Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: avxo on August 27, 2013, 02:17:47 PM
-
From http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-texas-megachurch-measles-vaccination-082613 (http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-texas-megachurch-measles-vaccination-082613)
At least 20 members of the Eagle Mountain International Church in North Texas have been diagnosed with measles after a few members of the congregation traveled abroad on a mission trip and contracted the disease. The church is part of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, which has advocated abstaining from vaccinations and immunizations for fear they cause autism.
Not only will these idiots be hosting vaccination clinics now, but they issued a press release in which they mask their shift in position by arguing that they always said that in "dealing with any medical condition involving yourself or someone in your family is to first seek the wisdom of God, His Word, and appropriate medical attention from a professional that you know and trust. Apply wisdom and discernment in carrying out their recommendations for treatment."
Well, despite the delicious irony of the story, I guess they haven't learned their lesson quite yet.
-
I've always subscribed to following in terms of my faith and "healing" in that God has provided 3 types:
1) Divine healing that some folks would interpret as a miracle (ex: Jesus healing the blind on the streets)
2) Ability within the body to heal itself as set forth by the creator (ex: the body being able to heal itself from a cold or flu with no outside assistance)
3) Healing via continually improving medical science via the gifts of knowledge, discernment and understanding that God has imparted to members of the scientific and medical community (LOL, we ain't all brainiacs....especially theists!! ;) ).
Certainly this isn't an exhaustive list, but general categories as I see it.
-
Islam's take:
Abu Hurayrah narrates that The Prophet pbuh said:
There is no disease that Allah has created, except that He also has created its remedy.
Bukhari 7.582
Usamah ibn Shuraik narrated:
O Allahs Messenger! Should we seek medical treatment for our illnesses? He replied: Yes, you should seek medical treatment, because Allah, the Exalted, has let no disease exist without providing for its cure, except for one ailment, namely, old age.
Tirmidhi
Taking proper care of ones health is considered by the Prophet Muhammad pbuh to be the right of the body.
Bukhari as-Sawm 55, an-Nikah 89, Muslim as-siyyam 183, 193, Nisai
The Prophet not only instructed sick people to take medicine, but he himself invited expert physicians for this purpose.
D.o.H. p.50, As-Suyutis Medicine of the Prophet p.125
-
I've always subscribed to following in terms of my faith and "healing" in that God has provided 3 types:
1) Divine healing that some folks would interpret as a miracle (ex: Jesus healing the blind on the streets)
2) Ability within the body to heal itself as set forth by the creator (ex: the body being able to heal itself from a cold or flu with no outside assistance)
3) Healing via continually improving medical science via the gifts of knowledge, discernment and understanding that God has imparted to members of the scientific and medical community (LOL, we ain't all brainiacs....especially theists!! ;) ).
Certainly this isn't an exhaustive list, but general categories as I see it.
Frankly, any pastor or priest that advocates people not get vaccinated or, really, just even tries to play doctor ought to be ashamed. These are people who, in all likelihood, know basically nothing about the immune system, and they fancy themselves qualified to not only judge the work of expert professionals, but to also give out advice. It borders on the criminal...
Through the hard work of people who have devoted themselves to study and research, we have developed powerful tools that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and have, effectively, eradicated diseases that plagued our planet. And some idiot pastor, with no medical training someone who can't tell you the difference between a T-cell and a B-cell or even even spell macrophage preaches: "don't inject your kids... god will protect you"?
You see, normally I wouldn't mind this sort of thing. If people are stupid enough to follow bad advice, then they deserve what's coming to them. Alas, in this case, their bad decisions affect me, and you and everybody else, as the herd immunity effect is compromised.
Islam's take:
That's a surprisingly refreshing snippet, actually. Although, I don't know that I agree that every disease has a cure, I guess that can hinge on what one considers a disease.
-
Frankly, any pastor or priest that advocates people not get vaccinated or, really, just even tries to play doctor ought to be ashamed. These are people who, in all likelihood, know basically nothing about the immune system, and they fancy themselves qualified to not only judge the work of expert professionals, but to also give out advice. It borders on the criminal...
Through the hard work of people who have devoted themselves to study and research, we have developed powerful tools that have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and have, effectively, eradicated diseases that plagued our planet. And some idiot pastor, with no medical training someone who can't tell you the difference between a T-cell and a B-cell or even even spell macrophage preaches: "don't inject your kids... god will protect you"?
You see, normally I wouldn't mind this sort of thing. If people are stupid enough to follow bad advice, then they deserve what's coming to them. Alas, in this case, their bad decisions affect me, and you and everybody else, as the herd immunity effect is compromised.
That's a surprisingly refreshing snippet, actually. Although, I don't know that I agree that every disease has a cure, I guess that can hinge on what one considers a disease.
I agree with you and it is ridiculous. As a believers we're entrusted with the whole of creation and that which is developed threrein. I've never grasped the link that some believers make between taking advantage of medical technology and therefore having a lack of faith LOL....feels like a nonsequitor to me.
I also like how the Quran very plainly states the position on medical technology and science.
The bible isn't quite as straightforward as that LOL. Paul mentions drinking a bit of wine to settle a sour stomach and there are references to injuries being treated with the medicine of the time. Heck, gospel writer Luke was a companion of the apostle Paul, but before that he was a doctor. He became a Christian yet he still remained a doctor.
