As the editor of a scientific website, I check the scientific opinion on the issues that are on the agenda. The issue of vaccinations is not controversial among those who practice medicine
This article was offered to XNET as a response article to a column urging people to think twice about getting vaccinated.
Today it was published on XNET And the YNET home page featured an article that read no less than the murder of babies by their parents. In the article, entitled "Parents, don't vaccinate with your eyes closed", Or Alterman writes about the dangers, benefits, deadly consequences and the level of effectiveness of vaccines. But apparently she does not correctly appreciate the benefits, which I will also refer to later, and only looks at the failures, which, with all the sadness in the matter, are of negligible significance compared to the hundreds of thousands of human lives that are saved each year thanks to vaccines.
In the article, Alterman compares the vaccines to a kind of delivery of the children to medical experiments. She suggests visiting the doctors, reading on the Internet, listening to lectures, consulting with professionals who have studied the field (pay attention to "studied the field", it is not clear from whom they learned, and often it is not their profession either). and read books. And to make it clear that there is some kind of conspiracy (whose, the pharmaceutical companies?) she implies that you need to understand the interests of each approach in order to make a more considered and responsible decision.
And the height of "objectivity" in the article was the following sentence: "Even if you decide to vaccinate your child according to the instructions of the Ministry of Health, read and understand what the hell is being put into his body."
As someone who has been writing for many years about popular science, and in particular about the seam between science and society, I am aware that there are areas that attract fire, and that there are factors that simply refuse to accept the scientific approach, even though it has doubled our life expectancy (and vaccines have a significant part in this, as well as antibiotics, hygiene and more ), and seek to balance it with all kinds of hallucinations. Everyone and their hallucinations. There are those who are harmless, who claim that the governments of the world maintain contact with aliens and they hide it to prevent global panic, and there are actually those who promote a global problem that has no basis in reality (for example: the end of the world on December 21, 2012).
There are those who believe, despite the evidence, that the earth is not warming, and that this is a liberal conspiracy against capitalism, and of course the science that suffers the most from harassment is biology, whose basis - the theory of evolution - is denied with huge budgetary aid.
And if we talk about vaccinations, it turns out that there is a global phenomenon of people, that although the science is unequivocal - the failure to vaccinate causes the certain death of thousands of children in epidemics for which a vaccine has already been found, such as polio, measles, rubella, whooping cough. These people nevertheless choose not to vaccinate their children . In an article published on the Australian television program 60 Minutes, she was interviewed Vera Schiebner, retired geologist, who decided to use her knowledge of reading scientific articles to interpret herself, regardless of the researchers' conclusion - hundreds of scientific articles. This is an "expert" they want to bring to Israel to testify in a famous criminal trial, who said in an interview to the Australian Channel 9 reporter that "vaccination is bad, diseases are good". The director of a children's hospital who was interviewed for the same article responded and said - we do not vaccinate against trivial diseases but specifically against deadly diseases. In other words, these are not diseases of mild discomfort such as chicken pox, but a real danger of death for those who are not vaccinated.
The question is whether the risk of vaccination is so great that it is better to die from the epidemic. Everything that is put into the body such as medicine, vaccine and even food has side effects. It's not for nothing that we read a warning about snacks that contain nuts and peanuts because it can cause sensitive people to die, as does gluten. Also mercury - a dangerous metal by all accounts - is found in a larger quantity in a can of tuna, something that we and our children eat almost on a daily basis, certainly it cannot be compared to a vaccine that is given once in a lifetime. A little proportion wouldn't hurt. Crossing at a crosswalk is much more dangerous.
So it is true that the first children who are not vaccinated, still benefit from the herd vaccination - that is, from the fact that viruses are more difficult to infect when most children are vaccinated, and for this you are invited to read the fascinating article by Lotem Eliyahu, "Is it possible to hide in a herd?". There is also a reference to the subject in the Australian video. In the state of New South Wales, it turns out, about a third of the children are not vaccinated, and babies who cannot yet be vaccinated and who previously benefited from the herd vaccination died within a few days of being infected.
Sometimes even unlikely articles manage to enter the scientific literature, except in the case of Wakefield's article that linked vaccines to autism. In retrospect, it turned out that he conducted careless research and wrote his conclusions after receiving money from parents who wanted to sue the state (UK) Due to the fact that their children have autism.
Stopping vaccinations has an immediate impact on public health. Therefore, it is impossible to follow the journalistic rule of "let's give both sides the right to express themselves and let the public decide what they want". This is a matter of life and death, and those who call on parents to be negligent and kill their children, do not have the right to speak here, certainly not on the common website in the country that provided a link from the home page to the scandalous article.
Therefore, it is clear that not everything that is written on the Internet, even if it is on the website of an association with a 'scientific' appearance, is reliable. There is nothing scientific in the arguments against vaccines, and this has been proven, from all the materials I have read and from all the interviews I have conducted with the experts in the field.
At the end of her article, Alterman refers to three websites, a safe website - an association that has set itself the goal of convincing parents not to vaccinate their children, and which everyone who understands science and reads the website is shocked, and she also refers to a website for natural medicine and the name of balance, or rather to know what the hell is being put into the vaccine (as she says ), it refers to an explanation page about vaccines on the website of the Ministry of Health. Equal powers indeed.
The concluding words were written so well by Lotem Eliyahu and I completely identify with them: "Parents want to be fully informed about the medical decisions they make for their children, and their full right is reserved with them. In this case we do the public a disservice when we let the public discourse be dominated by the risks of vaccines versus other important issues, such as the risks of not being vaccinated. Studies like this are necessary and welcome and provide important insights to people who want to make informed decisions."
"History tends to repeat itself, but do we really want to reach a situation where all those terrible childhood diseases will once again run rampant in the population? Do we really have to wait for children to start dying?"
To the page in the picture on the wikiwiki website
103 תגובות
Golan
Avi Blizovsky is right - the person who wrote the article that Avi refers to, indeed calls for infanticide
And not just babies. I have a friend who has a kidney transplant. An unvaccinated person can easily cause his death.
Maybe it's really worth putting certain parents in prison for murder so that others will understand how serious this matter is. They use herd immunity to protect their children, so why wouldn't I want to use deterrence to protect my boyfriend?
Golan
Statistica is an accurate dessert. I half agree if what you say about the word "murder":
Anyone who opposes vaccines is either evil or stupid. The wicked are killers for everything. They know they will hurt people, av prefer their personal benefit to the lives of others.
He who is not evil, is a fool, because he did not check the facts.
The facts are:
1. Vaccines doubled human life expectancy,
2. The danger of vaccination is orders of magnitude lower than the danger of the disease.
3. Doctors know much more than parents who are not doctors.
4. There is a lot of garbage on the Internet.
Alas, how are you not ashamed to write such extreme inflammatory words.
Is a parent who refuses to vaccinate his son a murderer? You don't even know the criminal terms you use? You are really ignorant and with the country. Murder requires proof of intent to cause death to another person. You really are an idiot Mr. Scientific Editor. And since when is medicine an exact science? Medicine is based on statistics, nothing in medicine is exact. How are you not ashamed as a scientific editor to try to silence opinions different from those of the consensus? You shame the name of this website that calls itself "Hidan"
Avi Cohen
There is no scientific debate about the causes of warming - there are politicians who lie.
In terms of nature - we should actually be in the process of cooling down.
