A website (in English) that preaches science-based medicine devotes an article to the arguments of the opponents of vaccines and how to refute them.
An adult can harm himself and that too with limited liability, in my opinion, but for the second time this week we hear about parents abusing their children due to an anti-scientific ideology, thereby leaving them in danger of death and, as we saw tonight, also to actual death.
As you may recall, last week Channel 2 news reported on a 12-year-old boy staying alone in a Buddhist monastery in Thailand, which we discussed In the previous episode of the "Haunted Country" series". The boy got cancer twice despite the medical treatments he underwent, and the mother decided that an 'enlightened' spiritual guide at a monastery in Thailand would help the child more than chemotherapy treatments. Only by luck did she do this after he finished a round of treatments and he recovered, but she cut him off from medical follow-up and put him at risk in a place where the level of medicine is lower than in Israel, certainly in a monastery where there are no medical facilities at all.
This time we deliver again On Channel 2 news about the death of a two and a half month old baby From a settlement in the north of the country. During the Ministry of Health's investigation, as is customary in the case of the death of children, it was learned that the baby's parents refused to vaccinate him and did not even register him with the Ministry of the Interior. Officials at the Ministry of Health reported that the baby's parents opposed his vaccination for ideological reasons.
According to the news, the baby suffered from a high fever for several days, but during those days no visit of the parents with their son to the hospital or to the Tipat Halav branch was recorded. Only when the parents discovered one night that the baby was not breathing did they call for help, but by then it was too late.
As far as is known, at least to the Ministry of Health, this is the first case of the death of an unvaccinated baby. So far, there have been several cases of children suffering from diseases that could have been prevented.
Until about a decade ago, the main opposition came from religious bodies, who claim that vaccination is an interference with God's will. But then came the phenomena of all kinds of gurus who decided to go against vaccines, and the peak was the claim of an English doctor named Andrew Wakefield, according to which the routine vaccines cause an increase in the rate of autism diagnosis.
As a result, movements arose, mainly in English-speaking countries, that claimed that vaccines are unsafe, as well as organizations that claim to care for parents' rights. In the end, in these countries the rate of vaccination decreased and the rate of morbidity and even death from preventable diseases such as whooping cough increased. One of the sites fighting this phenomenon is Ether Science Based Medicine.
The reasons for opposition range from the opinion that vaccines are a tool of the devil to thin out the earth's population to opinions that are much more moderate, but no less serious in terms of their effect. The Science Based Medicine website does not blame the parents, because they made the outrageous decision not to vaccinate their children out of ignorance, due to the fact that those same people were misled by the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement who were deliberately spreading misinformation.
The common arguments: "Vaccines don't work"? "Vaccines are dangerous"?
"When you look at the arguments used by vaccine opponents, they almost always boil down to two different reasons: either vaccines don't work, or vaccines are somehow dangerous. However, the studies unequivocally disprove the alleged link between vaccines and autism.
"It must be remembered that vaccines are not perfect. They are not 100% effective, and rare serious side effects cannot be avoided. What distinguishes the opponents of vaccines from, for example, scientists who deal with issues of effective effects versus side effects and possible complications all the time, is the great exaggeration of the severity of the negative effects on the part of the opponents of vaccines, far beyond what the scientific data shows. According to the logic of the anti-vaccines, if the vaccine is less effective than we might have wanted (which is true in many cases), then it must be useless. This is, in essence, the fallacy of Nirvana, where if something is not perfect it means it is completely worthless.
An integral part of this approach is expressed in a great exaggeration of the possible side effects and complications due to vaccines which are portrayed as much more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. In addition, anti-vaccination activists often attribute to vaccine damage phenomena that the available scientific data certainly do not consider plausible or legitimate. The claim that autism is caused by vaccines is the most famous argument, but it is far from the only one of this type of claims. It is not uncommon to hear unfounded claims that vaccines cause autoimmune diseases, asthma, and "a general weakening of the immune system", among other things."
"One of the most famous examples of excessive harm or non-existent risks is the use of the infamous nickname "poison". This unfounded claim holds that there are all kinds of scary chemicals in vaccines. Of course, there are all kinds of chemicals with scary names in vaccines, just as there are all kinds of chemicals with scary names in almost everything, from food to clothes to household cleaning products, among others. The dose makes the poison, and the amounts of these substances, like formalin, are tiny. The amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is so tiny that it is small compared to the amount of formaldehyde that is a natural byproduct of normal metabolism in the body. In addition, the opponents 'add' to vaccines chemicals that threaten them. The most famous is undoubtedly "antifreeze in vaccines". Finally, there is the claim that there are "parts of aborted fetuses" in the vaccines. This particular claim stems from the fact that during several vaccinations, the viruses used to produce the vaccines are grown in human cell lines derived from aborted fetuses."