Within the book of Galatians Paul notes the sin of sorcery which is rooted in the greek term pharmakeia (pharmacy). This isn't indicating that medicines in general are bad. The context is about sorcery and witchcraft and avoiding making or partaking in elicit drugs (potions) for purposes of engaging in witchcraft, the occult or abusing drugs in general for non-medical purposes and allowing it consume a person creating addictions that oppose God's will for our lives.
I think folks misinterpret these passages of scripture, but again I agree that the behavior is ridiculous. If my kid skins her knee she's gettin some ointment, a bandage, a little tylenol and a hug LOL!
-
I agree with you and it is ridiculous. As a believers we're entrusted with the whole of creation and that which is developed threrein. I've never grasped the link that some believers make between taking advantage of medical technology and therefore having a lack of faith LOL....feels like a nonsequitor to me.
I also like how the Quran very plainly states the position on medical technology and science.
The bible isn't quite as straightforward as that LOL. Paul mentions drinking a bit of wine to settle a sour stomach and there are references to injuries being treated with the medicine of the time. Heck, gospel writer Luke was a companion of the apostle Paul, but before that he was a doctor. He became a Christian yet he still remained a doctor.
Within the book of Galatians Paul notes the sin of sorcery which is rooted in the greek term pharmakeia (pharmacy). This isn't indicating that medicines in general are bad. The context is about sorcery and witchcraft and avoiding making or partaking in elicit drugs (potions) for purposes of engaging in witchcraft, the occult or abusing drugs in general for non-medical purposes and allowing it consume a person creating addictions that oppose God's will for our lives.
I think folks misinterpret these passages of scripture, but again I agree that the behavior is ridiculous. If my kid skins her knee she's gettin some ointment, a bandage, a little tylenol and a hug LOL!
If only more Christians actually, more religious people were like you, this would be a much better world.
-
If only more Christians – actually, more religious people – were like you, this would be a much better world.
I appreciate that. I give all glory to God....he changed how I think, process and act/react.
-
From http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-texas-megachurch-measles-vaccination-082613 (http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-texas-megachurch-measles-vaccination-082613)
Not only will these idiots be hosting vaccination clinics now, but they issued a press release in which they mask their shift in position by arguing that they always said that in "dealing with any medical condition involving yourself or someone in your family is to first seek the wisdom of God, His Word, and appropriate medical attention from a professional that you know and trust. Apply wisdom and discernment in carrying out their recommendations for treatment."
Well, despite the delicious irony of the story, I guess they haven't learned their lesson quite yet.
Easy to knock down a straw man. Kenneth Copeland has never advised people against medical treatment, including vaccinations. However, there are many people - atheists included - who fear that vaccines, especially multiple vaccinations of children - are responsible for the apparent explosion in cases of autism.
This discredited belief is based on the 1998 faked study by British researcher Andrew Wakefield. But many people still believe it, and that is what happened in this case.
See http://www.charismanews.com/us/40854-copeland-s-church-responds-to-false-anti-vaccination-accusations.
-
Easy to knock down a straw man. Kenneth Copeland has never advised people against medical treatment, including vaccinations. However, there are many people - atheists included - who fear that vaccines, especially multiple vaccinations of children - are responsible for the apparent explosion in cases of autism.
This discredited belief is based on the 1998 faked study by British researcher Andrew Wakefield. But many people still believe it, and that is what happened in this case.
See http://www.charismanews.com/us/40854-copeland-s-church-responds-to-false-anti-vaccination-accusations.
Oh, if charismanews.com quotes Kenneth Copeland as now asserting that he's never argued against vaccination... well then it must be true!
Forget multiple statements on his program where he rails against vaccinating babies. Forget statements by his wife (and, let's be honest, business partner) where she claims that medication isn't needed because God heals everything.
Forget statements by his daughter the Pastor in this Church who even now, as she does damage control turns around and, in the same sentence, adds that if you know, in your heart, that vaccinations aren't needed or are against your faith, don't get them. God will provide.
Yes, forget all these undisputed facts. Just go on what this scamming televangelist said in some interview in an attempt to quell the publicity that is endangering his lavish lifestyle.
-
Oh, if charismanews.com quotes Kenneth Copeland as now asserting that he's never argued against vaccination... well then it must be true!
Forget multiple statements on his program where he rails against vaccinating babies. Forget statements by his wife (and, let's be honest, business partner) where she claims that medication isn't needed because God heals everything.
Forget statements by his daughter the Pastor in this Church who even now, as she does damage control turns around and, in the same sentence, adds that if you know, in your heart, that vaccinations aren't needed or are against your faith, don't get them. God will provide.
Yes, forget all these undisputed facts. Just go on what this scamming televangelist said in some interview in an attempt to quell the publicity that is endangering his lavish lifestyle.
Undisputed facts? I hereby dispute them.
Prove your claims or shut up. I've been listening to Copeland for thirty years and I have never heard any of what you claim.
-
Undisputed facts? I hereby dispute them.
Prove your claims or shut up. I've been listening to Copeland for thirty years and I have never heard any of what you claim.
Are you insane? His daughter, the pastor in this church, even when saying they would be hosting vaccinations said that if people feel they have the measles outbreak "covered [...] by faith" then they shouldn't do this. This from the woman that claims that the priesthood is supposed to heal, and doctors are just there to get people whipped up into a frenzy. Don't believe me? Listen to her: http://www.emic.org/media/index.php?id=1158 (http://www.emic.org/media/index.php?id=1158)
Even now, in the midst of this, these idiots are trying to have their cake and eat it too... From http://www.emic.org/newsupdates.php (http://www.emic.org/newsupdates.php):
Kenneth Copeland Ministries position regarding dealing with any medical condition involving yourself or someone in your family is to first seek the wisdom of God, His Word, and appropriate medical attention from a professional that you know and trust. Apply wisdom and discernment in carrying out their recommendations for treatment. This would include: vaccinations, immunizations, surgeries, prescriptions, or any other medical procedures.