Avi Cohen. The figure of 400 parts per million CO2 did not last for millions of years, the doubling within 200 years from 200 to 400 is too fast for the plants (whose cover is also decreasing due to deforestation) to handle, due to human activity a spiral of out of balance has been created that will take a long time to stop him.
1- In relation to vaccines - the vaccines, due to their partial statistical effectiveness, can be used to prevent the outbreak of diseases in the community, a large part of the vaccines are not intended to sufficiently protect a single person, but when they are given to a large population, they prevent the outbreak of epidemics, those who do not vaccinate their children do not put their children at risk or Not just his children, but all the children in the community.
Therefore, receiving vaccinations should be enshrined in law and not subject to the discretion of the citizen.
However, the authorities do not make this point clear enough and the government avoids confrontations with pressure groups such as the ultra-orthodox, etc. and avoids enacting laws that would oblige the people to get vaccinated.
2. - Regarding global warming "there are those who believe, despite the evidence, that the earth is not warming, and that it is a liberal conspiracy against capitalism"... there is an inaccuracy in what is written here - because the differences of opinion are not whether the earth is warming or not, nor whether it is a product of the greenhouse effect, the debate is a scientific debate and has not yet been finally decided in a scientific way (it was only decided in a political way) the debate is only about what causes the greenhouse effect and warming - is it a cycle that exists in nature or is it due to one or another human activity, and there is quite convincing evidence There are cycles in nature and it is not certain how much man affects it or not.
Protect and not risk
Your overconfidence in your knowledge is excessive. Where does the chatter about the causes of autism come from?
You wrote all the right things...but you killed me with laughter in the section about the Utzim.... I've been kicked in the testicles enough to know it doesn't affect the chances of autism....
First of all, I'll start by saying that I'm in favor of vaccines!!!!!!!!!
I am not here to criticize the opponents or to convince them, but parents who do not vaccinate their children expose them to diseases directly and decisively, and take full responsibility for the irreversible damage that may occur.
For Dodge, why vaccinate?
So hepatitis A is a disease that infects blood, sex, alcohol and more... Why do I, as a parent who is very concerned about my children, have to take on such responsibility for the present and the near future of my child in that one day my unvaccinated child will have sex with someone who has the disease and will infect him (you know)
All the opponents have a good heart" that hepatitis A is an irreversible disease that causes the liver to break down completely and quickly and lead to direct death) of course there is some experimental treatment that works in 50% of cases.
But why imitate and reach such situations and this is one small dodge for thousands of other cases and dodges that exist.
And why do the vaccinated children, even though they are vaccinated, have to be in direct contact with children who are not vaccinated and God knows what diseases they have, why hahaha?????? Why do my children have to come into daily contact with unvaccinated children in kindergarten, in the garden, on the street, in the shopping mall, at school, at the health fund?
So what kind of substances are in these vaccines, it's also pig shit as far as I'm concerned, the main thing is that I know that my children are vaccinated and their morbidity rate drops to almost zero, and I did everything to protect them from one disease or another, and I'm not included among the parents who oppose vaccines and can lead to an epidemic of diseases because of the bullshit Theirs, and besides, diabetes is a XNUMX percent hereditary disease and has nothing to do with vaccines. By the way, I have academic medical knowledge and for sure that autism is not caused by vaccines. Well, really, what bullshit, how could autism and cancer be linked to vaccines at all.
Now I will explain and detail, first of all cancer comes from all the development and modernization: apples that are injected with all kinds of substances to make them more beautiful for export, preservatives in food and the like.... Once again for all the hippies who think that cows should be the most expensive and the best, then you are really wrong because the best fruit to eat and healthy is the fruit that you will see a worm on, yes yes a worm because that means they didn't spray anything on it!!!!
And to all the vegans or vegetarians hahahahaha it even makes me laugh at your nonsense, because meat is health, but it is already a choice of each and every person what to do with their body and what damage to cause it.
And autism in most cases stems from parents whose father was hit in the testicles or drinking alcohol and the consumption of soft drugs that spread like an epidemic among teenagers in Israel or smoking cigarettes and eating food that is injected with all kinds of substances common to diseases such as autism that develops in children or cancer in older people.
But to come and associate these diseases with vaccines has no logic and no scientifically reliable information.
With the Ministry of Health and professors and it's even enough that doctors say to vaccinate and it's important so you should do it and not mess with the substances they apply!!!!!
Dear Friends
I was happy to eagerly read the opinions, claims and proofs,
I decided to write a comment only because I lack the natural medicine side of the matter here.
I will start by saying for the sake of full disclosure that I refrain from vaccinating my children due to a great deal of material that I read
On the subject since the birth of my little house.
First, I will start with a fact - the percentage of doctors and nurses who get vaccinated in Israel in hospitals is 18%
in the best case scenario.
Referring to flu vaccines, have we asked ourselves why a population that is directly exposed to disease agents
Choose not to get vaccinated?
For your information, the percentage of those infected with the flu from this population is not higher than the total population even though they have not been vaccinated.
Interesting studies that for some reason are not published to the general public about the level of morbidity in the sects that choose
Not vaccinating their children comprehensively around the world shows that their level of infection is similar to the general population even though in this case the entire "herd" is not vaccinated. In contrast, the number of children with autism is at a ratio of 1 to 10000 and not like in the western world where autism has already become an epidemic at a ratio of 1 to 80
And let's not talk about adult diseases that attack many children around the world today, such as diabetes and more.
Chinese medicine describes the human body in six layers, one on top of the other,
A pathogen that wants to enter our bodies has to deal with a different layer each time, from the outside in, this is a description
A graphic of the body's coping with attempts of intruders to penetrate.
According to this evidence, vaccination is an act of introducing a pathogen directly into the deepest layer, without preparation
the body and the immune system, it can be likened to parachuting troops into the enemy's rear.
The surprised army (the immune system) begins to study the invader when he is already in the capital city.
Like this, there are many natural approaches that describe the damage of the vaccine and not only because of the substances found in it, which by all accounts are not friendly to the human body to say the least.
To all vaccine supporters, I really understand your concerns, but in light of the abundant information available, it is worth checking
Before any vaccination for a child, what is it about and not to introduce toxic substances into his little body for nothing like a smallpox vaccine
A cold, which by all accounts is a children's disease is very important in the development of a strong immune system and many more
like her
explained*
Two cases:
1) Glasgow, Scotland, August 2011: I went to get a flu shot. After the vaccination, I had to stay in the clinic for an hour for follow-up. It was explained to me that one of the ingredients in the vaccine, egg protein, is known to cause allergies and in some cases can cause death.
2) Jerusalem, Israel, 1990: A baby of my neighbors, a few weeks old, was vaccinated. The child appeared perfectly healthy and was sent home. The next day he died.
My conclusion: there is room for taking precautions. The condition of the vaccinated should be monitored for a period of time to be determined by a qualified medical body.
Gillian
I didn't want to comment on the praise you gave (on March 8, 2012) in favor of taking statins just like that from the age of 40, as a "healthy" procedure. This is because some of the negative information against taking statins (for those who do not suffer from a significant cardiovascular problem in addition to cholesterol) is not clearly presented to the public. The information you wrote in favor of statins is largely untested.