Opponents also make cynical use of the language scientists use in scientific papers, full of careful wording. Valid scientific concerns about the efficacy and safety of evidence-based vaccines must be distinguished from unscientific theories. Scientists, of course, tend to be much more measured and express the degree of uncertainty in their claims; Anti-vaccination activists suffer no such constraints. When, for example, scientists debated how to respond to the H1N1 pandemic (in the previous swine flu outbreak in 2009), there was great uncertainty about how to vaccinate and when to give the vaccines, should we use a certain substance to reduce the amount of antibodies in the vaccine? Compare this to claims against the vaccine, such as the claim that H1N1 is a harmless virus, that the vaccine is toxic and won't work, and even that it was a 'New World Order' conspiracy.
Conspirators and reaction to criticism
In this context, the editors of the article on the "science-based medicine" website point out that there is a correlation between members of the anti-vaccination movement and other deniers (deniers of evolution, global warming, etc.). Every criticism is ultimately met with the claim that there is a connection between the governments and the big pharmaceutical companies with the aim of "suppressing" the data that allegedly shows that vaccines cause autism, and that anyone who speaks in favor of vaccines has an interest, for example a connection between pharmaceutical companies and the university where he or she works.
Another way is to file defamation lawsuits against anyone who criticizes the vaccine advocates, such as the lawsuits filed against Simon Singh in the UK or against scientists and science communicators in the US in order to silence them.
For the full article on the "Science-Based Medicine" website
To the source of the image in Wikimedia Commons
Previous articles on the science website that dealt with resistance to vaccines
- Criticism of the demand of the parents of a dead baby to bring as an expert witness an anti-vaccination expert from Australia that other news sites treated as an expert
- The BBC report states (among other things) that the attempt to ignore the connection between vaccines and autism causes exactly the opposite
- The cessation of vaccinations in Japan - why one should be careful of hasty conclusions
- A reference by the writer Simon Singh, author of the book "Cure or Temptation" to the subject of fear of vaccines
- Is it possible to hide in a herd?
- The Lannett Journal retracted the famous article linking vaccines to autism due to bad science
- Does the triple vaccine cause autism? A new study found just the opposite
- Statements made by the Minister of Economy in the Knesset's Economic Committee on the need for scientific editors in the news companies
- Vaccines, autism and scientific quackery
- Why is it so important to vaccinate?
75 תגובות
I prefer to be 'narrow-minded' and not open my head to all kinds of nonsense. I won't give a hand to the murder of children, I'm in your friends shoes really otherwise I wouldn't sleep well at night over every child who got a disease that could have been prevented.
Is this father a "scientist"?
Exemplary system creation... I find it funny that you compare yourself to Darwin,
From murder to murder, this is exactly what you do when you demand that parents put poison into their children's body, I don't know where you were brought up and what makes you think that your truth is without a shadow of a doubt the one, but it's a little scary especially when your truth is not yours at all... Your site is similar Go, narrow-minded and anti-thesis to science as the study of life. Free the world from yourself.
Ofer, the same was said to Darwin. The inability to accept criticism is a barrier to progress.
The editor of the site, the title of the article 'A baby who has not been vaccinated - an ideology that leads to the murder of children'
stands in contrast to the statement of the Ministry of Health in the article on Channel 2 'Informants at the Ministry of Health said that they had already come across cases in the past of babies who got sick because they were not vaccinated, but they do not remember a case of death as a result.'
Hello my father, I have to tell you that in my eyes you are not very different from the equisitors who, in the past, persecuted those who voiced opinions that were against the spirit of the time, Catholic Christianity. Back then, the mainstream responded and burned, and today the scientific and technological mainstream responded rationally, that is to say devoid of passions, free of human weaknesses, not influenced by the ambition of men with inflated egos to gain worldly fame, yes, this stream of consciousness that dominates the world, oppresses, mocks and humiliates, every other aspect of consciousness. In a tone of righteousness, piety and patronage, different and strange realizations of the human being, some of them charming and gentle, are defeated one by one. In general, pure science as I understand it, its role is to deal only with discoveries, by saying them, and leave the negation of the many issues in the hands of those whose role it is to interfere. Sincerely.
Seriously, read any science news site in the world (I'm not talking about Science Daily which is an aggregator, not a site with original materials) and you'll see that there are opinion columns there, including in Science and Nature.
Defense of science and rationality goes together with scientific reporting for as long as I can remember, otherwise scientific reporting is just something technical without context.
Ersant, you also have to do it out of respect for my father and the other readers.
my father
Sorry if I was wrong and indeed the amount of original articles has increased.
