Bunny Trails

When it just doesn't fit anywhere else.
temporal1
Posts: 16278
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: U.S. midwest and PNW
Affiliation: Christian other

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by temporal1 »

Hats Off wrote:Wouldn't it be good to better place your mind?
indeed. 8-)
0 x
Most or all of this drama, humiliation, wasted taxpayer money could be spared -
with even modest attempt at presenting balanced facts from the start.


”We’re all just walking each other home.”
UNKNOWN
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Wade »

Judas Maccabeus wrote:
ken_sylvania wrote:
Josh wrote:
How much "compassion" do you show to a drunk driver who plows through a telephone pole and crashes into someone's house, injuring himself and damaging property he has no way to repay?

(Personally, I show quite a bit. I just see a real desire to excuse the reckless behaviour of anti vaxxers and extreme religious sects in general, paired up with a distressing level of talk of "personal responsibility" for people struggling with poverty or addictions.)
Josh, when a person has struggled and spent much time in prayer to discern the Lord's will, and as a result believes they must abstain from the use of these particular vaccines, I consider it wrong to describe their decision as reckless. Please try to speak more kindly.
Some of the reason is that there is "alternative truth" out there. There are a few catholic groups, most notable "the Children of God for Life" that send out propaganda suggesting that pharmaceutical companies are encouraging or causing abortions, in other words, "abortions to order." There are no facts backing this up. Tissue that would otherwise be discarded is used.

The second problem is that current ethical norms regarding consent are being projected back on events of 50 years ago. There things that I did 35 years ago that would not pass ethical muster today, as we did statistical studies on data gathered for normal treatment without getting consent, as long as the patient was not identified and it had no impact on patient care. That changed about 20 years ago, and we need get consent for inclusion of patient data in such studies. Is it what we did than wrong ? Not according to the rules in place in 1979. It would be now.

The use of such tissue was standard practice than. It is not now without permission. Was it wrong than?

I would suggest we are doing better now, but we really should judge the past by todays standards.

That is why I have suggested that what we do with what we have in our hands now is the sole set of data we should be using to make our decisions as to what we should do with vaccines.

J.M.
I'm not sure if you will see this but for the sake of others:

When our first born son was young he got sick. Every symptom was that of whooping cough. He wasn't getting better and we were concerned for his health. We took him to the doctor and the doctor even seemed to agree. However when the doctor looked at his records to see that our son IS FULLY VACCINATED - she went on to say that it was impossible that he could have whooping cough. I fully trusted the medical system and the doctors but now this doctors was pushing us out the door telling us to go home and that he was fine...
He was really ill for a week - it became worse until finally I used some God given natural products or what you would call "alternative truth" or "quackery" and he got better within 24hours.

Did he have whooping cough? I don't know if he actually did or not. But that is not the point - I hope you see that the impression of pride in being right that I got from this doctor about her faith in secular medicine was more important to her than peoples well being.

Some people want so badly to be right that they will not accept truth that is right in front of them and they would rather people be sick than themselves or their "faith" to be wrong. This can be true for any view, but I don't get the impression that any of us here that question vaccines are anti-vaxers like you falsely accuse but rather open minded people that question the compassion of pro-vaxers more than anything.

It seems like pro-vaxers are so very excited and happy when these Amish get sick because then they can jump in and wag there finger about someone else being wrong proving that they are right.

It is sickening.

Here is another example of what I am speaking of:
appleman2006 wrote:
MaxPC wrote:Can we just pray for them and not start in on a dissection of their choices? If something like this happened to your family, would you want folks to pray or second guess your family?

These men and women are our brothers and sisters in Christ as well. :cry:
I accept that but I also have no problem calling out someone particularly from my own broader culture when I feel they are off base. I hope they would do the same for me.
0 x
lesterb
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:41 pm
Location: Alberta
Affiliation: Western Fellowship
Contact:

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by lesterb »

There will always be illustrations that anti-vax people can give. Those illustrations can be pretty emotional. I've seen that in my own family, and I have no problem understanding why they feel that way. But when you look at statistics you can't avoid the fact that vaccinations have saved a lot of lives. People who are anti vaccination are protected by the circle of vaccinated people around them, but in a situation like this, where a disease gets started within a larger circle of unvaccinated people, the results can be devastating.

My advice to my family is always that they should vaccinate their children. Maybe wait until they are a little older than the norm and can handle it better, but in the long run vaccinations are more helpful than harmful to society.