I am responding now because there is clear information against overuse of statins published by the FDA, this after statins have been used for decades. (It's annoying why they didn't check the issue first? In an article in YNET it turned out that the pharmaceutical companies *objected* to conducting some of the studies on the effect of statins, which doesn't surprise me.) The news was published today in YNET's health section.
FDA published that continuous use of statins probably increases the incidence of adult diabetes (adult diabetes) in women mainly, the increase in diabetes incidence in women is at a rate of 48 percent (relative to the control population).
The FDA also states that long-term use of statins may impair memory and concentration. The claim that this disorder goes away after stopping taking statins is somewhat debunked, since most of the people taking statins have been taking them for many years.
Even muscle pain while taking statins is not a symptom of a few percent. If there is only "getting used to" the pain in the muscles while the damage to the muscles continues without pain (something that will probably not be checked) then this is not a healthy situation. Pain is usually a warning sign of tissue damage. See: Chronic pain relievers that hid cardiovascular problems until they were banned from use. See also: the case of Megaloplex which hides rheumatic pains but hides the progression of rheumatic diseases.
Regarding your claims that taking statins is good in general. This is simply not true, look at the English Wikipedia. In English Wikipedia it is said that health improvement due to taking statins has been proven **only for those who suffer from excess cholesterol and an *additional* significant problem in the cardiovascular system** (a study that claimed that there is an improvement in health in a population other than the one I mentioned, between the asterisks, was severely criticized and therefore is not acceptable ).
Overall, taking statins interferes with the body's normal metabolism (which includes the production of cholesterol and its use for tissue building).
Even if all the possible damages from the consumption of statins over many years are not known today, it is better not to consume them by those who do not suffer from cardiovascular problems (problems in addition to excess cholesterol). After all: why interfere without the need for the body's natural metabolism?.
FDA warns, statins significantly increase the risk of getting diabetes
What always surprises me is that vaccine advocates do not believe in their effectiveness. Because otherwise how can you explain the fear of the unvaccinated? How can someone who is vaccinated get infected with the disease they are vaccinated against?
Right now I feel like I'm subsidizing the whole country with the health insurance I pay, because my daughter is always healthy (and so am I). So what should I pay a fine for? For the fact that I'm already paying for other people's sick children?
To directly receive aluminum, mercury and formalin by injection, only to discover that our immune system is actually more effective when it does not receive vaccines, is a bit unnecessary. I also got the side effects of the mercury and aluminum (nervous disorders, if the body was not able to eliminate them in time) and I didn't gain anything from it either.
And regarding the carcinogenic formalin, - Prof. Miriam Ben Harosh, Director of the Department of Oncology - Children at Rambam Hospital, says that only 1% of all cancer cases in children are due to genetic causes and 99% due to exposure to toxins or radiation. I don't know how many of them are due to the exposure to formalin in vaccines, but if someone thinks that cancer is better than rubella or measles, then fine, let them vaccinate their child, have fun.
Gillian
And of course the improvement in hygiene and nutrition and the leisure to engage in activities that contribute to individual health and happiness.
And it depends on which period you were referring to - then the minority of wars in the Western world also contributed to the increase in life expectancy...
It is impossible to attribute the entire improvement to vaccines and drugs. And certainly not to ignore their dark side.
And in relation to fines - why don't we mark everyone who doesn't get vaccinated with skin burns - like cattle - because that's exactly what you want to turn us into.
And another thing that is important to note, following some delusional responses I have encountered here - an indisputable fact is that life expectancy has increased significantly in the last twenty years, and this should only be attributed to the progress of medicine, including, of course, vaccines and drugs.
Father, I'm glad to see that you finally addressed the aforementioned critical issue. In my opinion, heavy fines should be imposed on parents who refuse to vaccinate their children.
Speaking of statins - the side effects are very low (barely 3% of the population), and the benefits of the drug go far beyond lowering dangerous levels of cholesterol - for example, they effectively treat arrhythmias such as premature beats and atrial fibrillation. I can testify as someone who has been taking statins for about two years, that my quality of life has improved miraculously. By the way, doctors, who are aware of the drug's effectiveness, take statins from the age of 40 onwards regardless of cholesterol levels.
To my father b.
The pharmaceutical companies are dirty just like the tobacco companies are dirty just like the fuel companies are dirty and so on. You make unjustified discounts to the drug companies. When you modestly describe them only "that are not a light blue tallit".
Pharmaceutical companies are economic companies like all economic companies, therefore they operate according to the same "capitalist" principles: making money in any possible way provided they are not caught breaking the law.
I draw your attention to JOHN VIRAPEN's music video via the following web page.
http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com/2007/12/lilly-sweden-bribes-and-conspiracy.html
John Viraphan worked in a senior position at the pharmaceutical company ELI LILLY (?). He explains among other things (on the Internet and in his book) how he was involved in bribing regulatory authorities in Sweden to legalize the use of the drug Prozac.
Everyone knows about the swine flu fiasco. But there are other examples that point to corruption on a smaller scale (that's why they didn't resonate). For example, a few years ago, one of the pharmaceutical companies in Israel recommended the use of statins *for almost everyone over forty* (as protection from a reasonable increase in the amount of cholesterol in their body), what is this nonsense? Are there very unpleasant (and possibly harmful) side effects to taking statins?
Statins, for those who don't know, are substances that inhibit cholesterol production in the body or digest cholesterol (can't remember if it's one or the other). The side effects of statins (mainly significant and prolonged muscle pain) can indicate that they have bad effects on other metabolism in the body (not only cholesterol). Besides, cholesterol is a substance that is necessary for metabolism in the body, as long as its amount is not excessive, no invasive intervention in the body's metabolism is needed to eliminate it.
There are other examples of drugging the public with non-essential drugs. But I'm too lazy to bring them. Medicines should only be taken when they are clearly beneficial, not taken too easily.
skeptic,
Well done for the long and detailed response. I'm with you on this one.
On the other hand - as for the quacks - they are well represented in the comments here by my father and others who argue strongly in favor of vaccines and yet are unable to provide any substantiated argument in support of vaccines. There is and was no link to even one article on the subject that supports their very strong position, not only in this article but in any article of this type that I have read on the science website.
It's simply cheap demagoguery for seeing the world in black and white - let's open up our child's vein and let the establishment and the pharmaceutical companies pour whatever they want into it - for the sake of our well-being - without enough, we're a herd...
skeptic. This is the usual nonsense. Eat me, drink me, the drug companies.
It's true, the pharmaceutical companies (and corporations in general) are not all blue, but you can't make them the enemy of the public.
For an open mind
You are a big babbler, like any babbler you speak in slogans ("New Age ... sect ... strange" and other slogans of people who think they are smart only because they know how to flower slogans).
There are quacks on each side of the barrier (on the side requiring vaccinations and on the side criticizing vaccinations). The fact that there are scumbags on each side does not make that *entire* wrong side, the scumbags are people that are best ignored.
Just because you read some list of articles that you think are leading articles, doesn't mean that they are leading articles at all.
There is much debate as to whether the vaccines, in their current form (which varies from country to country and from time to time) are beneficial to health. Doesn't misinformation about the effectiveness of the vaccine cause harm? Cause and how (for example: damage is caused because the children expose themselves to diseases under the assumption that they are "vaccinated").
There is a lot to be said about the question of why drug treatment receives tremendous publicity while the natural treatment of children's diseases by means of prolonged breastfeeding does not receive any publicity at all. Why is it not explained to the public in detail what the nursing care is that eases the course of the disease, to the point of minimizing its dangers?
