Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign

18911131416

Comments



  • Definitely should be given a choice whether to vaccinate or not, too many people these days are taking reactions to the vaccines both reported and un reported.




  • Definitely should be given a choice whether to vaccinate or not, too many people these days are taking reactions to the vaccines both reported and un reported.

    taking them where?




  • angelfire9 wrote: »
    Here you go:

    If that's not a compelling argument I don't know what is
    You put me in front of any leftie looney anti vaccine person and I'll tear their argument to shreds
    Years of being singled out in the playground because I couldn't hear what was been said to me
    Having to sit my aural leaving cert exams seperate from everyone else so that the volume could be blasted out for me!

    I have dozens of those stories
    :(

    FTR I don't know any lefites that are against it... my experience is pretty much just the opposite... the anti-vax people are right-wing libertarians... the ones in the US also think that Chemtrails are out to get them and Obama is a secret muslim...




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Yes, he did.

    So says the Lancet, so says the British Journal of Medicine.

    Did you really think I was unaware of those findings?

    Like I said: 'Quit believing everything you read'.

    The pathology findings themselves had nothing to do with Wakefield, he just presented their findings in that Lancet paper.

    It was Prof Walker Smith that oversaw the pathology which resulted in the bowel disease diagnosis of those 12 children.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    taking them where?

    to Spazzville.


  • Advertisement


  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    FTR I don't know any lefites that are against it... my experience is pretty much just the opposite... the anti-vax people are right-wing libertarians... the ones in the US also think that Chemtrails are out to get them and Obama is a secret muslim...

    Not left wing then
    Just loonies :rolleyes:




  • Did you really think I was unaware of those findings?

    Like I said: 'Quit believing everything you read'.

    The pathology findings themselves had nothing to do with Wakefield, he just presented their findings in that Lancet paper.

    It was Prof Walker Smith that oversaw the pathology which resulted in the bowel disease diagnosis of those 12 children.

    I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or just ignorant.

    www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347?ijkey=284113a2ee79a191c6b61a7bd86fe473f51415cf&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha&linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=342/jan05_1/c5347

    Wakefield repeatedly changed the data.

    He also rounded up anti-MMR parents for the trial, claimed he'd discovered the link BEFORE doing any tests and was part of a lawsuit against MMR - which earned him 50k in fees - before and during the research.

    On the other hand Smith was later re-instated as a doctor.

    Wakefield is CLEARLY the person behind the entire scam. He was clearly the person falsifying the histories. He clearly cherry picked some of the subjects based on their anti-MMR beliefs. And he clearly was making money from a law firm, while preparing a lawsuit he was also part of, which no one else involved knew about.




  • The anti vacc crew have generally been right wing looneys Imo.




  • angelfire9 wrote: »
    Here you go:


    If that's not a compelling argument I don't know what is
    You put me in front of any leftie looney anti vaccine person and I'll tear their argument to shreds
    Years of being singled out in the playground because I couldn't hear what was been said to me
    Having to sit my aural leaving cert exams seperate from everyone else so that the volume could be blasted out for me!

    I have dozens of those stories
    :(


    angelfire I wouldn't like you to think I'm anti-vaccination. I'm very much pro-vaccination. But, I'm also very much against the idea of forcing parents to act in a manner which they do not believe is in the best interests of their children just because we believe it's in their best interests or in the best interests of society as a whole. I don't believe forcing people to act in a manner which contravenes their beliefs is beneficial to society. It sets a dangerous precedent for lobby groups to pressure governments to pass laws which are in their own special interest, but can actually prove to be detrimental to society. The reason I say forcing people to do anything is a bad idea is because I believe that informing and educating them and allowing them to make their own decisions thereafter is far more beneficial to society as a whole.

    We may not always agree with their decisions, but then we ourselves could be the other side of that coin one day when we find ourselves being forced into something we have a moral or ethical objection to. We rode roughshod over someone else's human rights, and now the tables have turned.




  • lynski wrote: »
    Dont demonise until you have walked in someones shoes or at least considered their pov.
    Or have seen their kid die of measles because they believed a discredited whackjob...