In other words, pray to god before you get treatment, and pray about the suggestions of experts, and do whatever comes to your mind. If, as Terri Pearsons says, "you have this covered by faith" then don't get the vaccine.
Kenneth Copeland, on TV, rails against vaccines, saying: "I got to looking into that and some of it is criminal. ... You're not putting what is it Hepatitis B in an infant! That's crazy. That is a shot for a sexually transmitted disease. What? In a baby? Don't take the word of the guy that's trying to give the shot about what's good and what isn't." Don't believe me? Listen to him say this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd-G-9gcUZg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd-G-9gcUZg) (along with some commentary interspersed).
What this uneducated, uninformed buffoon doesn't know is that Hepatitis B isn't solely sexually transmitted and infants and young children are at extremely high risk of contracting this disease for a number of reasons. And he has the gall to turn around and suggest that you shouldn't trust your doctor? That you should disregard the efforts of tens of thousands of doctors and scientists who worked incredibly hard to find out way to fight these diseases that once ravaged entire nations and whole generations!
If you believe the stuff Kenneth Copeland preaches when it comes to spiritual matters, more power to you. But if you trust this idiot to dispense medical advice, then you and your ilk deserve what's coming to you; but it's a pity that your stupidity affects herd immunity and fucks up the rest of us.
-
No, I am not insane, at least not about this. Now indulge me and read the following carefully, if you please.
Kenneth Copeland has always advised people to pray to God if they are sick AND seek medical attention. Your own quotation bears this out (I assume it's genuine - although you don't source it).
That's the general point about seeking medical attention. So, just like Man of Steel, any member of Eagle Church would put ointment and a bandage on their child's leg if it was hurt, and certainly take him/her to a doctor, if ill. Christian Science is the only Christian faith I know of that has a blanket resistance to medical treatment as part of its doctrines. Eagle Church has no such prohibition.
Now, on to vaccines, especially multiple vaccines. In 1998, The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious professional medical journals, published a paper by Andrew Wakefield, MD and ten other researchers linking the MMR vaccine (against measles, mumps, and rubella) to a syndrome that could lead to autism. The research upon which this paper was based was fudged by Wakefield. However, the Lancet did not retract the paper until 2010! In the interim, its conclusions about a link between multiple vaccinations in very early childhood and autism were very widely publicized by medical education services (for example, like Medpage Today) that distribute the results of recent medical research in summary form to hundreds of thousands of clinical professionals (including family physicians and pediatricians). As a result, many of these professionals advised their patients not to inoculate their infants with MMR.
The effect of this paper was in fact significant enough to result in the rate of non-vaccination against measles to increase from 0.71 to 2.1% of all eligible children between 2000 and 2010.
Word spread among parents, clergy, teachers, and anyone involved directly or indirectly in the care of children. This included pastors, ministers, priests, rabbis, and imans. If a parishioner asked for advice of a clergyman on the vaccine issue, he/she was likely to get the (presumably prudent advice) to avoid multiple vaccinations in a narrow time frame. In many cases, this got distorted into advice to avoid all vaccines.
Almost immediately, after Walefield's paper was published, other research labs attempted to duplicate his results - and failed. But still, in 2004, by which time Wakefield's claims were in deep trouble, The Lancet refused to fully retract it, saying that Wakefield's research was of great significance in identifying new issues that had not been explored before. It was only in 2010 that The Lancet, under enormous pressure to do so, fully retracted Wakefield's paper and its conclusions.
And yet, the aura of doubt about vaccines and autism remains among many. The damage had been done by a decade-long medical fraud.
Eagle Church has never prohibited or exhorted its members to avoid medical care or vaccinations. And for your information, in investigating this most recent outbreak (there was one in 2008 as well, not involving Eagle), medical authorities found that the majority of children eligible for the MMR vaccine among Eagle Church members, had already received their vaccinations well before the outbreak.
The statements you refer to are a result of the Wakefield study, not only in the Eagle Church, but across the spectrum of faiths and medical organizations during the period 2000-2010. Kenneth Copeland's referenced comments pertain to his grandson, and indicate the influence of Wakefield's fraud. His grandson did wind up getting the vaccinations, with Copeland's blessing.
I admit his daughter's initial comments were confusing. They reflected the fact that she had, as had many influenced by the fraud, advised in the past against vaccinations like MMR based on Wakefield's widely-disseminated conclusions. So she was struggling to reconcile the advice to actively vaccinate with what she had said in the past. It was a mistake, and she later corrected it.
Finally, if you were faced with innoculating your child with as many as ten vaccines before the age of 4, and you were aware of Wakefield's study before Lancet's retraction, would you have gone ahead with it? I would not have.
You might, in the future, want to dig deeper into a topic before cutting and pasting from today's lurid headlines and then hurling ill-informed insults.
Or you might not.