To the best of my knowledge, no systematic studies have been done regarding each and every vaccine: whether one or another vaccine format was beneficial or not. Instead of an organized statistical study of the type I mentioned, there is proof at the level of slogans (such as the slogan: the vague "Since the start of the vaccine, the rate of patients has decreased"). Who says that the decrease in the number of patients is because of the format of the vaccine that is constantly changing? It is more likely that the decrease is due to a set of reasons and the role of the vaccine is only partial.
Beyond the question of the usefulness of medicines there are basic facts from the University of Life (about the rule of money in the world) that we must be aware of.
One fact is that the pharmaceutical companies are not interested in improving health but only in increasing their revenues. People get the wrong impression as if there is a difference in financial motivation between pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies, or car manufacturing companies, or fuel product companies. There is no difference: all economic companies are only interested in more revenue, the other motives are neglected and bypassed if they harm their revenue.
A second fact is that most of the studies on the results of using drugs are funded by the drug companies themselves, this creates a distortion of the research (many studies will be published that praise drugs and only a few studies will be published that point to the dangers of drugs, this creates an appearance as if the possible harms are negligible compared to the certain improvement of taking drugs ).
A third fact is that health systems (or systems that need health services) try to reduce their expenses in preventive medicine by taking shortcuts (such as: giving a large amount of vaccines in short periods of time, especially "multiple" vaccines in one injection). On the other hand, there are medical bodies or doctors who make a living from distributing medicines (the amount of lobbyists involved in their development is huge).
Fourth fact. There is great lobbying by the pharmaceutical companies to sway public opinion in their favor. For example: in every article about this or that drug, at least half of the talkbacks are talkbackists paid by the pharmaceutical companies.
The raw material (articles and references) that is provided to journalists is also raw material, most of which is transferred to them at the initiative of the pharmaceutical companies.
Or Alterman in general intended that parents be aware of the consequences and the literature and not blindly follow the instructions. There is nothing wrong with that!
I don't think that babies should be vaccinated against chicken pox and rotavirus, and these are vaccines that are pushed for babies 4 months old and younger.
Beyond that, I have a master's degree in chemistry. I did my first degree in chemistry-biology. I can tell you (yes, from scientific literature) that exposure to some of the substances found in the vaccine composition can cause the development of autoimmune diseases later in life (asthma, diabetes, etc., etc.)
It is clear that the question is what are the chances one way or the other, therefore Or in her words wrote to simply be aware and make the decision against what is and what is not to vaccinate and if it is possible then why introduce just substances into the body.
I'm in favor of vaccinating against tetanus and against the more deadly ones, but rota?!?!? Chickenpox?!?!?!?
And I highly recommend splitting!!!!
But I can say this wholeheartedly, after reading the things and this is what Or wanted to convey.
Please do not take things out of context.
Agree with open minded. As in an argument with creationists, there will always be people who will claim false things and you will not be able to convince them with any logical argument.
The only thing I can offer them is to move to live in a remote place in Africa or the East for a year. Far from any medical services and the supermarket. To eat natural food, to breathe fresh air, to see how entire villages die of hunger in one harsh winter and 35-year-old people die of internal bleeding due to diseases that their idol doctor cannot cure. There is no doubt that the number of cancer and autism cases is increasing (the reported cases) as well as the number of children suffering from abuse and rape and our society is much more violent in the modern world.
Dear Loehari, leave you. There is no one to talk to.
This is not about pseudo-science.
The anti-vaccines are some kind of New Age cult with a particularly stupid idol, and a penchant for child abuse.
The characteristics of the worship in this cult are very strange: they are busy reading scientific articles and misunderstanding them, and mixing all this in rather boring conspiracy theories.
What is frightening is that this sect also penetrates relatively educated layers of the population, in the style: if they shout so loudly, maybe there is something in what they are saying.
I personally once checked in depth a list of articles relied on by one of the leaders of this scumbag. It turns out that he only reads the abstracts and understands from there what he wants, because otherwise it would be impossible to explain his reliance on several articles that said the exact opposite of his claim (a claim about the toxicity of adjuvant - the substance with mercury that freaks them out. They probably haven't heard of amalgam )
If they didn't cause diseases to spread to the population, it would be better to just stay away from them and let them live with their own diseases.
Maybe some of them will wake up after the world is not destroyed at the end of 2012... probably not.
Measles deaths in Africa plunge by 91%
....
The significant decline in measles deaths in Africa was made possible by the firm commitment of national governments to fully implement the measles reduction strategy, which includes vaccinating all children against measles before their first birthday via routine health services and providing a second opportunity for measles vaccination through mass vaccination campaigns.
.....
"The dramatic drop in measles deaths in Africa and the strong progress being made worldwide are a testament to the power of strong partnerships and the impact they can have on child survival," said Ann M. Veneman, Executive Director of UNICEF. "But measles is still killing nearly 600 children under five every day, an unacceptable reality when we have a safe, effective, and inexpensive vaccine to prevent the disease."
It's just amazing how much pseudoscience people can display.
A year and a half ago, the vaccinated neighbor of the neighbors in the house we financed got measles.
After two or three weeks, the vaccinated child of the neighbors from the house to our left also got sick.
Our unvaccinated child was not infected, although the three are good friends and play together a lot (it was at the end of the long vacation and the first month of school).
Regarding tuna and mercury.
Do not compare eating and injecting directly into the blood system.
The maturity of the liver of a one-day-old baby should not be compared to the maturity of the liver of an adult, nor of a child, nor even of a toddler.
I understand the need to warn, but if I wanted to read what they say on YNET, I would go there...
dear open minded,
I agree to participate in your experiment:
I am willing for the health insurance to cover my daughter only in the event of a broken leg / traffic accidents, without any coverage in the event of an illness caused by bacteria or a virus.
That way you won't have to feel like you're subsidizing my unvaccinated, healthy girl, and in practice I'll pay less health insurance and actually stop subsidizing your sick, vaccinated kids.
Have we closed?
For an open thinker (indeed very closed),
What is not done with AIDS and other infectious diseases, you propose to impose on the parents of the children and on a subject about which there are at least doubts even in the ranks of the medical establishment.
If you are so sure that vaccines are the solution - come and support me - I have yet to see even a link from the supporters of vaccines that vaccines are science's gift to humanity.
Living in this black and white world is for the mind and herbivores.
open minded.
I agree with you about the necessity of vaccinations, but I am puzzled by the following sentence:
"What doesn't go well, will go by force".
But who has the power?
Why won't they oblige you to pay compensation for the damages they think you are causing with the vaccines?
Did you choose to live in a democracy? you will pay The majority rules, even with the majority being a jerk in your opinion.
Father, as you notice, there is nothing to argue with these fools. No logic helps against them.
Even if you scrutinize all the "scientific sources" they rely on, in the end they will deliver the ultimate blow to you, along the lines of: "It goes against nature" or "Everyone will choose which articles to read and whom to believe".
Experience shows that there is nothing to try to convince.
Legislation of heavy fines for those who do not vaccinate should be promoted.
In addition to this, all parents who do not vaccinate should be sued for abusing the helpless.
There is enough scientific knowledge today that it would be possible to authorize the opinions of the experts who will appear in such a precedent trial.
What does not go well, will go with force, and they will also pay for the damages they cause to society with the spread of diseases.
