Well, I thought I might ask this. I don't feel confident with their immune shots which is called a tectnus shot. I don't know how to spell it. For an unknown reason, students are called from their classrooms, for the shots. I don't know if they're safe or not. But if nobody takes the shot, they get suspended is what the form told me on the sheet. I don't feel safe, and I don't trust it until I know it's side effects. Has anybody taken the immune shots before? I'm sure all of you, not really sure, but most of you have taken it. I thought I should ask this, because I'm scared of what the immune shots would do when I first have them injected into me. I haven't known this before in my younger ages. So my question is, do you support the immune shots or are you against it?

I know it's supposed to strengthen your defenses against other diseases, or whatever it does, but I do not know the side effects.

UPDATE : I've taken the tetanus yesterday, and my arm feels a bit stiff, but no side effects such as mentally ill.

Whatever shots a school is going to give to kids is safe. There are a lot of rumors out there that this vaccine causes that disease or whatever (such as autism), and its all bull. It's good to have a doctor in the family over here, she tells denounces all these things. Schools probably give vaccines if their parents don't (not sure the rules here) because their parents believed all this bull crap floating around about vaccines.

Here's some advice. If you don't want your kid to get sick, get him vaccinated! If you have any questions about the safety of a vaccine, ASK-A-DOCTOR. Never use an email forward or whatever as reference. Doctors know, and you should trust them.

Vaccine is definitely safe,i don't see the reason why wouldn't they be,only thing they do is get your organism better immunity to viruses...
...as bellydancer said,if you want your kids safe,get them vaccinated,doctors are always in right (or most the time)...

...so my vote is YES!

No no no! Let me set some things straight. "Tetanus" is a vaccine against the tetanus virus (or is it a bacterium, not sure ), anyway, this vaccine is to prevent serious infections from things like rusty nails, or anything else really that is an anaerobic environment (little or no oxygen). This is an important "shot", however, not ALL shots need to be taken. The reason I am saying this is because young children and young people also need to have their own antibodies built up without the extra need for a "shot".

There is a campaign in Alberta now called "Not All Bugs Need Drugs", and how true that is. With regards to bacteria infections (like Strep Throat), antibiotics are slowly becoming useless against these kinds of illnesses. A viral infection (like the flu or common cold) also doesn't always need to be vaccinated against. As you get sick, it is your immune system that is the first line of defence against infections and certain diseases.

Anyway, back to the tetanus shot. Side effects, if any at all, might include minor malaise (the "ill" feeling you have during a bout of the flu), and anything more severe is very rare. Doing a bit of digging, the tetanus vaccine is also combined with vaccines for diphtheria (respiratory illness) and sometimes with vaccines for pertussis (aka "Whooping cough"). Booster tetanus shots are given every ten year period.

@ rob: Tetanus is a bacteria. Also, stepping on a rusty nail is a myth. You don't get tetanus from rust!

Side affects from tetanus shot: Not getting tetanus! Vaccines are good. Vaccines keep you alive.

[/QUOTE]...not ALL shots need to be taken. The reason I am saying this is because young children and young people also need to have their own antibodies built up without the extra need for a "shot"...[/QUOTE]

Yes if organism antibodies are "built" ,there is no need for "shot",but i think it also depends against which virus organism has immunity...

Vaccines aren't some magical virus-away. Vaccines don't kill the virus. They are already dead viruses that the white blood cells then find and analyse, so that they recognise it when the real ones come. Vaccines help build up the immune system, not replace it.
Imagine your white blood cells as soldiers, viruses as terrorists, and the vaccine as a truckload of guns. It's easier for the soldiers to kill the terrorists with guns than without, but the soldiers are still doing the killing. That's sort of how it works with vaccines: you're giving your cells a better chance.

Sorry I just can't support a blanket statement like this, probably most are OK, but without knowing what every school gives out you can't be for certain.
The Chicken Pox shot for example; most people can take the shot & it does exactly what it’s supposed to do
But read this: http://www.vaccinetruth.org/chicken_pox.htm nothing is 100%.

That is exactly what I am trying to point out - don't go blindly following whatever the doctors tell you to do. THEY don't actually know EVERYTHING, if they did, do you think they would be working? No. And they certainly DO NOT know what is best for EVERYONE.

