM
http://www.facebook.com/welovegv
http://www.facebook.com/skepticalob
http://www.facebook.com/scibabe

Maybe just maybe the anti vaxers have come from parents of children whose kids have been severley affected. Well I suppose if you are happy to mutilate the unborn babies whats it matter if a few thousand kids end up disabled or vegetables.

AJP, you chastise someone about how you only use peer reviewed articles
and then send links to a stack of facebook links and Business Insider.
Hmmm

runner,

No, there are far too many anti-vaxxers for them to be witnesses to the excruciatingly rare cases of actual vaccine injury. I know a few anti-vaxxers myself, and none of them have seen, first-hand, a vaccination gone wrong. You’ll find that virtually every alleged case of vaccine injury is nothing more than a fallacious Post Hoc assumption.

--

Bazz,

I didn't say "only", and the Facebook links weren't meant for evidence of anything other than the political persuasion of the most vocal pro-vaccination groups. I'm sorry I couldn't find a peer-reviewed article on that.

<<you chastise someone about how you only use peer reviewed articles and then send links to a stack of facebook links and Business Insider.>>

If it makes you feel any better, I checked Google Scholar for more scholarly writings on the growing anti-vaccination sentiment among the Right. Granted, though, I didn't look very hard. So, here's a what I had a quick look through:

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=conservative+anti-vaccination

Perhaps you can find something?

//As for the anti-vaxxer movement becoming a policy of the right, I think that that is complete bollocks. While one or two might take it up as an issue of free speech, the vast majority of anti-vaxxers still sit firmly on the left.//

I find that quite heartening. Nobody wants to claim responsibility for these mongrels - the left blame the right and right blame the left, and in the process a bipartisan position in favour of vaccination appears, almost as if by magic.

But I worry for the future: I fear many of the Tories in favour of vaccination are in favour because they have direct, first-hand experience of the alternative. As the older generations die off, and we lose that wisdom.... what awaits to fill the gap?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1RTgznup5c

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."

//Hey, I am Olivia Williams from the UK and She is working as assignment writer at Assignment Help.//

Jesus, I should be more careful about what I say in future. I didn't think praising Cthulhu would actually summon up dark forces...

AJ,

When you say the anti-vax movement is becoming a domain of the, then you are saying that that the right is beginning to dominate that movement. If as you say this movement is "still predominantly a domain of the Left" this is a logical impossibility.

I have no doubt that there are some conspiracy nuts amongst the right, but the movement is dominated by left whinge fruitcakes that believe in natural remedies, organic food and world peace through group hugs.

Good point, Shadow Minister.

<<When you say the anti-vax movement is becoming a domain of the, then you are saying that that the right is beginning to dominate that movement.>>

I should have added the words, "as well".

The anti-vax movement is no longer, exclusively, a blight on left-wingism. Donald Trump, Armchair Critic, runner, and (from a personal perspective) a few of my far-Left cousins on OLO (who have been rapidly warming to right-wing fake news sites ever since Trump's professed anti-vax stance) are a testament to that.

Even ttbn's claim that no-one here really KNOWS, was reminiscent of the pointless agnostic position in debates surrounding the existence of gods.

Of course, I meant my cousins on Facebook, not OLO. Sorry, that must have been confusing.

Hey leoj,
I wouldn't use fact checkers to check those kinds of facts...
Those fact checkers aren't reliable, they're just as likely to give you a establishment 'narrative' rather than present facts in an unbiased manner.
'Move along, nothing to see here', unless it's something about Trump and Russia, in which case is probably true fact...
- A load of garbage, in my opinion.

AJ Philips,
"No, the Washington Post is not good enough for me when it comes to science. Where science in concerned, I rely almost entirely on peer-reviewed articles. That should be plain enough to anyone who has read my posts."
That's good, I like facts rather than conjecture, but half of those fools will write whatever they are told, for funding and tenure.
You did take note that when I replied I mistakenly thought I was responding to Toni, you did get that didn't you?
I don't think a real lot of the Washington Post myself, they are owned by Bezos and paid off by the CIA but it's considered much more acceptable by most than 'Natural News'.

<<You lost your own credibility opening your piehole without checking things out first. Yes?>>

"No, I didn't."

Yeah, you did.
You tried to score a cheap shot based on 'narrative' of 'natural news' being 'fake news' and the story turned out to be covered in mainstream media.
It was egg on your face, but we can agree to disagree if you're too egotistical to admit fact.