Are you insane? His daughter, the pastor in this church, even when saying they would be hosting vaccinations said that if people feel they have the measles outbreak "covered [...] by faith" then they shouldn't do this. This from the woman that claims that the priesthood is supposed to heal, and doctors are just there to get people whipped up into a frenzy. Don't believe me? Listen to her: http://www.emic.org/media/index.php?id=1158 (http://www.emic.org/media/index.php?id=1158)
Even now, in the midst of this, these idiots are trying to have their cake and eat it too... From http://www.emic.org/newsupdates.php (http://www.emic.org/newsupdates.php):
In other words, pray to god before you get treatment, and pray about the suggestions of experts, and do whatever comes to your mind. If, as Terri Pearsons says, "you have this covered by faith" then don't get the vaccine.
Kenneth Copeland, on TV, rails against vaccines, saying: "I got to looking into that and some of it is criminal. ... You're not putting what is it Hepatitis B in an infant! That's crazy. That is a shot for a sexually transmitted disease. What? In a baby? Don't take the word of the guy that's trying to give the shot about what's good and what isn't." Don't believe me? Listen to him say this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd-G-9gcUZg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd-G-9gcUZg) (along with some commentary interspersed).
What this uneducated, uninformed buffoon doesn't know is that Hepatitis B isn't solely sexually transmitted and infants and young children are at extremely high risk of contracting this disease for a number of reasons. And he has the gall to turn around and suggest that you shouldn't trust your doctor? That you should disregard the efforts of tens of thousands of doctors and scientists who worked incredibly hard to find out way to fight these diseases that once ravaged entire nations and whole generations!
If you believe the stuff Kenneth Copeland preaches when it comes to spiritual matters, more power to you. But if you trust this idiot to dispense medical advice, then you and your ilk deserve what's coming to you; but it's a pity that your stupidity affects herd immunity and fucks up the rest of us.
-
Kenneth Copeland has always advised people to pray to God if they are sick AND seek medical attention. Your own quotation bears this out (I assume it's genuine - although you don't source it).
I don't? I include a link to a video where he says exactly what I quote him as saying, and the link to his website which includes the very text I cite. As for what he says, I'll let each person decide what he says and doesn't say. I also include a link to his daughter's "sermon" as the source of the quote I cite from her.
Now, on to vaccines, especially multiple vaccines. In 1998, The Lancet, one of the world's most prestigious professional medical journals, published a paper by Andrew Wakefield, MD and ten other researchers linking the MMR vaccine (against measles, mumps, and rubella) to a syndrome that could lead to autism. The research upon which this paper was based was fudged by Wakefield. However, the Lancet did not retract the paper until 2010! In the interim, its conclusions about a link between multiple vaccinations in very early childhood and autism were very widely publicized by medical education services (for example, like Medpage Today) that distribute the results of recent medical research in summary form to hundreds of thousands of clinical professionals (including family physicians and pediatricians). As a result, many of these professionals advisd their patients not to inoculate their infants with MMR.
The effect of this paper was in fact significant enough to result in the rate of non-vaccination against measles to increase from 0.71 to 2.1% of all eligible children between 2000 and 2010.
Word spread among parents, clergy, teachers, and anyone involved directly or indirectly in the care of children. This included pastors, ministers, priests, rabbis, and imans. If a parishioner asked for advice of a clergyman on the vaccine issue, he/she was likely to get the (presumably prudent advice) to avoid multiple vaccinations in a narrow time frame. In many cases, this got distorted into advice to avoid all vaccines.
Almost immediately, after Walefield's paper was published, other research labs attempted to duplicate his results - and failed. But still, in 2004, by which time Wakefield's claims were in deep trouble, The Lancet refused to fully retract it, saying that Wakefield's research was of great significance in identifying new issues that had not been explored before. It was only in 2010 that The Lancet, under enormous pressure to do so, fully retracted Wakefield's paper and its conclusions.
And yet, the aura of doubt about vaccines and autism remains among many. The damage had been done by a decade-long medical fraud.
We all know the story behind that, and Wakefield's academic dishonesty and blatant lying. Is there a point in copy-pasting it here in its entirety?
Eagle Church has never prohibited or exhorted its members to avoid medical care or vaccinations. And for your information, in investigating this most recent outbreak (there was one in 2008 as well, not involving Eagle), medical authorities found that the majority of children eligible for the MMR vaccine among Eagle Church members, had already received their vaccinations well before the outbreak.
I never argued that he or his "church" prohibited or extorted anyone, and you're welcome to find a single quote from me saying otherwise.
What I did say is that his and his daughters' positions - namely, that you can rely on faith for healing and that it's ok ignore the advice of doctors if you have it covered "by faith" - are irresponsible and if they really believe them, then they are both stupid, just as those who believe him are stupid.
By the way, do tell me this, can you provide a reference or citation for your assertion that most children had already been vaccinated? Because you seem to be making plenty of claims and not backing any of them up. Everything I've read suggests otherwise.
The statements you refer to are a result of the Wakefield study, not only in the Eagle Church, but across the spectrum of faiths and medical organizations during the period 2000-2010. Kenneth Copeland's referenced comments pertain to his grandson, and indicate the influence of Wakefield's fraud. His grandson did wind up getting the vaccinations, with Copeland's blessing.
The statements I refer to are statements that Copeland made - and they are not only horribly misguided but show how poorly educated he was, and should prove why nobody should give any weight to what he says on any issue relating to health. Whether the context was his grandson and whether his grandson was vaccinated or not is irrelevant. He made those statements in a public broadcast, intending for people to hear them. And people did hear them and they acted accordingly.