Hmmmm.... A very interesting question. I agree that the tetanus shot, specifically, is quite important. I'm homeschooled right now, though, so I don't know what the rest of the shots that students receive are. Meningitis? Flu? Others?


As for vaccines in general, I am still not quite sure where my opinion lies. I suppose I tend to support them. I haven't seen any evidence that being immune to a virus can harm you yet. I am, however, open to new ideas and research, or old ones that I haven't seen.

I understand clearly now, but do side effects include making you sick is my question?

UPDATE : I read someone's post, I have no idea who it is, I'm pretty sure it's rob_b, but the side effects may be chances of getting the flu for the first time you get it is what I was told.

As far as I know, you can't get the full blown virus. You may have a fever because the white blood cells are combating the dead virus, but I don't think you can actually get a full blown virus.

They're only giving you the tetanus jab now? Wow, I had mine when I was two years old...

Anyway, with pretty much every vaccine, there is a absolutely miniscule chance of getting whatever it's designed to protect against when you're given it, but this chance is so unbelievable tiny that its not even worth bothering about. The only reason they even mention it is because they're legally obliged to.

The only problems I've ever had with any of the vaccines I've been given at school have been a slight swelling, and an ache for a few days afterwards. And they warn you about that when they give them to you. I do remember coming out of the hall after being given my BCG, and being hit in the exact spot they'd injected it by a speeding cricket ball, however. It hurt.

They were infected after they had immunized with the vaccine. It was NOT a vaccine's side effect. For sure nothing is 100% efficient but the case was not in the side effects. From vaccines you can't have side effects.

Btw, rob_b, your view was different from mine. So, from where you have received your information? I have never got my self nor heard anyone has got anything from them.

I just don't trust doctors, that's all. That is only my view, and I don't expect anyone to share it, k? I'm not trying to stir up trouble or anything, I'm only sharing my thoughts.


@ninja yes I realize now that tetanus is a bacterium, I wasn't sure when I posted that, but thanks for pointing it out anyway

@slyther no, you're getting things mixed up - I said you may feel somewhat ill after the getting the shot, I never said you will get sick. Don't worry about anything, it's not a big deal really - trust me on that

I'm getting it tomorrow. The other path is the way of suspension from school tomorrow if I refuse to take it. But as long as you guys know, I feel a bit safe now.

Wow, really? The worst 'side effect' I got was a minor touch of pain from the needle going in. That's it.


I don't mean to pry, but could you expand? Why don't you trust some who goes to college for at least twelve years, then spends about four years in residency overseen by full doctors. Doctors are some of the smartest people out there, surpassed only be people like Einstein and Hawking.

I would take the advice of a doctor far sooner than I'm going to take the advice of a non-medically trained person. By the time my baby's born, everyone in this house is going to be vaccinated against the flu. I'm not going to have a bunch of non-vaccinated people around my newborn. Even if a vaccination isn't 100% perfect for whatever reason, it is 200% better than no vaccination at all. Without our vaccines and medical advancement, we'd be like the dark ages in which every other person died of disease. I don't know the exact statistic but a mom had a 10% chance of dying during child birth in the old times. That means every 1 in 10 moms were going to die!

So, advice to people who "don't trust doctors". Are you going to believe the word of local folklore about this and that medical practice, or are you going to take the advice of a doctor? Do you realize that the average doctor (depending on the exact practice) takes about 2 years of undergrad, then 4 years of medical school, then 3-4 years of residency, plus fellowships and whatnot? When I said I had a doctor in the family, I have some idea of what goes on in behind the life of these doctors. It tears families apart and its hard work worth suicide, so you can't say that a doctor doesn't know what he/she's talking about when they tell you something. Why do we have doctors then?

Tetanus shots at school? We didn't get our shots AT the school, had to go to the doctor's office to get it or you'd end up in the hospital for say a broken ankle and they'd give you one, but, that's beside the point.