- And really there's no need to piss and moan and act like a girl, and post a video of Alex Jones's fake crying?
What are you trying to prove? You've probably never watched a full episode of his show so what does your opinion amount to exactly?
Do you think that means anything to me other than make me think you're acting like a little child?
- Sorry you took my comment offensively.

Oh and btw everyone, heres another potentially sketchy site, not sure of the facts.
(But I'm still allowed to post it right?)

139 Deaths from Gardasil Vaccines.
http://www.trueactivist.com/its-official-139-girls-have-died-from-hpv-vaccinations/

Are vaccines safe?

It's like a Jedi mind trick.

"No, you did not read that someone's child took our vaccine and become a drooling mental retard requiring lifelong care or that tens of millions have been paid out by vaccine courts for side-effects"

You people are like Shultz of Hogan's Heroes:
"I know nothing"
Or maybe that lady with the jumper over her head:
"What charter boat?"

Foolish ignorant morons...
If I told you all to jump of a cliff would you do it?
Probably not, but only in an attempt to try to prove you're not as dumb as you actually are...

The 'agnostic position in debates surrounding the existence of gods' isn't necessarily pointless, there's pro's and con's in everything.

A religious person may sum up the good and bad things that happen in life as 'Gods will'.
A non religious person might have a similar but different kind of philosophy, 'Everything happens for a reason'.

'Act of God' v's 'Accident' / 'Act of human nature'
Non-religious people may sometimes see things from more of a well-grounded or 'attributed to people' cause of the worlds problems rather than looking to spirituality for understanding.
'Crap doesn't just happen; it's caused by arseholes'
Remember those T-shirts?
And a religious person may more readily accept a life of mediocrity or servitude; turn the other cheek and think that heaven awaits them in the afterlife;
Whereas an athiest believe this is the only one chance to exist they will ever get and that they should live each and every minute to the fullest.

'Agnostic' is the fence-sitter.
The one who see's the pro's and cons in both arguments.
They believe in evidence not faith and require such, but won't discount the possibility that God exists either.

Theres always different ways of looking at things...
Jesus supposedly spoke in parables didn't he?
- Stories that mean something other than what they mean, right.
Well what if heaven and hell wasn't about the afterlife but a guide for this life?
You can live your life in 'heaven' or live it in 'hell'?
Why do they say the one sin that cannot be forgiven is to blaspheme against the holy spirit?
What is the Holy Spirit?
- Is it maybe your 'conscience'?
So the real lesson not do anything that goes against your conscience?
- Lest you live your life in hell ?

Probably not; Probably crazy talk
But there's always other ways of looking at things

I never really got this 'Asking God for forgiveness' stuff.
If I do wrong by someone, don't I need to (firstly understand what I did wrong, if I did in fact do something wrong) and then seek THEIR forgiveness?
To be set free from the guilt I may feel for doing THEM wrong or causing THEM harm?
How can God forgive someone if the person they harmed does not?

We can argue the vaccine debate back and forth all day long but the basic facts are this:

There's evidence vaccines aren't safe and that some kids do have significant side effects, and some seem to be worse than others.
Governments know this, but they also believe the benefits of vaccines wholly outweigh the risks.

They know that forcing you to vaccinate is like the doctor taking a .44 magnum from his drawer instead of a syringe, placing a bullet in the chamber and spinning the cylinder, but they play down the risks 'in the interest of the greater good'.

It's essentially propaganda, or an advertising campaign, where if anyone does not 'believe' as they are 'told to believe' then they are a heretic; and a genuine danger to others.
This creates a pretext for outlawing free speech where some views shouldn't be allowed lest they may harm the other dumbed-down snowflakes.

Anti-vaxxers (or at least some of them) do have a fair argument.
And the establishment will always try to highlight the crazy voices to discredit that rational argument:

- They aren't 100% safe or effective in the way they're claimed to be, and if there is a chance or risk or side effects to your child, then you as a parent should be advised of these risks and it's you that should make the decision in regards to your child.
It's called 'informed consent'.

The governments ACTUAL position is that you have no rights over your child, and that you're a criminal if you're poor and don't pick up that .44 magnum and put it to your kids head yourself in the interests of 'the greater good'.
They'll take their benefits away, and move to try and take the kids as well, claiming unfit parents.

They wouldn't 'believe' in the way we 'told them to believe'.

It's only the poor that have to be vaccinated by threatening to take their money, the rich aren't forced to vaccinate they are not financially forced to, and for all we know doctors themselves may not vaccinate their kids.

well summarised Armchair.

Well I guess this proves that opinions on this Forum
are like a**holes.
Every one has one.

Armchair Critic,

Clearly you don't know what an agnostic is. I explained it at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19170#340713.