"There are no more heavy metals. You can vaccinate quietly"
There is aluminum in almost all vaccines and mercury still remained in one vaccine, according to the Ministry of Health's vaccination briefing: http://www.health.gov.il/PublicationsFiles/tadrich_hisunim.pdf
Almost all the diseases against which vaccines manifest themselves as a simple disease, unless there is a complication. For example, polio manifests itself in most children like the flu, and only if there is a complication, paralysis is caused. A child whose immune system works quickly and efficiently will quickly destroy the bacteria before they cause the dangerous symptoms.
I know and trust my daughter's immune system. But I have no idea how she will react to aluminum and I really don't feel like trying and taking the risk of some sort of neurological disorder. I love my perfect girl just the way she is and I have no intention of performing experiments on her that I have no idea what their outcome will be.
Just for general information, she had a "mini-epidemic" of whooping cough at school and in our community (among other things, 10 of her close friends also got sick). Everyone who got sick - was vaccinated against whooping cough. My daughter, who spent time with all her friends before and during the illness, did not even cough. (At that time we didn't know it was whooping cough). Her immune system attacked the bacteria much more efficiently than the immune system of the vaccinated, who got sick despite the vaccination.
The conclusion is that it is necessary to strengthen the children's natural immune system and invest budgets in this. (education for proper nutrition, etc.), instead of poisoning us with aluminum and in the end finding out that it doesn't necessarily help.
If you look at the graphs of the diseases, you will see that the drastic decrease in morbidity started before the vaccines and continued in the same trend even after the introduction of the vaccines. It is not wise to show only the lower part of the graph and say that the vaccines are the ones that caused the decrease in morbidity, while ignoring the original reasons for the decrease in morbidity even before the era of vaccines: improvement in hygiene and nutrition.
It's hard for me to see because I'm outside the reception area.
Enable digest?
The article has not been removed.
The only harm can be an allergy to a certain substance in the vaccine, just like there is an allergy to medicines.
For example, I am allergic to penicillin and my two sons are also allergic to penicillin.
Before giving the flu vaccine, always ask if there is an allergy to eggs.
A possible allergy problem exists with any substance and is not common.
Avi Blizovsky - Howl?
Did you see the dumb and trendy trailer of Channel 2 regarding vaccines?
I assume that the article/"investigation" will be accordingly.
Your response and protest to the above please!!!
By the way, I liked the response of "open minded"
Best regards
The demagogy this time is on the side of the science editor.
There are no data or details here to strengthen my father's uncompromising position "if you don't stockpile it's murder" but cheap demagogy of "I don't have time", "it's already been proven", "the best doctors" "the best scientists", statistics, etc.
And as much as I have read in the science, I have never seen here citations and links to studies that strengthen his position, not even in previous articles on the same matter. There is mostly an omission of the opponents' responses even when they are well reasoned.
With such a difficult statement it is highly requested to bring other support it is just tomato paste without garlic.
This attitude is exactly the kind of thing that his honor opposes when they come from a position contrary to his own.
Ornit, you should go into politics, you are really good at demagoguery.
exactly. They don't die from the vaccine, they die as a result of the vaccine from other diseases, such as cancer, juvenile diabetes that they get....autism or other things that didn't have morbidity like today. But you deleted my answers that contained data....so as I said before...face one on one with the chairman of the Hasson association, are you able? What doesn't make sense in this, if your information is so solid and you understand and know so much, then there is no fear, you will win the discussion.
No more heavy metals. You can vaccinate quietly. As a result, it takes longer for the vaccine to start working.
A strong immune system does not protect against violent viruses - and we are talking about those that cause death. Failure to vaccinate your daughter means a potential death sentence for her and those around her.
About three months ago, three researchers received the Nobel Prize for Medicine for the discovery of the non-specific immune system. Such a system serves as a primary defense mechanism of the body, but from studies on insects that only have this system and do not have the specific system - it is seen that it is not enough.
You probably won't understand statistics, for every child affected by the vaccine there are ten thousand who didn't die thanks to the vaccine, but it's hard to know who they are because thanks to the vaccine they play and dance. Your demand shows a complete lack of logic, and it's a shame to continue the debate.
Kilmo The comparison to a belt is excellent. You scored a ball.
Amit C.
I asked direct and uncomplicated questions and have yet to receive specific answers.
Until then, the information presented on the site is sound and rational to me. (By the way, I have no connection to the site)
Nowadays there is no other way than to put everything under a critical microscope in order to reach an informed decision.
The world of medicine is very far from being 'sterile' and I learned this from Prof. Claresfield's introductory lecture from Soroka
https://www.hayadan.org.il/skeptics-in-pub-0611/
Therefore, only interesting, relevant and specific answers will convince me one way or the other.
Manny
Some ignorance and complete disconnection from what actually happens in the world of medicine and research. Once again, I also offer to have a one-on-one conversation with the best minds in the association, and you do not accept that.......and you also do not accept the offer to sign a document in which you will financially compensate babies harmed by vaccines (after all, if there is no harm according to your claim, you can sign without fear of such compensation)
All I have to do is, once again, strongly recommend the important and great website Science-Based Medicine.
You will find there, no less than 207 articles on vaccines.
Besides the abundance of articles that expose false and scientifically unfounded publications, the authors also attack
Ignorant public figures who are influenced by the false propaganda against vaccines and try to pass laws that might
to cause public damage and the death of tens of thousands of children.
It is worth looking for several articles published in recent years in which the writers' claims are refuted
The vaccine opponents one by one, all based on extensive scientific studies.
It is important to emphasize that all the authors are expert doctors, some of them world-renowned in their field and all of them
I have a lot of experience in medical scientific research methods.
It is also worth noting that this site was founded, in light of the abundance of misleading medical advertisements that appear throughout the web,
which at best are based on unreliable research methods, and in many other cases contain lies
and distortions promoting personal interests and spreading fears and anxieties without a sufficient factual basis.
It's a shame to go into too many words, I hope that everyone who bothers and reads, will also learn a thing or two.
Abi, I see that you addressed this in a previous response: "Well, the main thing there is the protein of the virus, and if there are additional substances, they are intended for preservation (because protein is a sensitive organic substance) and to accelerate its activity so that a little substance is enough."
Even a little bit of the bacterium's envelope or the weakened virus is enough to create an immune response. The addition of aluminum is completely unnecessary, considering the neurological damage it causes to children who are unable to remove it from the body.
And why would they put mercury as a preservative? Lacking preservatives that do not harm the brain?
The heavy metals damage the fatty myelin sheath that insulates the nerve cells. Myelin deficiency is observed in children with ADHD, hyperactivity and autism.
There are so many bacteria and viruses against which there are no vaccines, that the only way to ensure that my daughter does not die from an epidemic is to strengthen her immune system (healthy food, long hours of sleep, good mood) - things that have so far proven themselves (she was not sick at all already 5 years).
A good immune system will be resistant both against the new strains that are already resistant to vaccines (that have developed a mutation in the envelope) and against diseases against which there is no vaccine.
Avi Shalom,
I know my daughter has an excellent immune system, but I have no idea if she has a good ability to eliminate heavy metals from the body. That's why it scares me less to expose her to bacteria without a vaccine than to the heavy metals found in vaccines (aluminum and sometimes mercury).