A bit of info on the tetanus bacteria. Like botulism, the spore can remain inactive, but viable for literally decades. These bacteria lie dormant in the soil, and, the reason you are given the shot is because ANY open wound, no matter how minor, is suseptible to the disease. By the way, Tetanus' common name is "lock jaw". It's a fairly ugly and painful disease as your muscles all 'lock' up. Check this out for the real deal: h**p://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/tetanus/default.htm

@ the OP.......no, receiving the tetanus vaccination will NOT make you feel ill, you will feel a "bruising" sensation and slight muscle stiffness at the injection site, but these are easily remedied by keeping the muscle active and warm compresses the night after you've received the injection.

As for other vaccinations that schools require.......mumps, rubella, and measles, these are all necessary for the health and safety of the entire school. The POSSIBLE but EXTREMELY RARE side effects would be hives or a slight fever, nothing really to worry about, as, they would only last maximum 3 days. The afore mentioned diseases are nearly eradicated in first world countries, but they DO still exist and are STILL just as deadly and as highly contagious today, if not more so, than yesterday.

Go ahead and get the shots, unless, you want to be home schooled, which, I don't know if your parents would care for that too much. I don't know where you got info or who told you that these vaccinations were bad, but you've been the victim of a prank.

It's not just that. Everybody has to take it for an unknown reason. It applies within law. I don't want to take it, but I have to anyway.

I realize how much doctors need to know before they are even allowed to practice medicine as an undergraduate. In my defence, I just simply won't trust anyone with my body - simply put, I am a religious person. I know this isn't a viable reason to anyone, and I sure as hell do not want to turn this into a religious debate, so please, DO NOT RESPOND TO MY POST. I WILL report you if you do, so please do all of us a favour, and DO NOT RESPOND TO MY POST. Thank you.

An argument already? Well, I guess this thread might get locked down soon.

But I have my answer.

First thing I thought of when I saw this thread was wondering what country you were living in. Vaccine shots have been around awhile, and most of those people who speak against them are just holistic nutjobs (technical term). Seriously, I've had all my shots, since an early age, and again starting junior high. All this paranoia is baseless. And yes, I have even done tests on my own blood to make sure that there aren't any of the government's nano-probes swimming around (yeah, some actually believe that). In most cases these are done to prevent outbreaks of sickness in the population. The only shots which you should be wary of are flu shots... Never had one before, don't care to. That's how they get control of your mind and make you buy stuff (proven fact, people who get flu shots also buy stuff).

So THAT"S why I've been buying random CD's by people I've never heard of! Thanks, Vagrant!


No, seriously, I don't think there's anything wrong with vaccines or doctors, for that matter.

I admire your want to protect your child, but I have two things to say:
1. The flu virus evolves so quickly that the vaccine you get will only last about a year before you'll need a new one.
2. Protecting a baby too much from disease is not good. The immune system grows from experience, so the only way a child can be healthy is by getting things like the flu or the cold as a baby. Just a heads up.

You're right in a way. According to numerous articles, it is said that doctors believe that one major cause for food allergies is because, since we are so clean and free of diseases (compared to other countries/past years) the immune system overreacts to proteins in allergy foods. I can say that this may be true, because I've been to some countries in which knowledge of disease and bacteria/viruses are limited (and are therefore have quite a germy life), and yet I don't know anyone or seen anyone with food allergies. Only in the US where we have disease-free drinking water, anti-bacterial handsoap, and people disinfecting their homes every week, is where the allergy population is greatest. In this case I fear for my baby.

However, one method (assuming this theory is true) of ridding ourselves of allergies is re-introducing deadly diseases into the country, to give our immune systems something real to fight. However, anyone can agree that giving a child malaria is far worse a thing to do than have him suffer from allergies, in which the symptoms can be avoided. So for now I'm going to be on the safer side of having my child flu-free (flu can kill a newborn, you realize) and vaccinate everyone here.

It's not for an 'unknown' reason. The reason is to protect the safety and wellbeing of children. The illnesses that vaccinations protect you against are highly virulant and highly contagious. These diseases have not been eradicated but merely controlled for the time being. By refusing to be vaccinated you become: a. a potential victim of these diseases(more so, than you can realize due to the massive influx of immigrants to all first world countries), b. a host carrier to infect other people, and c. a walking petri dish for the virus to mutate and potentially cause another incurable epidemic.