Just my thought.
0 x
Soloist
Posts: 5495
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Soloist »

since we continued that here,
The second problem is that current ethical norms regarding consent are being projected back on events of 50 years ago. There things that I did 35 years ago that would not pass ethical muster today, as we did statistical studies on data gathered for normal treatment without getting consent, as long as the patient was not identified and it had no impact on patient care. That changed about 20 years ago, and we need get consent for inclusion of patient data in such studies. Is it what we did than wrong ? Not according to the rules in place in 1979. It would be now.
1: If we were in the time when the vaccine was being created, would you A: take this new vaccine made on fetal cells from an aborted baby? B: refuse on ethical grounds and face the disease?

2: Are ya'll in favor of gardasil? or would you believe its wrong to vaccinate against a sexual transmitted disease that causes cancer?

3: Lets say a vaccine gets created for Ebola but its based off of a new aborted baby?

4: Is there any point when using a dead fetus is wrong to you?

5: Organ harvesting? Its no use to a dead baby.

6: Do Biblical standards change? Would you be happy telling God that you played a part in creating a vaccine made from killed babies?

7: Why do you use baby oil?

Pick 3 and answer them.

My stance has been that vaccines are useful just like antibiotics but if we use them improperly there can be problems. I also don't think that we should be basing our choices off of popular opinion or current/past ethics but rather Biblical standards. To restate it again, if you are fine using those fetal cells and your heart is clean before God. I don't judge you. Now don't judge those who cannot do what you think is fine.
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Wade »

lesterb wrote:There will always be illustrations that anti-vax people can give. Those illustrations can be pretty emotional. I've seen that in my own family, and I have no problem understanding why they feel that way. But when you look at statistics you can't avoid the fact that vaccinations have saved a lot of lives. People who are anti vaccination are protected by the circle of vaccinated people around them, but in a situation like this, where a disease gets started within a larger circle of unvaccinated people, the results can be devastating.

My advice to my family is always that they should vaccinate their children. Maybe wait until they are a little older than the norm and can handle it better, but in the long run vaccinations are more helpful than harmful to society.

Just my thought.
Thank you Lester, I agree with you for the most part, but from a different angle to consider:

Emotions can be very useful when they motivate us.

Some may question this graph below or where it came from - I am not bothering wasting much time with this, however most of the graphs you will find actually say the same thing - except they can be easily manipulated by changing how many or how little of years, number of deaths and how much the graphs jump up and down with those numbers.
A person can make statistics and graphs look however they want if they play with them enough and convince or sway things one way - so I recommend always looking at the bottom and side measurements first to see if the numbers increase at the same rate and what those numbers actually mean. Especially these graphs normally are very accurate but only span a 10 year period and easily give a wrong impression of what is in fact true data.
You see, often the dropping line (or rising) on the graphs are used to sway our emotions and those who think they are not being emotional often are, unless they take the time to look at the measurements used. So when we slow down and look at real long term consistent graphs we find something much different than those 10 year graphs.
vaccines.png
vaccines.png (35.94 KiB) Viewed 385 times
By looking at a graph like this one could come to the conclusion that by the time the vaccine for whooping cough was even introduced that it really had no benefit and made no difference in the rate of change to the amount of deaths - therefore statistics/graphs could show that the vaccine was actually completely ineffective. I am not claiming this.

The other side of this is also misdiagnoses - unintentional and intentional...
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Josh »

My emotions get fired up by pseudoscience.
0 x
ken_sylvania
Posts: 3971
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:46 pm
Affiliation: CM

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by ken_sylvania »

Josh wrote:My emotions get fired up by pseudoscience.
That was a very emotional response. :mrgreen:
0 x
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Wade »

Josh wrote:My emotions get fired up by pseudoscience.
Me too.

"Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be scientific and factual in the absence of evidence gathered and constrained by appropriate scientific methods.[1][Note 1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; and absence of systematic practices when developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative[4] because it suggests something is being presented as science inaccurately or even deceptively. Accordingly, those termed as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.[5]

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications.[6] Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education.[7] Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs, such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.[7][8]"

Creation science is lumped together with medical quackery and occult beliefs... :o Interesting choice of word to use... :?
0 x
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23823
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Josh »

Most of so called "creation science" has completely changed since the early 1980s to present day. It's really not scriptural at all, and is about as biblically sound as "Christian music".
0 x
Wade
Posts: 2683
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 12:09 am
Affiliation: kingdom Christian

Re: Bunny Trails

Post by Wade »

Josh wrote:Most of so called "creation science" has completely changed since the early 1980s to present day. It's really not scriptural at all, and is about as biblically sound as "Christian music".
I think the word science after creation is a bit of red flag as much as the word music following Christian. Now if singing follows the word Christian I can relax a bit... :lol:

My son said yesterday he wants a Christian Hymnal for his birthday... He was holding a Hymns of the church and I think the purple sets him off a touch since his sister's call it a girl color... :o
0 x
Post Reply