It is impossible to compare exposure to mercury through food (tuna, etc.) compared to injecting heavy metals directly into the body. The injection bypasses many of the defense systems.
As long as there are heavy metals in vaccines, there is no way I am vaccinating.
Kilmo thanks for the translation and the link.
Not a single question I asked earlier, the CDC website answers.
You also claim 'statistically the child is so much more likely to live with a vaccine than without'
Are you willing to show me a study that compares the health and mortality of unvaccinated children at all with vaccinated children in a western society?
And another thing, how can it be that there is no epidemic of polio cases from before 1870 (approximately)?
Manny
As far as I know, the only medical entity that claims otherwise is at all geological. I would love to hear what she can tell about the composition of the soil layers from the Cretaceous period.
Observed and observed, but in order to avoid hysteria in the public with the admission of many cases of mysterious death and tie them to vaccinations, then such a connection is not acknowledged - because if they admit, guess what will happen here. And yet you avoid signing such a document, which was offered to you.
In the same information that there are medical officials as you claim who claim one thing, so there are medical officials who claim the exact opposite.
The claim that the baby from the twins died because of a vaccine is made by the father's lawyers. I would take it with much more than a grain of salt.
As Kilmo already explained, the damage of the side effects is there, but infinitely lower than the damage of not being vaccinated. For every child who dies (and this is probably not the case of the twin baby), the lives of tens of thousands of other children are saved.
As far as the medical authorities are aware, and such were interviewed in the media after the case of the baby, no side effect of a skull fracture as a result of vaccination has been observed so far.
So this is your basic error language because the advice is not not to vaccinate……but to make an informed and correct decision after learning and reading about the subject and this is also what is written on the website. The fact that you make it something anti, is because you made it anti. And your attempt to prevent parents from knowing and learning about receiving medical treatment for their child, and pretending to know and take responsibility for possible damages - simply will not succeed. Because today parents are more aware than before, and today there is access to sources of information, and today it is not what it used to be. And here you will take on your conscience the baby (of the twins) who died not long ago, apparently due to injecting poisons into his body for 4 months.
And let's do a simple experiment, I am ready to prepare a legal document for anything and everything in which your obligation is tortious and monetary if the baby is harmed as a result of giving a vaccine when you sign it and you are personally obligated to compensate for any harm that is caused, will you sign it? I do not think so. But recommend to vaccinate you are ready in your fun.
There are no things in the body, but I don't want parents to think that there are things in the body and listen to your Ahithophel's advice not to vaccinate the children. I did not understand why this explanation was not clear enough. I don't want any dead child on my conscience.
It's very interesting why you didn't publish my comment, when you make a deliberate selection... it just indicates that there are things in the gut. After all, if not, you had no problem dealing with the reactions. But you probably have a problem to deal with.
For anyone who wants information about vaccines - the CDC website (Center for Disease Control of the US government) contains lots and lots of information regarding vaccines, their effectiveness, safety, etc.
For example, http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/evalwebs.htm That answers the question of who to trust.
Now, to business (for the lazy, the English-challenged, and just for those who don't feel like too many scientific statistics):
1. Vaccines work. Look to the right, look to the left, have you seen someone with polio? Maybe someone with smallpox? Beauty. you don't see (Those who want statistics - search the CDC, this is not just a demagogic argument but a summary of the facts).
2. Like any medicine, there may be side effects. You should be highly aware of this, but most of the side effects are negligible, and it is very, very rare that they are "acute" (not to underestimate the temperature of a baby that jumps to 39 for two days, it is not an acute side effect). Most of the problems are due to expired vaccines or sensitivities
(very rare) for substances that "envelop" the vaccine (for the sake of it, think of a paracetamol pill that you take, half a gram of it (500 mg) is an active substance, and the rest is a coating whose job is to ensure that it reaches the stomach, so vaccines are the same) .
3. It's not that the pharmaceutical companies are all blue, but vaccines go through (usually) very strict approval processes. Are there any exceptions? Yes, mostly because there is public panic (eg swine flu), and sometimes there are also dishonest people in the system. Arbel, most of the vaccination system is by honest and decent people.
4. My father's style is a bit extreme, but he is quite right. Just as we force people to wear their children's seat belts (because statistically it is better for them, even though there are extremely unusual accidents in which the seat belt is the one that causes death (think of a car that falls into water)) this is how it makes sense for society to say - statistically there is a much greater chance That the child will live with a vaccine than without, that there is a reason to require the vaccine.
5. Back to the seat belt example - a vaccine is a seat belt. It protects you from an accident that may occur. If you don't buckle your kids in the back seat because you heard about the accident where the mom couldn't unbuckle the seat belt and the girl drowned with the car, then you are a bad parent. Because there are many more children who are smeared on the windshield because they were not belted than those who died because they were.
6. There is reason to wonder whether the order of vaccinations in Israel is optimal (there is certainly room to discuss adjusting an individual vaccination plan for each child), whether it is necessary to give every newborn a vaccine against hepatitis B immediately (the vaccine is also given as protection from babies of other mothers, because the babies stay with her babies, which is subject for another discussion), is there a place to offer vaccine X at age Y, or should it be allowed to wait another year, etc., etc., etc., but whoever says that vaccines are a health hazard is a liar and dangerous, perhaps with a lot of good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with intentions favors
I don't quite understand the heat of the debate
The information distributed by the Ministry of Health, according to my understanding, says
1. The vaccines significantly and clearly reduce mortality or physical injury in babies
2. Some of the babies who receive the vaccines are harmed and it cannot be guaranteed that this will not happen
מ
A parent should consider whether to take the risk that does exist and is known, but it is extremely small
and give a vaccine, compared to a situation without the vaccine that the baby is more exposed to dangerous diseases.
It is not correct to underestimate the importance and success of the immune system on the other hand
To respect those parents who are afraid of the same risk that exists in the vaccine
And I expect vaccinators to understand the consequences of their actions and not to evade with such and such linguistic claims or to leave in the middle of the interview as Schivner did on Australian television when they demonstrated to her the implications of her words.
"An article that reads no less than the murder of babies by their parents." This sentence is a corruption of language.
Murder is an intentional intentional killing, while the chance of an unvaccinated person contracting a disease against which the vaccine is against is small. From the editor of a scientific website I expect accuracy in speech no less than accuracy in science.
Avi,
I just wanted to shake your hands here. It's horrifying to think how many people genuinely do not understand the basic logic of reducing the herd and the terrible dangers that lie in it.
I am indeed in favor of vaccines, but there is one vaccine that I did not understand why they give it. This is a vaccine that every baby receives today two days after being born - the hepatitis B vaccine.
According to my understanding, it is given to prevent the baby from contracting the disease if the mother carries it, you can check whether the mother carries the disease with a simple blood test, instead they prefer to give a vaccine. Also, according to the information I received from doctors, the baby still does not have a developed immune system, will the vaccine really immunize?
In my opinion, this is an unclear distortion and to this day I have not received substantive answers to my questions.
Optopic - have you ever tried to compare Israeli and foreign news sites?
Check the leading news sites against a foreign news site abroad, let's say bbcnews or foxnews, etc. according to your choice. Compare the colors, the structure and shape of the site and to be really honest surf from a browser without a pop-up blocker and adblock.
That way you will get a hint of how we, the surfers, actually see those news sites.
This is not YNET, NRG or any other mass site where they post any garbage in the name of pluralism. The article calling for murder falls outside the pluralist realm.