The flu shot, on the other hand, is not mandated by the health department(with the exception of state health care workers), and so, if you do not wish to get it, don't. That's one shot, I myself, wouldn't even bother with simply because there are literally thousands of strains of flu, and, your being innoculated against ONE, does not preclude your contracting another form. Each year the flu virus produces hundreds of variants and therefore, we are not able to efficiently combat it.


@kungfu.....Yes, in Sweeden they have proven that illnesses such as asthma and other allergies can be directly attributed to an over sterile environment. However, introducing lethal virii back into the public is a bit ridiculous, that is the reason for vaccinations in the first place, to shoot a batch of the dead virii into the system so that we develop an immunity to certain diseases. The severity of the reaction to things like the flu, and the common cold, however, can be directly attributed to over zealous parenting, and the media which floods the airwaves with proclamations of healthy = sterile, and the addlepated populace that gobbles it up.

I knew there was one common disease like that. I didn't know if it was the flu or something else. I do know the cold is harmless, though.

@KungFu:
...Ugh... This thread is sickening, I cannot believe what I am reading. All you seem to know is that the doctor knows best. Well, here's a shocker - HE DOESN'T! Simple as that, alright? Let me put it to you this way - are you gonna blindly download EVERY SINGLE Windows update from Microsoft? NO, you won't, especially if the update crashes your computer. The same can be said of humans (not exactly in the same sense, but you know what I mean). I fully support the use of vaccinations against certain (and I am placing EXTRA emphasis on "CERTAIN") diseases, because not all vaccinations are exactly good for you, especially for little children.

The flu shot is perhaps the most controversial, as not everyone will need it during their lifetime. As I had pointed out before (and as Eiden clarified it for me - thank you btw ), an over-sterile environment is the cause of why so many kids and adults today are allergic to any number of things (always due to being over zealous and over protective). I am glad that I have NO allergies (except to codeine *shudders*), and I pity the one who is allergic, because their parents were too damn clean (not that I have a thing against cleanliness lol - if I did, I'd be stinking to high hell by now ). I know you only want to look out for your children KungFu, but I am trying to make you understand that not everything the doctor tells you is necessarily right for you or your family. I don't want to upset you, but I am telling you this as your (internet) friend, not because I want to, but because you have to hear another side of the story.

I haven't had one flu shot yet, and I never intend to at all for as long I live. As Eiden pointed out, the flu is mutating all the time, and there are numerous strains that would take years to create all the vaccines against them. And even then, the virus will still mutate again and again, and in the meantime, all the time that was used to create all these vaccines will have been wasted. Do you see what I mean? I hope you understand what it is I have been saying. The flu virus wouldn't be nearly as bad for a newborn as it would be for the elderly. The reason is because while a newborn does have a weak immune system, it isn't being weakened, it is being strengthened - why do you always hear of elderly persons going for their flu shots come winter, and yet you never hear of parents with newborns doing likewise? So, the best advice for you KungFu is to get all the vaccinations that you have to get for your baby, but hold off on the flu shot, as it would only do more harm than good for your baby later on in life.


I also want to expound on what Eiden mentioned about the reintroduction of deadly diseases/virulent agents. That would serve no purpose other than for biological warfare. Many people would get very sick, and for those with already-weakened immune systems, they would simply die. Why do you suppose the only places that still have Bubonic Plague are in sterile laboratories? Another outbreak of that would surely wipe out most of the population

@kungfubellydancer: I don't know if it was accidental but you've put something in the wrong way. Allergies have nothing to do with deadly diseases, nor with vaccines for that matter. As it has been stated, allergies are a product of over-sterile environment, vacuuming the house with super-powered vacuum cleaners every few days renders the house dust-free, and combined with the fact children today spend most of the day in the house it sums up to children living in a dust-free environment, so their respiratory system isn't so resistant to the small particles in the air. So when they come out to the world and the great outdoors, their system is shocked by the sheer amount of pollen, dust, smoke, microorganisms and such, and cannot put up with it. The same goes for fanatically disinfecting your hands before meals, eating only very clean food, etc. You are supposed to be exposed to your environment, so your body gets used to it. Too much hygiene is as bad as too little, one has to know the golden middle.