Now, I don't hold him responsible because other people are stupid enough to take medical from an educated ex-country singer televangelist and his daughter. You know, people like Rose Mwangi[/quote], a member of this church, who said she's not worried "because I know Jesus is a healer, so I know he's covered us with the blood...There's no place for fear."
But I do hold him accountable for making idiotic, uninformed and uneducated statements. It's the risk that anyone takes when they speak in public. That people will hold them accountable for what they do say.
(http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak)I admit his daughter's initial comments were confusing. They reflected the fact that she had, as had many influenced by the fraud, advised in the past against vaccinations like MMR based on Wakefield's widely-disseminated conclusions. So she was struggling to reconcile the advice to actively vaccinate with what she had said in past. It was a mistake, and she later corrected it.
Yes, she "corrected" it by saying things like: "I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts" and that this is something that you can have cover "by faith." What a correction that was!
At least they got some vaccination clinics going. That's something.
Finally, if you were faced with innoculating your child with as many as ten vaccines before the age of 4, and you were aware of Wakefield's study before Lancet's retraction, would you have gone ahead with it? I would not have.
I would have. You see, although I am not a medical doctor, I am a scientist by education, and I know very well that a single study, especially one that makes bold claims that turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head must be taken with a grain of salt. And instead of just blindly accepting that study, I would consult with experts - people like my child's doctor - on how to proceed instead of focusing on a single study or praying to mystical being in the sky.
Also, I discussed this issue with my Mother, who is a medical doctor, as well as a friend who was a pediatric specialist and practicing at the time when the Wakefield study was published. Both said that the consensus in the community was that the Wakefield study merited further study but was not, by itself, sufficient to recommend that children not be vaccinated. My pediatric friend actually said that very few parents actually raised any concerns at the time about the Wakefield study, and the few that did were people who were people that appeared to be predisposed to view modern medicine negatively.
But to reiterate, yes I would have vaccinated my child.
You might, in the future, want to dig deeper into a topic before cutting and pasting from today's lurid headlines and then hurling ill-informed insults.
Ooh, today's lurid headlines... ::)
Dig deep into what? Kenneth Copeland's nonsensical ramblings? His daughter's incoherent ramblings? I don't have the time to listen to either of them ramble about their particular interpretation of the Bible or how they feel it applies to medical science.
As for insults, the only thing that can remotely be construed as an insult is that Kenneth Copeland, his daughter and the members of Eagle Mountain International Church who didn't get the vaccine are idiots. I'd hardly call that an insult and the facts seem to agree with me.
And you should learn not to venture unsolicited opinions, lest you discover exactly how much they are valued.
-
I don't? I include a link to a video where he says exactly what I quote him as saying, and the link to his website which includes the very text I cite. As for what he says, I'll let each person decide what he says and doesn't say. I also include a link to his daughter's "sermon" as the source of the quote I cite from her.
My bad. You do. However, what he says here is based on the fear that was unleashed by Wakefield. This is from 2010, and is not a current church view.
We all know the story behind that, and Wakefield's academic dishonesty and blatant lying. Is there a point in copy-pasting it here in its entirety?
Nothing is "copy pasted" on this. And I doubt that everyone reading this thread "know the story". Wakefield's fraudulent study and the fear it generated are what is behind the multiple vaccine scare, not Eagle Rock International Church. That is my point.
I never argued that he or his "church" prohibited or extorted anyone, and you're welcome to find a single quote from me saying otherwise.
"Exhorted", not "extorted".
What I did say is that his and his daughters' positions - namely, that you can rely on faith for healing and that it's ok ignore the advice of doctors if you have it covered "by faith" - are irresponsible and if they really believe them, then they are both stupid, just as those who believe him are stupid.
That is not their position. They do not advocate reliance on faith healing - they promote prayer AND medical treatment.
By the way, do tell me this, can you provide a reference or citation for your assertion that most children had already been vaccinated? Because you seem to be making plenty of claims and not backing any of them up. Everything I've read suggests otherwise.
Sure. It's in the Kentucky Observer, August 22, 2013, page 2.
What other claims that I made would you like sources for?
The statements I refer to are statements that Copeland made - and they are not only horribly misguided but show how poorly educated he was, and should prove why nobody should give any weight to what he says on any issue relating to health. Whether the context was his grandson and whether his grandson was vaccinated or not is irrelevant. He made those statements in a public broadcast, intending for people to hear them. And people did hear them and they acted accordingly.
Copeland was upset by the number of vaccines his grandson was due to get, and warned people to make sure of what they were doing. My point is this position was very common until recently, not only within this congregation, but in many other congregations and in the general population, as well as among medical professionals as a result of Wakefield.
Now, I don't hold him responsible because other people are stupid enough to take medical from an educated ex-country singer televangelist and his daughter. You know, people like Rose Mwangi, a member of this church, who said she's not worried "because I know Jesus is a healer, so I know he's covered us with the blood...There's no place for fear."
(http://www.npr.org/2013/09/01/217746942/texas-megachurch-at-center-of-measles-outbreak)
I think you meant to say "uneducated". It is easy to make fun of the unsophisticated.
But I do hold him accountable for making idiotic, uninformed and uneducated statements. It's the risk that anyone takes when they speak in public. That people will hold them accountable for what they do say.
Of course. He does make mistakes in the video you linked to. However, the main point he is making about dangers in multiple vaccination was still out there as a view not yet rejected by medicine, at the time. And it was a widespread view, due to ten years of publicity concerning the Wakefield study. Still, he enjoins people to be cautious, and does not advise anyone not to seek medical care when needed.