What a legitimate discussion...
Really pluralism
Lawyers and jurists in Getz are not scientists. If they consulted scientists they would explain to them where they are wrong. And secondly, that was the end of the advertisement for this illegitimate association.
You probably won't study science and keep talking nonsense, after all the main thing there is the protein of the virus, and if there are additional substances they are intended for preservation (because protein is a sensitive organic substance) and to speed up its activity so that a little substance is enough.
I really don't sleep well when there are people like you in Israel who want to bring humanity back hundreds of years, to the time when the earth as a whole had a few millions of people and not billions and they also lived only 20-30 years.
"Scientific truth" remind me of your exact education? Doctor why? Dear Bentaim, the High Court that the association and parents who were affected by vaccinations submitted is alive and well and was not rejected out of hand... and not only was it not rejected out of hand, but also thanks to the High Court, the association issued a conditional order to stop an amendment to the National Insurance Law and the state not only had to provide answers but also gave answers and giving!! Thus, if these were empty words like your unfounded claim, there probably wouldn't have been an opening here, but there are and there are and they take things very seriously and for good reason. And if you sleep well at night knowing that poisons and chemical substances are being injected into a child of his day……..sad to know.
And I'm sure that in a one-on-one conversation with the best minds in the association... you will give up without any rational argument..
To the skeptic, I'm already used to living off other jobs and subsidizing the site while sites of charlatans of all kinds get a lot of money. This will not deter me from sticking to the scientific truth.
It is good to have the responses so that they know that there are people who are influenced by irrational arguments disguised as scientific arguments. Repenters also use the same tactic and that one should take a stand and not be another site that gives a platform to every opinion, and its editors sleep well at night.
I am also legally responsible for what is written in the comments, so if I simply get tired of it, I will close the article to comments. I can't sleep well at night if one parent reads your lies at my place and loses their child.
Dear father, it's a shame that you are misleading and you are against a robust site, since a robust site refers to research scientific references and not to statistics. Moreover, you exaggerate and present the vaccine component as having only protein when the vaccine component includes many other components that may cause risk. You also completely eliminate the risks themselves written in the consumer brochure, since you surprisingly forget an entire system that exists in the USA that compensates vaccine victims with billions of NIS.
And lucky to have the comments here to balance what was said by you
And speaking of Steve Jobs - giving him as a representative case every time the word veganism is mentioned here is like giving an example of thalidomide as a representative case of why all drugs are poison... (and refrain from mentioning vaccines...)
Steve Jobs was very extreme in his diet, he actually sat on the somnolent edge of eating disorders with fasts that lasted a week, eating only a certain type of food for many days and other stupidities of various kinds.
It's not surprising at all that he got pancreatic cancer and even if he had the sense to get medical treatment in time, he would have extended his life.
The percentage of vegans or people in general who have reached such extremes is very small and it certainly does not represent the majority of vegans. And it is also possible to bring many opposite cases of people who improved their health and recovered following a dietary change.
addition to the doubt,
The fact that they are not ready to issue warning notices is already progress...
In the XNUMXs, the Ministry of Health tried all kinds of vaccinations on groups in the army or boarding schools, without even informing the recipients of the vaccine what it was about, thinking that the group was a herd...
Avi,
Every time you are asked for the information you rely on against vaccines you claim you don't have time and/or it is known and/or you have already published it before and everyone already agrees on it.
Or it's avoiding a real discussion - because your black and white approach can't be completely correct, or you really don't have the strength to deal with it.
Despite our very different opinions on this subject, here is a productive suggestion:
If it is the second case - you can simply prepare a permanent page on the website with all the arguments and refer people to it. That way you won't have to reinvent the wheel every time. In my opinion, it is worthwhile for you to do this in all the topics that cause controversy here.
At the moment your comments are simply not convincing, probably people who are reading about the subject for the first time.
Manny
get used to it This site has a thought police: there are "right" thoughts and there are "wrong" thoughts.
If you are one of the operators of the website "Vaccines", I praise the operation of your website. As a protest that the link there has been blocked, I am thinking of donating money to the charity that operates the site.
One of the things that caught my eye already, while wandering around the website, is the following fact that is claimed on the "Vaccines" website: It is claimed that there is a *refusal* to provide the vaccine warning leaflet that is attached by law to every medicine, if a recipient of a vaccine requests it.
This refusal borders on breaking the law. In any case, the refusal indicates that the vaccine providers on behalf of the health services in the country are not decent people.
I should note that the purpose of the warning leaflet for side effects of a drug is to allow the recipient of the drug to be aware of possible complications after receiving the drug. That is, he should discover problems at an early stage of taking medicine *without* needing the services of a doctor (if he detects problems, he will consider going to the doctor or the emergency room according to the severity of the problems). It is impossible to underestimate the importance of early detection of problems caused by taking medicine.
Thanks, I'll fix it
In any case, anything that goes against science-based medicine is nonsense and in many cases poses a danger as we saw in Steve Jobs.
You are "a drop of nature" attached to the article you are reacting against is not a "vegan website" but a "natural medicine website". These are two completely different things. Too bad you are confusing them.
I'm not asking you not to think, but you also need to know what the scientific background is.
The scientific background of vaccines is to inject the protein of the virus into the body so that the body's immune system will prepare antibodies, and when this virus arrives in full force it will know how to deal with it.
What is the alternative of the opponents of vaccines? statistics? With statistics like in the examples you gave and without a scientific basis you can prove anything.
Why the hell are you attacking me?
The question why other developed countries vaccinate almost half as much as Israel is an illegitimate question?
The question why the mortality rate was the same in countries that at the time had not yet introduced the vaccines is illegitimate?
The question why diseases that did not have a vaccine decreased and disappeared just like the diseases that did have a vaccine is illegitimate?
I of course do not expect answers from you personally and certainly not immediately, but I am sure you have sources that can refer to this data and then it will be a substantive and effective answer to the article.
You ask me not to think and I refuse my father.
It will be productive if your ISP's abuse blocks you.
Why would you tell the website owner who to link and who not to?
You can't start responding to every stupid argument, my time is precious and you can't order me to waste it. What is important to me is that there is no basis for this whole argument and that scientists and public health professionals have already done this research for me. Therefore a robust site for me is an invalid site.
There are also people who are convinced by astrology, but there is no need to deal with every astrological prediction when the basis for it does not exist. Same with any other pseudoscience.
You are blocking me and it is not productive.
After all, in the body of the article itself there is a link to a solid website and people read the information.
Do you have other information or that contradicts this data? Please I'm interested to hear. And I imagine others too.
Just leave the situation as it is. Their information is much more convincing than what you have brought so far, my father.
Manny
I wonder if this writer, Or Alterman, read and understood what the hell a computer is and how it works before she decided to use it.
One more very relevant question
You claim not to vaccinate is murder and there are no disputes regarding vaccines
How do you explain the fact that very developed countries stock almost half the amount of Israel?
http://www.hisunim.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=18:israelandworldvaccinationschedules&catid=15:vaccinesinisrael&Itemid=146
Thanks in advance
Manny
You have indeed written beautiful and important things, my father.
I see you had a good statistics teacher...
rise and succeed!
Thanks mate,
About the "Undercover University"...
It's nice to think that there are many others who think like me...
All that the Boyent girl said as a mother of children is that you need to learn and know what is in and what is not in the vaccines that are injected into our children (and us).