I don't want to depict myself as superior, but if you want the best for your children, let them be exposed to the world. They *won't* get hurt if they eat a sandwich without washing their hands once in a while, it'll build up their immune system and help them a lot. Of course one must know the limit. I know this both out of experience, observation of people that surround me and because I've talked to several experts on the matter from different areas of expertise (physicians, biologist, chemist, parents with 5 children that had much practice on the matter )

@rob_b: I agree with you on not trusting doctors blindly. But I do generally trust them on most things, because it is confirmed by my own conclusions, observation and tradition. But doctors sometimes tend to... Make things in an OK way rather than the right way just because it's easier. And IMO they prescribe pills, antibiotics and other medicaments a little too often, thus hindering the people's natural ability to take care of problems on their own. The weakening-of-body's-natural-resistance-effect of many unnecessary medicaments should be more stressed. Mind that I'm talking about the unnecessary ones, I'll take antibiotics if I have influenza or if I'm more seriously ill but I'll fight cough, headache, and all minor and mediocre problems on my own. And it tends to work, as I am almost never sick and even when I am it's just common cold or something like that. I believe it's so because of my attitude with hygiene, medicaments, food, self-healing and such stuff.

I totally agree. My mom ate dirt when she was younger; I think a sandwich is just fine.

I think when I mentioned the deadly diseases in my post, I thought I made it clear that the idea was BAD, and that I WASN'T about to introduce anyone to deadly diseases. Besides, this statement is what I'm getting from the articles, not necessarily what I believe or don't believe. And if anyone wants to know where these articles are from, I'll tell you, because I have 2 of the 3 magazines (parenting mags) in the house. The other one was from an issue of TIME magazine from fall or summer of 2007, I believe. But if you are curious I will tell you the exact title and issue of each mag.

Remember, this is what I understood from these articles, and not necessarily what I can say is true or not. I am not a biologist and I don't think many others here are either.

So, if you aren't going to trust doctors then, who do you go? If you break your back after falling of a ladder, are you going to say, "No, don't call 911, I don't want to go to the hospital because doctors work there, please take me to the herbal witch that lives next door. I trust her expertise more than I trust the doctor's." Now, you may not be visiting witches or taking herbal meds because of their so-called mystical powers, but it sounds like anyone who doesn't trust a doctor is just as crazy. I won't take any medicine unless its FDA-approved, and approved by my doctor.

If you're sick with a virus, are you going to sooner trust a doctor's advice or the advice of your coworker, who most likely is not medically trained or certified?

What I'm getting at is that, even though a doctor might be wrong, he's going to be far more right than anyone or anything else. Enough said.

She didn't - that actually was me, just so you know.


Correct, middle-of-the-road is the way to go I am happy as a clam sitting on this here fence


Exactly my point, because if you inoculate your children against everything, you won't let them have enough time to build up their immune systems naturally. In the end, you'll only do them more harm than good.


I also see that physicians are a little too eager with their pens and prescription paper - I had an argument with someone here before about the wondrous "cure-all" pill. There is NO SUCH THING. Anyone fool enough to believe that shouldn't be trusted at all.

However, I must point out that you don't fight flu with antibiotics - you only use those for [i]bacterial[/b] infections, like strep throat. And because doctors are now prescribing too many antibiotics, they're usefulness is dwindling (as in becoming ineffective against bacterial infections). Here is what I mean by my not trusting doctors - they're now becoming too lazy to actually find out exactly what is wrong with someone, and all too eager to prescribe a pill. I'm not going to let that happen to me.

Actually, now that you mention it, I would like to see these articles - only the gist of each is necessary. At least this will put some understanding between the both of us, k?


If I got into an accident and broke my back, of course I'll want someone to call 911, I ain't dumb like that lol. But that isn't quite the point here. I'm only saying that sometimes, the doctors are wrong when it comes to certain acquired illnesses. Like flu. I'm not trying to disagree with you KungFu, you're my friend, and I'm only trying to look out for you, that's all. I hope you don't feel offended by my comments


Of course I'd trust a certified, licenced physician's advice. But I actually wouldn't TBH - the only people I trust are my mom, my girlfriend, and myself. I haven't gotten sick with flu for a while, and I never went to see a doctor for that at all (in fact, I quit seeing a physician for about 5 years now) - hasn't done me any harm.


