The needle shots at school

[ninja_lord666]

...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, 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.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

...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, 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:

 

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.

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

 

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".

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

[Eiden]

:sick: 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.

 

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.

[Xeniorn]

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 :D 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 :D) 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.

[ninja_lord666]

...I actually pointed that out here:

 

<edit>

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

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:

Like said earlier, ...

[kungfubellydancer]

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?

[ninja_lord666]

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.

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. :D

[kungfubellydancer]

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.

[ResidentWeevil2077]

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.

[Xeniorn]

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.