You're welcome.

//They aren't 100% safe or effective in the way they're claimed to be...//

By who?

//and if there is a chance or risk or side effects to your child, then you as a parent should be advised of these risks//

They are.

//and it's you that should make the decision in regards to your child.//

They do.

//They'll take their benefits away and move to try and take the kids as well, claiming unfit parents.//

[citation needed]

You may quite possibly have the worst grasp of probability theory I have ever seen, Armchair. Whatever you do, don't take up punting: you'll lose the lot.

Armchair Critic,

I apologise for being so dismissive of you in my last two posts, but I try not to waste too much time on conspiracy theorists, I find it about as productive and as satisfying as arguing with flat-earthers (you haven’t gotten into that recent fad, too, have you?). After all, any evidence that contradicts your beliefs will simply be written off as data concocted by the powers that be to have us believing what they want us to believe. It’s a bulletproof position you hold there, and one that is impervious to reason or evidence.

Anyway, it comes as no surprise to me that you have a communist-fearing perspective on what agnosticism is. Some attempt to portray agnosticism as some sort of a middle ground when it comes to religion. This isn’t the case, however. You right-wing atheists don’t seem to be comfortable completely contradicting the religious with whom you are more-often-than-not politically aligned with, so you invent this new category of belief and call it “agnosticism”.

Theists love it, too. It makes them feel like there’s this group of people out there who are at least willing to meet them halfway. Just look at how runner rushed to embrace your every word. Years ago, I remember Graham Young (himself a theist) once implied that agnosticism was the the most reasonable category because they didn’t claim to know one way or another (apparently not realising that neither do theists or atheists, necessarily):

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1851&page=0#36938

Anyway, I hope you understand what gnosticism and agnosticism are now, and why they are pointless positions (I mean, who cares what one thinks we can know?).

“The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory, is that conspiracy theorists believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is actually chaotic. The truth is that it is not the Illuminati, or the Jewish Banking Conspiracy, or the Gray Alien Theory. The truth is far more frightening - nobody is in control. The world is rudderless.” - Alan Moore

I don't know what science can do to improve communication and understanding. But I guess a lot comes down to the fault of scientists for not being sufficiently media savvy.

This is short and worth the few minutes it takes to can it,

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/parents/infographics/journey-of-child-vaccine.html

Hoping that posters might pass it on.

Should be, "This is short and worth the few minutes it takes to SCAN it"

No, it wasn't a Freudian slip just my usual poor typing. Big hands and a little keyboard. LOL

Hey AJ Philips,
Admittedly I didn't know the precise definition of agnostic, or had forgotten over time.
I knew atheists did not believe in God and Agnostic were 'fence sitters' but I'd kind of forgotten the technical aspects of gnostic/agnostic.
Your linked comment and images; the first was helpful but I couldn't understand 'law of excluded middle'.
The first image was easy to understand, but since I like to question and challenge things, firstly I'd ask is there a point to the word 'gnostic'?
- How can anyone be 100% certain one way or the other?
For me; and maybe it's just me that doesn't get it, but I cannot comprehend how others claim to know that God exists 100% for sure.
- Especially when they then argue it's a matter of faith.
Is faith evidence?
Without real evidence believing in 'God' could be a matter of 'mental health' as much as a matter of 'faith'
Could it not?
So lets say I move to the 'agnostic' side because I don't think its possible to be 100% certain.
It's not that I'm moving to one side of the aisle or the other, I simply can't comprehend how the other side is even possible.
It seems illogical but I go on the agnostic side anyway.
Next the chart is trying to place me into one or two smaller categories.
'Agnostic Theist' or 'Agnostic Athiest'
Why do I have to be one or the other?
If I 'don't claim to know with 100% certainty then why would I sway one way or the other.
Why must I be categorised as 'believeing or not believing' if my primary belief is that 'I don't know one way or the other'?

[Cont.]
- I don't know one way or the other is my primary logical belief, so it's not right to even try to place me into one of the further subcategories.
And trying to categorise me as gnostic or agnostic is kind of stupid to since realistically (to me) if someone claims to know for sure its just as possible they're in need of mental health checkup.

The more I look at that chart, I feel like it's just stupid and tries to put people into categories and pit them against each other.

I don't know 100% for sure.
I don't want to fight and argue about it, or be defined or categorised for thinking rationally.

The second image, I couldn't understand exactly what it alluded to sorry.

Toni,
I hate it when you do this, act demanding and think I'll jump throught your hoops and perform like a circus animal.
I'll perform allright, only with more self respect and by suggesting things that you can go and do to yourself...
I understand this is a may be a topic you feel strongly about because of your child and it obviously challenges your beliefs, don't see why I have to always justify your constant petty whining.