All I wanted to point out is that you should reduce discussions and topics as much as possible
that are not in the field of science, and above all to avoid personal opinions and views
Witness if you stop responding then the drop in level will also stop
What is wrong with the article: we have parents who neglected their sick child and he died. By chance those parents also did not vaccinate the baby. Is there a connection between the failure to vaccinate and the child's death? It is not entirely clear and also - in the event that the child dies from a disease that can be vaccinated against - it is not clear what would have happened if they had brought him to the doctor in time.
The article on YNET does not preach killing children, but encourages parents to take a little more responsibility and check what they are told, which a website of skeptical scientists should encourage. In short, a deterioration in level.
The advertisement, as noted next to it, is from Google and is supposed to be context-based, probably a semantic engine should be added to check whether the context is correct or the other way around.
I'm just amused that the site has ads for amulets against the evil eye.... You don't have any control over the ads? On second thought, the algorithms are correct and some of the respondents are indeed loyal customers of the aforementioned publication.
The knowledge about the resistance to vaccines among the ultra-Orthodox is well known, the fact that no one wants to see the limitations of their society, does not mean that those who look from the outside are not right.
What's more, there were several cases of epidemics in the past, after which they were reminded to conduct a vaccination campaign for the specific disease to prevent further infections, but they do not participate in the routine vaccinations.
Friends, I wrote the news in the middle of the night, typing blindly right after I heard the story and I didn't do enough proofreading. Promise to fix it tonight
And for a sparrow request - removal may cause damage to Google. In any case, I turned around and am already a therapist.
Hello father
We have never heard of rabbis who oppose vaccines. The resistance may have been in Christian religious circles that opposed science but nothing similar was found in Judaism.
In Israel, when it is written that religion opposes, the common man assumes that it means the religious people in the country, the Jews. This is not always true. For example, the rabbis did not oppose experiments on embryonic stem cells, but in Christianity there was a lot of opposition. It is understood that there are issues where the rabbis are also opposed for religious reasons such as the opposition to performing abortions for economic reasons.
Since this is not the first time on the website that religious parties who oppose this or that science are reported, I think it would be worthwhile for Avi Blizovsky, who makes an amazing website, to contact a rabbi and consult with him before writing generalizations about religious parties who oppose this or that topic and clarify whether these are Christian or Jewish religious parties .
What's new ?
What's the fuss about?
More than two thirds of the Israeli public believe that Holm was created a little more than 5000 years ago! Does it bother them? And according to all their ways of life "Israelistan" have we already said?
The question is whether complications from chicken pox are more likely than complications from the vaccine.
The assumption is that yes - otherwise they wouldn't have given the vaccine - but that means medical research - and medical research can in theory be biased or fake - so there are people who are inherently suspicious of giving up new vaccines.
The article is riddled with typos and what appear to be mistakes in plain Hebrew.
For example: "that the vaccines are a tool of the devil to dilute the..." instead of "that the vaccines are a tool of the devil to dilute the...".
More: "examples" instead of "examples".
...and there is this really unclear sentence: "This particular claim stems from the fact that over the course of several vaccinations, the viruses used to produce the vaccines..." - I don't think the "over the course" belongs in the sentence and of course the "this" instead of "this".
In short, I would remove the article from the site, have it proofread and perhaps also correct the content (according to my predecessor's correct comments) and only then return it.
Thanks.
Chicken pox is an excellent example. Since mass vaccination was started in some Western countries and in Israel, the disease has been eradicated and the children suffer much less. What's wrong with that?
As usual when you chase demons they back you off.
What disease did the baby die of? What is enough to vaccinate until the age of two and a half months? Do we know that he died from a disease he was supposed to be vaccinated against?
Beyond that, it is not responsible for not vaccinating and it is not responsible for not checking a child who is a doctor.
Beyond that, not every disease dies so quickly and you can consider not getting vaccinated against diseases, a healthy child whose diet is healthy will not die if he gets sick from them. And remember that vaccines create profit for the drug industry, which tends to exaggerate the fear of certain diseases such as chicken pox. It's a shame that there is no easy access to statistical information on death and disability rates from diseases and the prevention rate from vaccination given against them. I think it would have solved the debate without all the surrounding demagogy.
Witness what is wrong with the article? Or am I only allowed to translate news and I'm not allowed to express opinions in favor of science because it upsets people?
Strange, according to objective measures, the level of the site is increasing - for example, there are more original articles at the expense of press releases. On what basis do you conclude that she is going down?
going down
my father
When the level of the site drops, so does the quality of viewers and the quality of speech
I will say that this site used to be one of the sites to which I would refer all kinds of charlatans (for example, those who claimed that vaccines inevitably cause autism) and today it has deteriorated to the level of a YNET talkback, which is a shame.
Baba Bubba
So you farted!!!!!!!! Hahahahaha
Interestingly, underneath.