Yes conspiracy, no conspiracy it is of no interest to any parent that the child did not fall in the vaccine susceptibility statistics.
My father - you exaggerated with your rhetoric - anyone who does not store is murder?! Every parent makes the decisions about their children. And as for other people's children - are there enough diseases circulating here that have no vaccine that can harm tender babies - or should the entire population be vaccinated against the flu by order? herpes? In contrast, they push vaccines for non-life-threatening diseases like chicken pox - a chicken pox vaccine is like writing on ice, it doesn't last past puberty at best. In the worst case there is no trace of him after two years. The disease, on the other hand, is a lifelong vaccine. From personal experience with two children, one got sick and was finally vaccinated and the other received a vaccine that does not hold water.
You also need proportions in vaccines.
And where is the evidence that a can of tuna has more mercury than a vaccine? Not to mention that you don't inject the tuna into the muscle of a month old baby.
to my father,
Don't miss the point.
I am not disputing the very conclusion that the earth is warming.
I only claim that it is not wise to open additional and unnecessary fronts in an attempt to convince. In reality, there are those who will be ready to accept your words regarding vaccinations, but seeing that your opinion is supposedly dependent on other views that are less firm, they will say: Oh, this is the guy who is so confident in his dubious views. Then you will lose on both fronts together.
I fixed the link, I accidentally copied it into the box without the H at the beginning (in HTTP)
Reactions - The swine flu was indeed deadly and it even hit especially young people because the elderly are vaccinated against it due to a similar strain that was common in their childhood.
Global Warming - David, even if you jump to the sky it won't help, there is enough evidence of man-made warming, I will post a news article in the evening about a conference that was held yesterday at Uni' Haifa.
Most of the opponents are not doctors and it is important to note this so that there is no appearance as if there is a real debate within the scientific community (there is none).
Discussion is important, but let's be based on facts and not opinions.
The scientists do not know everything and neither does science itself have all the answers, no one pretends to present otherwise, this in no way justifies lies and disinformation, nor does it say (similar to what postmodernism tries to present), that every opinion is an opinion and a law is a legal opinion Another opinion. The members of the scientific community have a tremendous obligation to intervene in such debates because it is a matter of public health.
Moreover, sites that claim to be "newsy" and as such gain high credibility from the public, must bear responsibility for the articles that are published there. They cannot wash their hands cleanly.
Regarding the swine flu claims, is anyone trying to claim that the vaccine is more dangerous than the disease? Because quite a few people around the world died from the disease. Is she as dangerous as they made her out to be? Probably not, if the vaccine is safer and even saved people who in case of illness might have died, probably yes.
Did it justify the exorbitant price that Israel paid? This is a question for economists, it is quite possible that in the cold economic consideration, no.
Father, you are right in the spirit of your words, but there are still several reservations:
* There is room for a public discussion regarding the toxicity of the vaccines themselves, I am still not convinced that there should be a certain percentage of mercury, for example.
* In addition, there is no escape from opening up to the masses a lot of fields in science and especially health, otherwise science is seen in the eyes of the general public as a detached and arrogant "cult".
You do the first step in this change every day in holy work on this site, but it is impossible not to also receive "the knowledge of laymen". This is part of opening the scientific arena to the general public and I have no doubt that the root solution to the problem is the expansion of scientific knowledge to the wider population in a significant, but critical way .
Here we return again to the starting point that science cannot be taught without taking into account that there will also be a whole spectrum of opinions that differ from the scientific consensus. The challenge is to deal with it patiently and it won't happen in one day. There are parents who will accept the opinion of the doctors who oppose vaccination (who I'm still convinced did not get their degree in the market), but you can't escape it.
And in the spirit of things, I recommend watching the "Bad University" which shows that even scientists have quite a bit to learn from the "laymen":
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/he/bunker_roy.html
I'm not going into the scientific aspect because I'm not a doctor, but we saw what happened with the swine flu, it scared everyone and not many wanted to get vaccinated and.... The wonder and the wonder... So the plague they promised?
Three things:
1. I read your article twice and you didn't give any convincing argument why you should get vaccinated and how it helps more
compared to those who were not vaccinated.
2. Not long ago the "swine flu" broke out. Have you been vaccinated?? Has anyone died from this? Or they scared us again
And the state, by the way, bought medicines worth hundreds of millions of shekels...hundreds
3. The market among the largest in the world is medicines... you can't say that there is no interest in scaring and taking medicine
Or a vaccine... because that's what they make money from...
The public noise and attention is exactly what the scumbags from YNET want.
They have no "journalistic ethics". They are just looking for ratings.
Most of the writers and editors at YNET are humanities graduates, who receive 25 NIS per 100 words + ratings bonuses. In short, they don't have a dime on their ass.
Who do they hate?... Of course, the engineering nerds who get paid 100 times more than them.
Therefore, there is no point in trying to convince them.
Besides, they're pretty dumb. The only talent they have is writing. They are not good at understanding. This is not required in the kharta sciences. There is no mind that can be convinced of anything.
Nor are they interested in scientific or medical truth. They are just looking for a conspiracy to believe in so that something will give them an explanation for the fact that they live in garbage.
To try to do something effective, it is advisable to launch a direct attack on the YNET website and claim that it endangers public health. It will be easy to get the opinion of senior scientific and medical experts.
In my opinion, it is also in the interest of the various popular science websites. It is true that most of the editors there also write for YNET, but I am sure that the ratings will do them good.
YNET should be shown that they are losing ratings and reputation with these dangerous articles.
Only this can have any effect.
When I saw this yesterday, I considered asking my father to write an article about the dangers of bombarding the public with trending and harmful information through the media.
The media cannot promote their own economic interests (sensations, intimidation, popular beliefs - all this is well known) while exploiting their "journalistic" credibility (which is decreasing as a result), I am surprised that senior editors and senior journalists do not come out against the phenomenon.
I understand that journalists are not necessarily scientists, but at the same time they are committed to ethics, where the hell are journalistic ethics?
A science that treats me like a "herd".
I treat him like a "slaughterer".
That science will treat Abi Blizovsky like a herd, not me. I am not a herd of any science, however sublime.
There is also a lot of garbage in the books, look at the solid site, there is a link at the end of the article on xnet
Obviously they are against vaccines, they make money from it, they sell their books:
"The truth about vaccines" and "Fatal vaccine".
The entire internet is full of garbage, 98% of the articles are recycled garbage, 1% is new garbage
And to reach the desired percentage you have to dig a lot.
Those who want to enrich their knowledge, it is better to read books, not articles for a dime and a half.
Absolutely right.
But it is not recommended to involve the issue of global warming. This alienates those who are not convinced of this issue, where the statistics are more complicated, and it is not so fateful and practical for everyone in the population.
Did the learned writer get vaccinated against the pigs once?
It has not been removed
http://www.xnet.co.il/family/articles/0,14566,L-3093538,00.html
Indeed it seems that the article has been removed.
Could it be that the article on XNET has been removed? The link does not work and even after entering the site I could not find the article.
YNET writers and reporters in general have a low scientific education. These are usually laymen who are no more sophisticated than the average person. These are easy to bring up in all kinds of conspiracies by emotional manipulations. And they spread it on.
You can explain your meaning in the following sentence
"Everyone who understands science and reads the site is shocked, a vegan site"