Look at the news links and stop badgering me with your nitpicking crap.
Read the bloody news.

http://duckduckgo.com/?q=fluvax+death&t=hb&atb=v81-6_b&ia=web

10 deaths linked to anti-flu vaccines - The Australian
Fluvax given to children under-five despite ban - Herald Sun
Queensland health officials withheld flu death details - The Australian

You can read can't you?
Do you really want to still argue this crap or does this not answer your stupid questions already?

Armchair Critic,

Just be aware though that the media do go off half-cocked. Please don't be encouraged towards any cynicism or disbelief where the prestigious medical research institutions in the Western democracies are concerned though. Know too that there is a comprehensive array of checks and balances, reinforced with legal teeth.

Current and from a reliable source,

"Rare side effects of the flu vaccine

There is a very small risk of a serious allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) to any vaccine. This is why you are advised to stay at the clinic or medical surgery for at least 15 minutes following vaccination in case further treatment is required. Apart from anaphylaxis, other extremely rare side effects include febrile convulsions in children.

In 2010, one brand of influenza vaccine caused an increase in fever and febrile convulsions in very young children under five years of age. This brand is no longer registered for use in young children. Your doctor will discuss with you the best influenza vaccine brand for your child.

A small increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome was seen in the US in 1976, but since that time, surveillance has shown that it is limited to one case for every million doses of flu vaccine, if at all.

If any other reactions are severe and persistent, or if you are worried, contact your doctor for further information."
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/healthyliving/flu-influenza-immunisation

//10 deaths linked to anti-flu vaccines//

"Based on actuarial data from Australia and overseas observations, it is believed that there are some 1,500-3,500 influenza-related deaths annually in Australia."

So that's 1,500-3,500 compared to your whopping ten. I know which odds I'd back.

You can count can't you?

Sorry, forgot the link I sourced my quote from. Very poor form.

http://www.isg.org.au/index.php/about-influenza/impact-of-influenza/

//does this not answer your stupid questions already?//

No, you haven't addressed any of my points.

I asked you to identify who was responsible for claiming that vaccines are 100% (because it isn't me, and it certainly isn't medical professionals, public health authorities, or vaccine manufacturers).

You haven't. You've gone quite about it for now, but at some point in the future you'll be back repeating the same claim - without ever identifying who these people might be.

I pointed out that parents are well informed of the possible side effects of vaccines by their GP's, and that the requirement for parents to give informed consent before ANY medical procedure can be performed on their children is enshrined in Australian law and medical ethics.

You have failed to acknowledge this. Again, you've gone quite about it for now... but in due course you'll be back to repeat your already refuted claims.

And I asked you to provide evidence for your claim that parents who refuse to give consent for vaccination are denied centrelink benefits or referred to child protective services, as that claim is a bold-faced lie.

Once again, unsurprisingly, you failed to provide any evidence for your claim, and once again you have fallen silent on the subject, biding your time for the day that you think I will have forgotten that you've previously made this claim then failed to back it up.

Toni,
"So that's 1,500-3,500 compared to your whopping ten. I know which odds I'd back."

Well tough luck if your kids one of those 10 hey.
This topic asks 'Are vaccines safe?'

I think the parents of those 10 might rightly argue they aren't.

The majority wins the numbers game. Where do non vaxers get their frigidity about vacination, self diagnoses or misdiagnoses or religion.
Where would we be with out vaccines, relying on god to fix the pox, polio, measels, whooping cough. Your minority stance is killing multitudes that do not have a choice.

//tough luck if your kids one of those 10//

But also if they're one of the 1,500-3,500. If your child dies, it is 'tough luck' irrespective of the cause of death.

Sadly, life isn't fair and people do suffer misfortune.

But if you can take simple steps to minimise the risk of misfortune, like having your children vaccinated, then why wouldn't you?

While I'm a supporter of vaccinations for children, it does make me wonder why the parents of vaccinated kids are so worried about those who are not. After all, is that not what the vaccinations are for?

//it does make me wonder why the parents of vaccinated kids are so worried about those who are not. After all, is that not what the vaccinations are for?//

Herd immunity only works if enough of the herd are immunised. If everybody decides they don't need the vaccine because of the herd immunity, a tragedy of the commons occurs and you the herd immunity disappears.

Also, herd immunity only works against communicable diseases. Not all diseases vaccinated against are communicable: you get tetanus from contaminated objects, not people with tetanus.