There are facts and there are nonsense.
You are emitting nonsense
And Avi Blizovsky shows you facts in your ugly face!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What would you say?
And what do you say about the fact that he still allows you to continue farting here?
and for an anonymous user,
"This news was presented in the news yesterday"
Haha, so she was introduced! That doesn't make her right.
It was disgraceful journalistic work.
Just like my father's article.
"I don't have to be impartial, I'm not a postmodernist, I'm in favor of science, and science is the yardstick for truth. Anyone who has decided that the truth is not to his liking, I have no way of talking to him."
If science is "the standard for truth" as you wrote so beautifully,
Where is the science that supports the article you just published?
There is no science, there is no proof.
Just paranoid accusations based on nothing but a wild and unfounded accusation.
And you call parents who don't vaccinate murderers?
Are not you ashamed?
You are no better than the sites you slander (another truth as an example)
If anything you are worse because you present a pseudo-enlightened position but you are actually a hypocrite.
This news was presented in the news yesterday.
Certainly any sane person will agree that a parent who does not protect his children is a potential murderer. For the sake of fairness, those parents should be punished so that others will learn to vaccinate their children so that the children do not harm and do not harm others.
Well done Avi Blizovsky for standing bravely in the face of the lies and presenting the truth in their face. strength
A country haunted by demons LT: following the death of an unvaccinated baby - an ideology that leads to the murder of children
my father
This is a site that should expose the general public to the world of science, to the world of research, proofs of dilemmas and more
Already in the title there is an impression that the writer is against science and its ways, as well as in the article itself, which is edited like a newspaper article and not like a scientific article.
If the vaccine is essential and saves lives according to most scientists, it is desirable that you present studies and opposing opinions, it is desirable that you present cases where the medicine failed and caused health damage such as the pill and many more.
It is your news that should clarify and explain to the readers, not the opinions.
I don't have to be impartial, I'm not a postmodernist, I'm in favor of science, and science is the measure of truth. Anyone who has decided that the truth is not to his liking, I do not have a conversation with him.
No, it's not better.
And the demonization you do to other sites, just shows your level of integrity.
And I have nothing to do with this or that site.
It's a shame to see that your site, which I thought was unbiased, makes such an ugly U-turn.
Congratulations, you have destroyed any shred of credibility you had in my eyes and it seems in the eyes of others as well.
In any case it is better than another truth which is another way of telling some kind of lie. You are not comfortable, don't call here and don't send your junk here.
My father, you are a hypocrite, simply unbelievable.
Do you realize that you are doing exactly what you always shout that the alternative sites are doing?
That is, posting something that has no proof of anything,
Based on null and idiotic research using no scientific or empirical tools to prove a claim.
At least when the anti-vaccine sites publish information it is based on scientific research or medical authority, but this? It's simply a trending and stupid article that belongs in the garbage can and not on a website that claims to "know".
Or maybe, is it the trash can?
Father - you can't be so unequivocal and resolute in this area -
It makes you look like an arrogant person.
Each vaccine stands separately and replaces one risk with the other.
Sometimes there is a pronunciation without being vaccinated. If the risk from the vaccine is greater than the risk from the disease, for example in context.
Apart from that, there is a very simple problem here: if a vaccine is the product of a private company - and a government can force people and children to receive a vaccine under duress - then this company will make money - hence with the help of capital relations and government and lobbyists and a campaign of intimidation - people will receive a great many vaccines that are really not necessary.
Get out of this assumption.
There are vaccines that are not necessarily necessary for one reason or another.
There are companies that make money from selling these vaccines.
It is therefore possible that sometimes a vaccine will be given that is not necessarily necessary because there is financial pressure in the field.
The academy is often affected by economic pressure and so are the politicians and there is really no way to know what is good and what is not good in many cases and there is no choice at all to trust the doctors and hope that they have not been misled too much by sophistry studies (and there are some).
But as soon as we talk here about not giving a vaccine = murder - as soon as the government is expected to intervene - we are sliding here on a slippery slope to a bad place in my opinion.
You also don't have to be a demagogue and a brat. Take a case of two negligent parents whose son was sick and they didn't take him to the doctor and then you found out that they didn't vaccinate the child either and from that you jumped to conclusions. When a child has a fever, you should go to the doctor. My eldest son was vaccinated according to the book and yet he arrived at the hospital in serious condition at the age of two and two months. I vaccinated my second son, but according to a schedule given to me by a doctor (doctor of medicine) who firmly claimed that in Israel vaccines are pushed without control and that it is dangerous to give such a small boy such an amount of antigens in the first year of his life. In the end, he too was cured, but at a different rate than what is required by the Ministry of Health, although it is possible that in another country he would have been exactly according to the norm. If vaccines really are such a precise and scientific matter, why do countries discuss vaccines with different urgency.