Yes, she "corrected" it by saying things like: "I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts" and that this is something that you can have cover "by faith." What a correction that was!
She subsequently retracted all of that.
I would have. You see, although I am not a medical doctor, I am a scientist by education, and I know very well that a single study, especially one that makes bold claims that turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head must be taken with a grain of salt. And instead of just blindly accepting that study, I would consult with experts - people like my child's doctor - on how to proceed instead of focusing on a single study or praying to mystical being in the sky.
That "single study" was enormously influential, and it did not "turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head." Vaccines like MMR were new at the time, and there had been - and continues to be - an unexplained increase in the diagnosed cases of autism. It's not as if the conventional research wisdom had been contradicted by Wakefield. Wakefield's claim was entirely novel.
What kind of scientist were you trained as? You don't sound like a scientist. You would uncritically take the word of a local pediatrician over the frightening link that Wakefield claimed to uncover, a study published in Lancet? No worry, no questioning, just blind acceptance?
Your hostility toward people who believe in God ("mystical being in the sky") is well known on this board, and is entirely beside the point in question.
Also, I discussed this issue with my Mother, who is a medical doctor, as well as a friend who was a pediatric specialist and practicing at the time when the Wakefield study was published. Both said that the consensus in the community was that the Wakefield study merited further study but was not, by itself, sufficient to recommend that children not be vaccinated. My pediatric friend actually said that very few parents actually raised any concerns at the time about the Wakefield study, and the few that did were people who were people that appeared to be predisposed to view modern medicine negatively.
That was not the conventional wisdom at the time, at least not beyond the personal experiences you cite. And if only a few parents reacted as you state, that would not account for the massive drop in vaccinations I referenced.
But to reiterate, yes I would have vaccinated my child.
Do you have children?
Ooh, today's lurid headlines... ::)
Dig deep into what? Kenneth Copeland's nonsensical ramblings? His daughter's incoherent ramblings? I don't have the time to listen to either of them ramble about their particular interpretation of the Bible or how they feel it applies to medical science.
As for insults, the only thing that can remotely be construed as an insult is that Kenneth Copeland, his daughter and the members of Eagle Mountain International Church who didn't get the vaccine are idiots. I'd hardly call that an insult and the facts seem to agree with me.
Well, I do agree that your comments speak for themselves. You also called Copeland a "scamming televangelist".
And you should learn not to venture unsolicited opinions, lest you discover exactly how much they are valued.
The bottom line, my friend, is the reason that "the idiots" you harangue (as well as many people that I venture to guess you would not label as idiots) were scared away from multiple vaccinations is Wakefield's research and the platform of legitimacy given him by a premier medical journal.
What is really scandalous is that it took ten years to discredit him, and, as a result, the effects of the hysteria he created persist even today.
-
My bad. You do. However, what he says here is based on the fear that was unleashed by Wakefield. This is from 2010, and is not a current church view.
That's a fair point. What he says is from 2010. His daughter's quotes, however, are quite fresh.
Nothing is "copy pasted" on this. And I doubt that everyone reading this thread "know the story". Wakefield's fraudulent study and the fear it generated are what is behind the multiple vaccine scare, not Eagle Rock International Church. That is my point.
A study that's been discredited since, at least, 2010... it's now 2013.
"Exhorted", not "extorted".
Sheesh, I should have spotted that. That's what I get for posting from my iPhone.
That is not their position. They do not advocate reliance on faith healing - they promote prayer AND medical treatment.
Previous statements they've made seem to advocate reliance on faith healing, and plenty of church members have made statements to that effect. You can argue that those members don't represent the church position accurately, but you can't just toss their statement aside.
Sure. It's in the Kentucky Observer, August 22, 2013, page 2.
Great, but hard to verify ;P But I'll take you at your word, what with being an a getbigger and all.
Copeland was upset by the number of vaccines his grandson was due to get, and warned people to make sure of what they were doing. My point is this position was very common until recently, not only within this congregation, but in many other congregations and in the general population, as well as among medical professionals as a result of Wakefield.
I don't know that it was very common in the general population, but it wasn't among medical professionals.
I think you meant to say "uneducated". It is easy to make fun of the unsophisticated.
I did thanks - typing on the iPhone can be a pain at times; but the hilarity often makes up for it. And yes, it's easy to make fun of people who are unsophisticated. But her position was the position adopted by many others in her church. And I ask you, shouldn't the pastors of that church who tend to that "flock" after all and are presumably not unsophisticated at least attempt to correct such misconceptions, instead of encouraging and "feeding" them?
Of course. He does make mistakes in the video you linked to. However, the main point he is making about dangers in multiple vaccination was still out there as a view not yet rejected by medicine, at the time. And it was a widespread view, due to ten years of publicity concerning the Wakefield study. Still, he enjoins people to be cautious, and does not advise anyone not to seek medical care when needed.
It's true, he never outright says "don't seek medical attention." But I think that's only because he wants to avoid the legal hot waters he would invariably land himself into if he had. Legal hot waters that would cost him a lot of money.
That "single study" was enormously influential, and it did not "turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head." Vaccines like MMR were new at the time, and there had been - and continues to be - an unexplained increase in the diagnosed cases of autism. It's not as if the conventional research wisdom had been contradicted by Wakefield. Wakefield's claim was entirely novel.