Right - 'nuff said

I realize we've veered off topic somewhat. There are so many tangents to follow up on, and each is a worthy topic of discussion in it's own right.

To the point, yes, mandatory vaccinations for school children are good as the immunity granted in childhood are good for an entire lifetime. At least, in most cases.

On the tangents. Flu shot: your choice.( A waste of time and money imo.) For people having babies.....eat healthy, BE healthy and breast feed, unless, there is something wrong with you and you are unable to do so. All mammals receive antibodies from their mother via the umbilical cord while in the womb, and then in the form of colostrum available in the mother's milk during the first one to three weeks depending on species. The colostrum is very dense and rich in antibodies which the mother's body produces giving a newborn's immune system a kick start. In regard to trusting doctors, to follow blindly anyone, is not a good idea, if you are not sure of the advice your doctor gives you, seek a second or third opinion. Yes, too many doctors prescribe antibiotics to easily. If, as in the case of my last doctor, he refuses to prescribe anything unless he deems it absolutely necessary, people will go to another doctor that will. We the patients are as much the problem as the doctors. People want a quick fix, even to something as simple as a cold. Walk into any clinic or emergency room and your bound to find it chock full of idiots and morons taking up space and usually tax payer money to get a pill to fix the common cold.

On a small matter.........bubonic plague is actually still viable, the last confirmed cases were in 1994. There were outbreaks in India. Also, in 1990 there was a case even in California.

Total derail >.>: A disease worth mentioning is Hantavirus. In Latin America and the Caribbean, it is a form of hemorrhagic fever. It was not considered a major threat in the United States because it was not known the extent to which the average citizens' health was affected. In a worst case scenario,(adults are most susceptible) the illness' onset is marked by severe flu-like symptoms, followed by heavy fluid build up in the lungs, without treatment it is surely fatal as you drown in your own fluids.(Treatment is supportive, there is no vaccine nor antibiotic for it.) A CDC study had shown that many cases of childhood asthma in Baltimore, and later in life renal failure, can be attributed to infant exposure to the hantavirus. It is found in rat and mouse urine, the urine dries, and movement such as sweeping and vacuuming turn it into an aerosol where the virus can easily invade the lungs.

Okay, derail off.

I agree - isn't this world just full of stupid people?

Hehe... But seriously tho, the public at large needs to be aware of themselves as well as their surroundings. I couldn't have said this any better myself. People want a quick fix for something that simply cannot not be fixed so quickly, and more often than not, they want a quick fix for something that doesn't really need fixing at all. And the main reason why this has become so is because people are lacking a little thing I like to call "Common Sense".


Actually, this isn't a derailment - in fact, it's quite relevant to the topic. I actually would like very much to be vaccinated against hantavirus, as well any children I have in the future. I would like to thank you very much for this bit of info, Eiden - you also get your first kudos too

I'm sorry about my tone here, but I get easily disturbed about the medical misinterpretation. I have had very bad experiences in life from people's lack of medical knowledge, so since then I can be mean when it comes to medical discussions. But it should be known that the opinions stated are what I see is true, and sadly, can't be changed. But I always have this saying, "no one can change you but yourself," implying that any form of trying to convince anyone of anything most likely will be to no avail until that person sees fit to change on their own accord. That's why I don't like debates much; because the people involved will never see each other's ways.

If you were curious about those articles, here they are. "Parenting" magazine, issue February 2008. "American Baby" magazine, issue March 2008. "TIME" magazine, issued somewhere in 2007 (must have been thrown away long ago.) They all have pretty much the same article, same information.

I forgot to mention that I have not said anything about antibiotics and very much know that antibiotics are useless against viruses and only make things worse. This is a common medical fact that I repeatedly mention to many people. Second, I am a firm believer in breast-feeding, which was actually recommended by several doctors, as well as family members.

Actually I saw an episode of Simpsons today that mentioned the Hanta Virus.