Witness:
The rule should not be canceled because of one exceptional case.
If you want a more specific example then I have a friend who was saved because he was not wearing a seat belt when he was driving through East Jerusalem and a Molotov cocktail hit his anto.
Ido, it's like saying you don't let your son walk on the sidewalk because of a curb and there is a vehicle that goes on the sidewalk and runs over people, but put it on the road, where the chance of an accident is hundreds of thousands greater.
The benefit of crossing the road is also greater than the random damage of a car accident caused by the driver and not the pedestrian. In life you take risks.
Avi:
Today the popular opinion is that the benefit of vaccination is greater than the risk of vaccination.
I agree with this opinion.
I'm not trying to say a different opinion.
I just want to add that there is no reason to accept things blindly.
I am in no way claiming that what the parents did by not vaccinating the baby was justified.
I claim that on the one hand they should have vaccinated him. And on the other hand, they could check the issue if something didn't seem right to them.
There is and is a point to continue to check and criticize even if it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt that the benefit is greater than the harm!
This does not mean that you should act recklessly! This does not mean that you have to make hasty decisions!
Does that mean there is "potential damage"? And if I don't want the statistics to hurt my son? In the meantime you did not contradict what I wrote before: that in different countries they vaccinate in different doses and at different ages and that it is not at all certain that the Jewish tendency to always do more of the same thing that was successful once (and sometimes even without it being successful) is true in the case of vaccinations. When a Zinok is born in Haaretz, they vaccinate him against jaundice that is acquired through sexual intercourse. Why? Because the mother may be sick and then he will be infected. It is cheaper to vaccinate everyone than to check mother after mother and give a vaccine only to those who need it. And this is one example that I know of.
The vaccine is hundreds of meters away from the potential damage, anything else is incitement to murder, and I stand behind this harsh phrase. It is not wise to be surfers of another truth who hide behind one letter and a third party IP and convince parents to murder their children. I, as the owner of the site, appear here in my name and warn against this attempt to murder babies.
The unimaginable ease with which people lose their health or even their lives in a car accident!
Indeed it is unimaginable and it is of a huge magnitude compared to an accident that occurred while caring for a baby.
But that's not the issue!
The issue is whether the vaccine is beneficial or harmful.
The issue was opened for public discussion only recently.
Charlatans were and will continue to be.
Need criticism.
You have to get the vaccine with the understanding that it is useful and not with a determination that someone from above determines.
Furthermore:
If someone proves that the risk outweighs the benefit, then the vaccine should be canceled.
For now we are only in the opening phase.
It has not been proven that the risk of the vaccine outweighs the benefit.
Although apparently there are still special cases where the risk outweighs the benefit.
All those who claim that it is impossible to know if the baby got sick and died because he was not vaccinated - are right. Of course, if he got sick and died immediately after being vaccinated, roughly the same people would claim that it was because of the vaccine - but that's not the point here.
The point is that we do not know and will never know what the cause of death is because in the State of Israel the feelings of the parents (and especially the *religious* feelings of the parents) are respected more than the safety and lives of babies.
According to the news, the parents called for help only after the baby stopped breathing. Translation for you: the baby arrived at the hospital dead. No tests are done on a dead baby and the body probably had time to cool down so the only reason they even know he had a fever is that the parents themselves told them. An autopsy is not done without parental consent because the cause of death is unknown, but only if there is suspicion of criminality, that is, only if someone complains and testifies that the baby was abused or there are visible physical signs.
In practice, this means that in Israel parents are free to bring their dead baby to the hospital without anyone asking them difficult questions or conducting an investigation into the matter. Parents can smother the baby to death with a pillow - it leaves no marks - and say he just stopped breathing in the middle of the night. The main thing is that everyone is terribly shocked when someone shakes their babies to the point of brain damage and death. what's the excitement He just did it the wrong way.
Dawkins wannabe - well done, you managed to fit an overload of generalizations and prejudices into one response.
Have you talked to both parents? five? twenty? (hard to believe but let's say) and you got the impression that they didn't check anything before they decided not to vaccinate, so in your opinion they and anyone who doesn't vaccinate are ignorant and against the country. Long live anecdotes!
If you want to present an argument and not a prejudice, back it up with facts and data.
And as for this prejudice, you and the rest of those who hold views similar to yours (including the writer of the article) refer to when you talk about science-based medicine - woe betide us.
"As far as is known, at least to the Ministry of Health, this is the first case of the death of an unvaccinated baby. "
This case, too, is most likely not caused by a disease against which vaccines are given at the age of two months, that is, the fact that he was not vaccinated has nothing to do with the tragic death of the baby. In the same way, the title of the article could have been "The baby suckled - and died" and then all nursing mothers would be considered potential murderers...