It did turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head, because the general consensus was that vaccination was safe and had minimal relatively benign side-effects. Additionally, The MMR vaccine was around since the 1971 and its constituent components since the sixties and were generally recognized as safe. So MMR wasn't "new" no matter how you cut, slice or dice it, unless you mean a new formulation of the MMR vaccine.
And yes, Wakefield's claim was novel, but that doesn't mean it didn't turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head. It did - by claiming that a vaccine that was generally accepted as safe was responsible for autism and autism-spectrum disorders.
What kind of scientist were you trained as? You don't sound like a scientist.
Oops. Sorry, I'll remember to sound more sciency next time! Not that my particular field of study is relevant but since you asked, I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer science and mathematics. My Math degree was with a minor in physics, my M.Sc. in computer science focused on cryptography, my M.Sc. in math involved the study of elliptic curves and my post M.Sc. research has revolved heavily around computational biology and biochemistry.
Am I enough of a scientist or are you revoking my membership?
You would uncritically take the word of a local pediatrician over the frightening link that Wakefield claimed to uncover, a study published in Lancet? No worry, no questioning, just blind acceptance?
I didn't say anything about blind acceptance; I would ask questions and do research on my own, but yes, I would absolutely take the word of my child's pediatrician; I wouldn't have a pediatrician that I didn't trust to begin with. And if his answer didn't satisfy me, I'd simply look for another, whose answer did.
There is nothing wrong or unscientific about trusting in someone who has superior training in a particular field, just as there is nothing unscientific with refusing to panic over the implications of a study that makes bold new claims and hasn't been duplicated; even a study published in as prestigious a journal as the Lancet.
Your hostility toward people who believe in God ("mystical being in the sky") is well known on this board, and is entirely beside the point in question.
I'm not particularly hostile towards people who believe in god; in fact, I find many of them to be delightful people. Although I do find such belief cannot be rationally supported, but if someone chooses to have faith that's their business, not mine.
And religion has everything to do with the topic, since we are dealing with a measles outbreak in a church, members of which have asserted that the congregation in question accepted faith healing and generally seemed to hold anti-vaccination views.
That was not the conventional wisdom at the time, at least not beyond the personal experiences you cite. And if only a few parents reacted as you state, that would not account for the massive drop in vaccinations I referenced.
There was a rather large drop in vaccination, but it seems to have been largely confined to the UK and Ireland, based on what I can find. From "Improving uptake of MMR vaccine" by McIntyre[/quote] with emphasis added by me:
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2287215/)Low MMR vaccine coverage is not a trivial matter, because the accumulation of unvaccinated children will increase the risk of measles outbreaks. Confirmed cases of measles in England and Wales rose from 56 in 1998 to 971 in 2007. In the United Kingdom, coverage for MMR at 24 months is lower than for other vaccines (85% versus about 94%). Such a wide gap between coverage for MMR and other vaccines has not been seen in other countries.
Do you have children?
First you ask what kind of scientist I am, and now you ask if I have children? What's next? You'll want a copy of my tax returns?
What does it matter if I do or not? If I were to say that I don't, are you going to then turn around and say "well, it's easy to say that you'd vaccinate your kids, but since you didn't have any at the time it doesn't count, because if you were a parent you'd take those warnings more seriously because of your emotional attachment and desire to protect your child" perhaps?
Well, I do agree that your comments speak for themselves. You also called Copeland a "scamming televangelist".
Well, he is a televangelist who routinely asks people for money, whose Church never posts audited financial statement, owns private jets and a private airport. Now, granted, he's not a scammer in the same league as people like Peter Popoff or Robert Tilton. But by all accounts, he's living quite large and, to me, falls in the same broad category as Creflo Dollar. You can make your own decisions about whether that qualifies him as a scammer.
The bottom line, my friend, is the reason that "the idiots" you harangue (as well as many people that I venture to guess you would not label as idiots) were scared away from multiple vaccinations is Wakefield's research and the platform of legitimacy given him by a premier medical journal.
No doubt. The Wakefield study caused many people to worry and refuse to vaccinate their children. Although I think that I would have vaccinated my child at the time, I can understand a parent choosing not to do so. But this is 2013, and Wakefield's study has been discredited completely.
What is really scandalous is that it took ten years to discredit him, and, as a result, the effects of the hysteria he created persist even today.
I agree with you on that one. Which is why it's important for people in positions of authority and influence people like Kenneth Copeland and Terri Pearsons Copeland to act responsibly and educate people who might otherwise never know that the study was bogus and was retracted, instead of perpetuating its ill effects.
-
That's a fair point. What he says is from 2010. His daughter's quotes, however, are quite fresh.
A study that's been discredited since, at least, 2010... it's now 2013.
Sheesh, I should have spotted that. That's what I get for posting from my iPhone.
Previous statements they've made seem to advocate reliance on faith healing, and plenty of church members have made statements to that effect. You can argue that those members don't represent the church position accurately, but you can't just toss their statement aside.
Great, but hard to verify ;P But I'll take you at your word, what with being an a getbigger and all.
Thanks for taking my word on the last point.
I don't know that it was very common in the general population, but it wasn't among medical professionals.
Common enough, believe me. My radiologist, for example, avoided the MMR for his kids.
I did thanks - typing on the iPhone can be a pain at times; but the hilarity often makes up for it. And yes, it's easy to make fun of people who are unsophisticated. But her position was the position adopted by many others in her church. And I ask you, shouldn't the pastors of that church who tend to that "flock" after all and are presumably not unsophisticated at least attempt to correct such misconceptions, instead of encouraging and "feeding" them?