I know, I'm not trying persuade you otherwise KungFu - you only trust what you know through your experiences, right? The only thing that matters is as long as there is an understanding between both you and I, then I have no quarrel with anyone. And you're not mean - trust me, I've seen PLENTY of mean people in my 22 years on this planet, and you don't seem to fit that persona

As for disliking debates, the only reason I like debating is not because I want to change the people in the debates (God forbid if I was to ever do that ), but to share my own opinion on the matter. The only time I ever try to point out the flaws in someone's view is if it just doesn't sound quite right to me. Or in this case, to share another viewpoint - you don't have to agree with me, but at least you'll something else to think about

Well, it is nerve chilling, and I am easily scared of chemicals, so I thought I might have asked you guys. Dunno why. I just felt shooked up, and thought you guys can help calm me down.

Actually, that's not entirely the doctor's fault; it's the patient's. Like said earlier, people are stupid. Let's have an example:
Freddy gets B. acteria and goes to the hospital. The doctor proscribes Anti B and tells Freddy to take Anti B twice a day for three weeks. After two weeks, Freddy feels much better; all the symptoms are gone. So, he stops taking the pills. However, because he didn't take the pills for the full three weeks, there is still a bit of lingering B. acteria. It's not much, but it's still there. These bacteria cells are a tiny bit more resistant than the others to Anti B; hence, they didn't die as quickly. With no more antibiotics, the remaining B. acteria reproduce and spread. Because there are no symptoms, Freddy goes about his day unknowingly infecting many others. Lets just focus on three more people: Kelly, Jack, and Joanne. All four of them get sick and go to the hospital. The doctor(s) proscribe them all Anti B and say to take it twice a day for three weeks. Again, after about two weeks, they all feel better and stop taking it.
Do you see where I'm going with this? It's not the doctors' faults; it's the moron patients' faults for not following the doctor's orders and taking the full prescription.

Yes I do - and I actually pointed that out here:


Sorry, but I beat ya to the punch - take that, Ninja Wizard!

It's okay, and, I can understand a fear of chemicals. But, vaccinations and immunization shots are nothing but dead virii suspended in either a saline solution or another inert compound.

kungfu, just to make myself clear, my point of view about public debates like this one is that it's not my goal to convince you that your view on the matter is wrong or that mine is right but rather to express my opinion to the point, and I referenced you and your statements only to adopt a few foci in my post so that it doesn't happen that one post has nothing to do with the ones before it. What also caught my eye was, as I understood it, is the relation of allergies with deadly diseases so I felt obligated to respond - since this is a public debate on a public forum, many people can read it and a fraction of those people will adopt some of the views the posters shared to the world, and this small error that caught my eye is the factor that made me reference you and not someone else. Please don't fell attacked by my words, I'd never attack you or anyone else for that matter.

As for my opinion of doctors, by saying I don't trust them blindly I only meant I wouldn't instantly listen to them if it contradicted my own judgment, and the situations I was aiming at were the ones I'm not seriously ill - and don't feel like receiving treatment if it isn't necessary. After all, doctor's job is to help you when you need it, not to cure hangovers, headaches, remedy mild coughing and such things, that's your, or your parents'/spouse's job.

Also, I apologize for my misuse of the term "antibiotics", in its stead should be "medicament" or something like that, I was only using it as an example, I know well antibiotics don't kill viruses.

My goal is to give you and all other people my view to think about, and adopt it, or any of its parts, or none at all. If you adopt anything I've said and it helps you in the future I'll be happy, and if you don't it doesn't bother me at all. And do understand, I think of your view on the matter as good as anyone else's, the more standpoints a man (or a woman, khm ) can look from, the better he will understand the real truth.

Pardon me if I misinterpreted your words as I'm not a native speaker, but your view of "debate" seems very pessimistic to me. Why do you say people involved will never see each other's ways? I think that the opposite of that statement is the unavoidable requirement of any valid debate, one side must think through the views of the other one, test it against one's own view - that way, whether the view is adopted or not, the debater will come out richer-minded than before. And the whole point of debating as I see it is not to persuade the people in the correctness of my views but to make them think about it and then choose whether to reject it or not, and that's the only valid way I see for adopting someone else's view. Only that is a true debate, everything else is just sophism.