That is, according to the quote, to this day no babies have died in the State of Israel because they were not vaccinated. If so, I would very much appreciate an explanation of why the author of the article chose to use the phrase "murderers".
Well, where is the quote from? A robust site? From delusional vaccine opponents? No! From this article, up here….
In the article by Dr. Binyamin Mozes, it is said that one of the doctors who came out against the vaccine was avoided due disclosure because he received payment from an association that helped with parents' lawsuits.
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/1.1688057
To Dawkins and Wannabe
"It would have been better to give everyone a red key to heaven and send them to walk on minefields like the Iranians did in the war with Iraq. At least it was useful for something and didn't cause diseases to the rest of the population."
I would love to know why parents who do not vaccinate endanger the rest of the population more than you, for example, I assume you do not vaccinate against rota, measles, rubella, mumps, whooping cough, etc. Following what I asked in my previous response, and of course I did not answer:
"And regarding the use of the word "murderers" and herd immunity, I would very much appreciate an answer:
If the vaccines that are given today are "expired" after several years, why do parents who do not vaccinate put their children and their neighbors' children at risk more than parents who do vaccinate? After all, if the parents of a vaccinated child, the grandmothers, the kindergartners and assistants, the older brothers, the people who cough on him on the bus, are no longer vaccinated against measles, rubella, whooping cough, mumps, they can get infected and infect him just like a child who was not vaccinated in the first place. How does herd immunity affect, when most of the herd is no longer vaccinated? Maybe all parents are potential murderers because they don't vaccinate themselves?"
And as they wrote here before, if you abused your sons, you cannot complain about "mistreatment of the helpless"
Following B's words regarding the age of communication.
Indeed, the media is a central tool in our lives, all of us or many of us get our news and opinions about the world from the media (big or small).
The big problem that the media has had for a long time (and perhaps never had) is not concerned with presenting an objective world picture but only a subjective one.
This is a result of the postmodernist world we live in.
A world where claim A is no better or less than claim B (and so is C, etc...). A world that does not pretend to separate the chaff from the chaff.
The great paradox is that the press, which has long abandoned the objective search and presents a subjective view, is perceived as an objective factor.
Therefore, while I agree with B's claim that we live in extraordinary times, I hold a less optimistic worldview regarding its implications, at least for now.
In fact, as long as we do not succeed in educating our population to clarify what is information that strives for objectivity (scientific information), as opposed to subjective information (everything else), there will be widespread phenomena of confused people, who mistakenly think that claim A is equal in validity (or invalidity) to claim B ' and so'…
I would also like to mention that the press has economic interests that are influenced by advertisers on the one hand and readers on the other (that is, a key consideration when publishing news is what will cause more people to read, or publishers to publish...), that is, although the press is not "for" or "against" the scientific view, but It is actually the presentation of things that damages the credibility of the scientific establishment as an authority.
In addition, I would like to mention that the pseudo science or alternative medicine industry also has financial interests (the alternative medicine industry makes a very large amount of money).
Finally, if I were a fan of conspiracy theories, I would believe that the anti-vaccines among healers and other "alternative therapists" are interested in high morbidity rates on the one hand (in order to allow them to increase the income from patients) and on the other hand are interested in continuing to damage the credibility of the scientific establishment and the validity of its information, thus increasing the segment of the population that sees them as an alternative source of authority.
It's just a shame that the article is riddled with spelling and syntactical errors. When will the science editors start editing a tab as well?
I vaccinated my children and will keep them safe!
But this article needs to be re-edited - its beginning does not lead to software and in a world where we defend ourselves against producers of serial lies we need to be holier than the Pope. (Hmm... another expression that has lost its cool like the hole in the token...)
And to make it even more difficult for you please stop covering "the global warming deniers" with the rest of the charlatans we have legitimate doubts 😉
When considering the arguments using -typo opponents
It is appropriate that a person who tries to flaunt solid, fact-based science and preach a fact-based behavior should also express fact-based positions. There is no clear fact about the cause of the child's death. On the face of it, it seems that he did not receive adequate treatment, and it has nothing to do with the question of whether he was cured or not. If this is indeed the case, there is no reason for his death to support the excessive attack against the opponents of vaccines. Of course, those who have an agenda of one kind or another will not hesitate to use every opportunity to spread it even if it has nothing to do with anything, certainly not facts. Which raises the question of whether boasting about "foundation on facts" is a conditional foundation, in terms of "I base myself on facts, as long as they fit my agenda".
"...parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are usually parents who have looked into the issue in depth..."
From my experience and unfortunately this is not the case.
I personally spoke and corresponded with quite a few of them.