You are right about what church leaders "should" do. My point was that the real source of the vaccine fears was Wakefield.
It's true, he never outright says "don't seek medical attention." But I think that's only because he wants to avoid the legal hot waters he would invariably land himself into if he had. Legal hot waters that would cost him a lot of money.
Well, I don't agree. But I certainly can't prove what his motivations are. He is just not against medical care and never has been.
It did turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head, because the general consensus was that vaccination was safe and had minimal relatively benign side-effects. Additionally, The MMR vaccine was around since the 1971 and its constituent components since the sixties and were generally recognized as safe. So MMR wasn't "new" no matter how you cut, slice or dice it, unless you mean a new formulation of the MMR vaccine.
Merck changed the formulation of MMR in 1990, quadrupling the mumps component, I believe. That is about the time the increase in diagnosed autism began, and that version of the vaccine is the one that Wakefield "studied".
And yes, Wakefield's claim was novel, but that doesn't mean it didn't turn accepted scientific wisdom on its head. It did - by claiming that a vaccine that was generally accepted as safe was responsible for autism and autism-spectrum disorders.
In that sense you are correct.
Oops. Sorry, I'll remember to sound more sciency next time! Not that my particular field of study is relevant but since you asked, I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer science and mathematics. My Math degree was with a minor in physics, my M.Sc. in computer science focused on cryptography, my M.Sc. in math involved the study of elliptic curves and my post M.Sc. research has revolved heavily around computational biology and biochemistry.
Am I enough of a scientist or are you revoking my membership?
Impressive credentials! Pardon me.
I didn't say anything about blind acceptance; I would ask questions and do research on my own, but yes, I would absolutely take the word of my child's pediatrician; I wouldn't have a pediatrician that I didn't trust to begin with. And if his answer didn't satisfy me, I'd simply look for another, whose answer did.
There is nothing wrong or unscientific about trusting in someone who has superior training in a particular field, just as there is nothing unscientific with refusing to panic over the implications of a study that makes bold new claims and hasn't been duplicated; even a study published in as prestigious a journal as the Lancet.
I never take one doctor's word for anything serious without doing my own research or getting more than one opinion, if it is something around which a controversy is swirling.
I'm not particularly hostile towards people who believe in god; in fact, I find many of them to be delightful people. Although I do find such belief cannot be rationally supported, but if someone chooses to have faith that's their business, not mine.
And religion has everything to do with the topic, since we are dealing with a measles outbreak in a church, members of which have asserted that the congregation in question accepted faith healing and generally seemed to hold anti-vaccination views.
OK, glad to hear you are open in that way to religious folks. Disagree on the point in your second paragraph in the above quote, but we can agree to disagree.
There was a rather large drop in vaccination, but it seems to have been largely confined to the UK and Ireland, based on what I can find. From "Improving uptake of MMR vaccine" by McIntyre with emphasis added by me:
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2287215/)
Likely true, but there was also a significant impact in the US. For example, in the Bay Area, where I live:
http://www.examiner.com/article/high-rate-of-mmr-vaccine-refusal-bay-area-increases-the-risk-of-birth-defects
Also, the MMR vaccine is not used in Japan, as a result of Wakefield, and an Italian court has actually ruled that at least one case of autism there was caused by MMR.
First you ask what kind of scientist I am, and now you ask if I have children? What's next? You'll want a copy of my tax returns?
LOL.
What does it matter if I do or not? If I were to say that I don't, are you going to then turn around and say "well, it's easy to say that you'd vaccinate your kids, but since you didn't have any at the time it doesn't count, because if you were a parent you'd take those warnings more seriously because of your emotional attachment and desire to protect your child" perhaps?
Guilty as charged. I got super cautious once I had a child.
Well, he is a televangelist who routinely asks people for money, whose Church never posts audited financial statement, owns private jets and a private airport. Now, granted, he's not a scammer in the same league as people like Peter Popoff or Robert Tilton. But by all accounts, he's living quite large and, to me, falls in the same broad category as Creflo Dollar. You can make your own decisions about whether that qualifies him as a scammer.
You are entitled to your opinion of course. But also keep in mind that he is, for many folks who are ill or elderly and lonely, a way for them to maintain a connection to a church. His organization will also offer prayers on request at no charge. My wife's parents are among his followers, which is how I was exposed to him.
No doubt. The Wakefield study caused many people to worry and refuse to vaccinate their children. Although I think that I would have vaccinated my child at the time, I can understand a parent choosing not to do so. But this is 2013, and Wakefield's study has been discredited completely.
For someone at your educational level, three years is more than enough time. But the effects of ten years of Wakefield's claim are far from having dissipated, even today.
I agree with you on that one. Which is why it's important for people in positions of authority and influence people like Kenneth Copeland and Terri Pearsons Copeland to act responsibly and educate people who might otherwise never know that the study was bogus and was retracted, instead of perpetuating its ill effects.
I honestly think they don't know any better. But I do think they were trying to do the right thing, in their own way.
In any case, I appreciate this exchange. Let me also apologize for coming on so strong in response to your initial post.
-
No worries - first, I'm not easily offended and second you weren't offensive anyways. As a matter of fact, considering your username, I'd suggest you didn't achieve criticality ;)
I enjoy a feisty debate, especially when it's constructive. We both came out winners in the sense that we both learned something new and honed our text-fight skills.
I enjoyed it.