Not really. You're saying something different. You're saying that people take medication for things that don't need it, and I'm saying people don't take medication when they still do need it. In fact, we're saying completely opposite things. The only thing that was similar was that we both said people are idiots, which I said was already stated here:

What Ninja says is absolutely true. Its what they teach in 10th grade, I remember that lesson.

Though I believe that people are unchangable by external forces, I should have said something different about how I view debates. If you've read every single post I've done for any debate topic, you'll see that most of the time my posts are not in response to someone's statements but in response to the topic proposed. Sometimes I'll even begin/end my post with "This is not in response to any specific post in this thread."

Back to the unchanging thing; in my opinion and from what I have witnessed over my years alive, people won't listen to you, no matter how you try to prove you case, so long as they are convinced that what they think is true. I have spent time in other countries and I know for a fact that not everyone thinks or acts the same as an American. For example, some people (in country X) might wash their dishes with filthy germy dish towels, completely oblivious that they are spreading bacteria all over their dishes. I know for a fact that what they are doing as wrong, but no matter how I tell them or try to prove my case, they will never ever believe me. That's because they do this in country X all the time and are most likely immune, so if life was fine before the American came, why should they listen to me? They could die from their own bad habits but as long as they have messed up medical beliefs they are never going to acknowledge that the American was right after all.

I mean, its the same as telling someone that 2+2=5 even though they were raised to know that 2+2=4. They will never be convinced that 2+2=5, ever. However, the only way one can be convinced is if they realize it on their own, not by what anyone else said. Makes a bit more sense, right?

That is completely true. People are set in there ways. Do you know when the Church finally accepted Galileo, finally said he was right? Any guesses? It was in 1992. No kidding. People just don't like change, and, more importantly, don't like to be proven wrong.

(I'm not turning this into religion; I'm just using this as a great example of the human desire to always want to be right.)

On the other hand, if no one changes, what's the point in debate? What's the point in science? If everyone believes what they want to believe, then there is no reason for those things. So, people do change; it just takes a while, especially for the Church; they don't like to say that God is wrong, for good reason.

People debate because they want to convince others, or try to at least have a bit of their beliefs affect the other people's ideas. Though people 1 may think that they can convince people 2 of their ways, people 1 forget that, since they will never be convinced of the ways of people 2, that people 2 are thinking the very same thing. People 1 and people 2 are alike in that they will never see each other's ways.

If I told you that butter is better than margarine, you may tell me that margarine is better, but I won't listen, just as you won't listen to me. But since I am convinced that butter is better and that you are wrong, I might try to debate with you. And since you think margarine is better, you will debate with me. Even if you give in and say butter is better, you won't in your heart ever be convinced.

I'm one of the exceptions to that rule - I'm "open-minded", or at least open to new thoughts and ideas. However, I can choose to adopt new ideas in place of old ones, or just keep the same ideals. That's the beauty of free-will. So, you can point out to me why you may think I am wrong, and I will do the same. I'm not trying to convince you to change YOUR way of thinking, but only to SHARE with you another opinion. Like I said, you can choose to agree with me or not, really won't matter to me. I know I just contradicted what I said before, and I see the err in my comments.

I will say that we should be so fortunate to be able to debate at all - in other parts of the world, anyone who opposes the leader in power will almost immediately be either jailed or executed. Think about it.

While I agree to most of the things that have been said in the last few posts, I think we need to discern between subjective and objective truths. In the butter-margarine case, both truths are valid so it isn't a real debate, as there is no way someone is going so start like margarine more just because you said it's better. But truths based on factual ground can be debated in such a way that the open-minded folk actually manage to come out of it with changed opinions on the matter. In cases that are not purely subjective, a good debater, one that thoroughly thinks through what the opposition said, is likely to alter his views, maybe a little, maybe a little more, maybe completely. The church is definitely not a good debater since it is based on what is exactly opposite of what is required for a debater, church is about believing what they tell you and not doubting it or thinking it through in any way that may alter it. (note that I'm talking about the man's institution of church, not religion).

In parallel with your example with people 1 and people 2, your conclusions are valid, but you presumed that people 1 will never understand people 2. But if people 1 *do* manage to understand people 2's ways, and I believe that's not something impossible, then they could explain it to people 2 in their own way of thinking, thus making it possible for people 2 to see and accept people 1's ways.