They didn't check and didn't read and weren't interested in almost anything.
All their knowledge comes from some nonsense told to them by an alternative healer or some "enlightened one" at a gogo festival or stupid letters on YNET or false and unsubstantiated nonsense on tree hugger blogs.
Most of them don't even know the website of the clowns from Hosan.
The opposition to vaccinating children is mostly a religious (New Age) practice based on the abuse of the helpless.
I used to think it was possible and desirable to try to convince them.
There is no one to talk to.
It would have been better to give everyone a red key to heaven and send them to walk on minefields like the Iranians did in the war with Iraq. At least it was useful for something and didn't cause disease to the rest of the population.
Check in depth maybe but not with the right people, even the writers of the Science Based Medicine website don't blame the parents but the one who fed them the wrong information.
By the way, parents who choose not to vaccinate their children are often parents who have looked into the issue in depth. A superficial article like this only proves the issue - and it's a shame
Hello to the author of the article,
I didn't understand how you wrote an entire article about parents who "murdered" their son because they didn't vaccinate him, when you have no idea what the baby died of?
How is this called "fact-based medicine?"
Your messianic zeal, the terminology and semantics you use create the impression that you are imbued with religious faith, even if you call your religion "science".
And regarding the use of the word "murderers" and herd immunity, I would very much appreciate an answer:
If the vaccines that are given today are "expired" after several years, why do parents who do not vaccinate put their children and their neighbors' children at risk more than parents who do vaccinate? After all, if the parents of a vaccinated child, the grandmothers, the kindergartners and assistants, the older brothers, the people who cough on him on the bus, are no longer vaccinated against measles, rubella, whooping cough, mumps, they can get infected and infect him just like a child who was not vaccinated in the first place. How does herd immunity affect, when most of the herd is no longer vaccinated? Maybe all parents are potential murderers because they don't vaccinate themselves?
If there was reliable and available information, I'm sure that many of the non-vaccinating parents would
There were warehouses and vice versa
But you bother to publish trending articles without actual data.
And calling parents who don't vaccinate "murderers" does justify a defamation lawsuit
I don't know of any other factor whose decisions for the baby will be better than the parents' decisions.
Although the parents may be wrong.
Although the mistakes can be fatal.
But other factors also make mistakes and these mistakes are also fatal.
therefore:
The decisions for the babies should be left to the parents.
If the parents are wrong. In some cases, the error can be corrected.
In cases where the mistake cannot be corrected, there is no choice but to accept reality.
In the XNUMXs there was a common disease called ringworm for which the known treatment at the time was radiation. Today, many cancer patients from those radiations are walking among us (those who are still walking around). At the time, responsible parents wanted their children to recover and also did not want to infect other children (ringworm is contagious), so the responsible and correct thing was to provide the appropriate medical treatment for the children.
I am not suggesting that vaccines are a conspiracy by giant corporations or any other conspiracy. I can say that I knew a woman who traveled with her one year old son to Germany and there the doctor was shocked by the amount of vaccinations a child receives in Israel. Remember - Germany, not Zimbabwe and not India. It turns out that different countries vaccinate with different methods, in Japan (also not exactly a backward country) they start vaccinating only from the age of two and statistically the number of children's diseases has decreased since they started with this procedure. In Israel there is the Polish procedure that if something is good then a lot of it will be better and this is not always true.
What's more, in Israel (and most of the world) it is completely legal to take a small child and cut off a piece of his genitals for some reason and to claim that it is medically beneficial. And parents who do this are not called abusive parents. But parents who do not XNUMX% trust the vaccine their child receives are murderers.
go figure..
Not sure which link you mean. I did not find any relevant link to the news that talks about the death of a baby from "not being vaccinated".
And that it "works out" is only your interpretation. Or were you not taught about biases?
I did not cook up any fact, I quoted exactly where I got this figure from. It also fits with the data from the world about the increase in morbidity from diseases that we already thought we had overcome, just because one idiot doctor received money from parents to prove in court the connection between vaccines and autism. For the few thousand dollars they were supposed to receive he is responsible for the murder of thousands of children.
B. Adam - not a two and a half month old baby
What is important is that the person be free to criticize what is decided for him and also to change the decisions if necessary.
This is the innovation.
This is a new thing in human history.
Freedom!
For some reason it was called the "Arab Spring" but it is not only the Arab Spring. This is the "spring of humanity".
Humanity has reached a situation where the public has power and it is the public that decides what is good for them.
And a final word - when you "cook" facts to present your agenda, and this is done in good faith (let's say),
It is customary to publish an apology for the inaccuracy.
It is appropriate that you do this, or bring the source that indicates that the baby died from "non-vaccination". Because so far nothing in what you wrote indicates that.
Avi,
Is the science about vaccines absolutely clear? This statement only shows that you are completely religious in this matter, it has nothing to do with facts and figures.
Vaccines have drawbacks, just read the link I attached regarding the flu and narcolepsy vaccine to understand that even representatives of health organizations sometimes question the benefits of certain vaccines.
This site stopped being an unbiased source of information for me a long time ago.
I recommend the editor of the site not to use the word murderers towards parents who decide not to vaccinate their children, unless he wants to take the risk of a class action lawsuit against him for defamation and even incitement.
Remember that in the State of Israel vaccinations are not mandatory by law.
PZERO - There is no need to hold any public discussion with murderers. The science on vaccines is absolutely clear. Just like evolution (which, by the way, is derived from it because viruses evolve rapidly) and like warming. Whoever is not ready to accept solid science, let him do it for himself and not uphold his anti-scientific ideology for his children.
There is no doubt that we live in a very special time in history.
We live in the age of communication.
In this age, everything is published and everything can be criticized.
What emerges unequivocally in this period is not precisely the matter of the drugs.
In every matter, there is criticism against the paternalistic ways of working of the government in every corner of the earth.
Criticism was impossible in previous periods because many things were hidden from the public. Even in this era, the government still tries to resist any kind of criticism of it.
Criticism can't hurt.
In the long run it is only beneficial!!!
One of the most biased articles seen here recently.
Not only is it not specified (in the article) what exactly the baby died of, despite this lack of knowledge, the writer built an entire article on the unfounded assumption that the baby died from "non-vaccination".
Regarding the swine flu and the epidemic that was not:
Due to accelerated and insufficient testing processes (and we are not talking about money from pharmaceutical companies here...) the vaccine that was released to the public was ultimately defective and probably caused narcolepsy in hundreds of European children, so much so that it was forbidden to give it to children under the age of 19. One of the reasons for this is probably the use An adjuvant banned for use in the USA.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/22/us-narcolepsy-vaccine-pandemrix-idUSBRE90L07H20130122
Then there was a flu epidemic that didn't exist, there was an expedited and defective testing procedure, and as a result the lives of hundreds of children were destroyed - should we call this the "murder" of young lives?
Now we can talk about the taboo of vaccines - cost (also in human lives and their quality) against the benefit of a vaccine against a non-fatal febrile illness. And we can also talk about a vaccine against the retrovirus, and a few more.
The taboo surrounding vaccines prevents an effective discussion of their shortcomings, and they do have shortcomings, and this is because of a hysterical and angry attitude like that of the writer. If we open the topic to discuss the shortcomings of vaccines and ways of improvement, maybe more people will return to believing the health authorities and pharmaceutical companies when they promise that a vaccine is "good" because today they do it in the most paternalistic and lack of transparency possible.
safkan is right - is there any proof that he died due to lack of vaccination and not due to neglect?
It has not been announced what he died of.
By and large, the small percentage of the unvaccinated are currently benefiting from the herd effect anyway.
It is advisable not to confuse those who oppose all vaccines and vaccines that have been proven safe and
Those who oppose forced vaccinations (as happens in the United States of all places) and specific vaccines.
The two and a half month old boy did not die because he was not vaccinated. The child died because he did not receive appropriate nursing care, i.e. adequate supervision during a fever and evacuation to a hospital if the fever is too high.
Please note that we do not know at all what caused the child to die, and it is not at all clear if his illness is of the type that requires vaccinations. But sending those who refuse to get vaccinated wholesale is possible even if the baby's death is not related to lack of vaccination.
Note that a very short time ago a study by the American CDC was published that the usefulness of the flu vaccine is questionable. Somehow, this news passed in almost perfect media silence, probably because it contradicts the agenda of wholesale vaccination.
CDC is the United States Federal Center for Infectious Disease Surveillance. This is not a strange sect that disbelieves in giving vaccines of any kind.
In Israel, dozens of vaccination injections are given from age 0 to 18. Some of them are against rare diseases that it is doubtful whether it is necessary to vaccinate against, or it is doubtful whether it is necessary to vaccinate at a high dose. This is not a situation that has always existed, it is a renewal of say the last 30 years, before that we only gave say 10 vaccination shots from the age of 0 to 18, there is no research that shows the reduction of morbidity due to doubling the amount of vaccines approximately fivefold.
Yosihu, and on the way to becoming a control group in an unnecessary evolutionary experiment, this population also condemned its own children to death.
In my opinion, for evolutionary reasons, it is important to have people who are not vaccinated. Studies cannot predict vaccine infections, which have long-term effects, or other effects we are not aware of. It is important to have people who will act according to independent logic, even in opposition to studies and science. Because we always see only a drop in the ocean, and are unaware of the next tsunami.