  • Advertisement


  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    angelfire I wouldn't like you to think I'm anti-vaccination. I'm very much pro-vaccination. But, I'm also very much against the idea of forcing parents to act in a manner which they do not believe is in the best interests of their children just because we believe it's in their best interests or in the best interests of society as a whole. I don't believe forcing people to act in a manner which contravenes their beliefs is beneficial to society. It sets a dangerous precedent for lobby groups to pressure governments to pass laws which are in their own special interest, but can actually prove to be detrimental to society. The reason I say forcing people to do anything is a bad idea is because I believe that informing and educating them and allowing them to make their own decisions thereafter is far more beneficial to society as a whole.

    We may not always agree with their decisions, but then we ourselves could be the other side of that coin one day when we find ourselves being forced into something we have a moral or ethical objection to. We rode roughshod over someone else's human rights, and now the tables have turned.

    Such a straw man.

    This is like cops that don't report the crimes of other cops, because the shoe might someday be on the other foot.

    If it's wrong, it's wrong. Endangering your neighbour is wrong. Your neighbour endangering you is wrong.

    Again I say there's not a guarantee to endanger your neighbour in any constitution of Human Rights legislation.

    Belief that your nutty idea about freedom trumps my safety is not a protected religious of cultural belief.




  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    The anti vacc crew have generally been right wing looneys Imo.

    Anti-science looneys would never have the coherence to sit on either political wing; they occupy the dimly-lit rabble room.




  • Muise... wrote: »
    Anti-science looneys would never have the coherence to sit on either political wing; they occupy the dimly-lit rabble room.

    Ha. Well my experience with them has been distinctly different. The majority I've dealt with assume a lot of other conspiracies as fact and politically are typically libertarian - which suits their desire to have government not give them shots, etc.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Ha. Well my experience with them has been distinctly different. The majority I've dealt with assume a lot of other conspiracies as fact and politically are typically libertarian - which suits their desire to have government not give them shots, etc.

    You're American, aren't you? My experience here is that there's a fringe on the hard left who will piggy-back on economic and political discontent to push agendas such as vaccination and fluoridation, which would otherwise not get much traction.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    But, I'm also very much against the idea of forcing parents to act in a manner which they do not believe is in the best interests of their children just because we believe it's in their best interests or in the best interests of society as a whole.
    So parents who “discipline” their children by severely beating them would be given free reign by you provided they sincerely believed it was in their children’s best interest? (There may not be too many of the “never did me no harm” crew anymore but there were plenty of them in the past)
    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I don't believe forcing people to act in a manner which contravenes their beliefs is beneficial to society.
    It may not benefit society but if they believe for example that their child should not be given a blood transfusion or that prayer is a substitute for proper medical care but society discarding their beliefs will certainly benefit the child.

    The spurious argument continues on this thread that parents are the sole arbitrators of what is best for their despite it being patently obvious that for some matters (albeit a small number) they are not.

    Argue if you want that vaccinations should not be one of them but it is simply disingenuous to pretend that some Rubicon would be crossed by making vaccinations compulsory.




  • Muise... wrote: »
    You're American, aren't you? My experience here is that there's a fringe on the hard left who will piggy-back on economic and political discontent to push agendas such as vaccination and fluoridation, which would otherwise not get much traction.

    Hard to say at this point. Haven't lived there in a decade, and am an Irish citizen.

    And most of my dealing with the anti-vax crowd have been through FB, which is mostly full of Irish people.

    Saying that, Ireland IS much further left than the US... So it's all kinda relative.




  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    So much nonsense it's hard to reply to it all.

    I'll try and hit the highlight.


    I'm OK with you ignoring what doesn't suit you, because I understand that one man's logic and reasonable argument is another man's nonsense.

    - You think Chicken Pox and Measles are the same?


    No, I'm well aware of the difference. My point was that you'd be surprised at some of the misguided notions that people come up with by way of compromise out of perceived necessity.

    - Society actually DOES adjudicate pretty much everything, either through legal challenges or elections or through changing mores in culture.


    But on issues such as forcing parents to vaccinate their children, which is what we're actually talking about here, society has no right to force people to vaccinate their children, and all the legal challenges, elections and social mores aren't going to force them to change their position. What might have them change their position is education and information which forms the basis of a compelling argument.

    - You think rules aren't there to protect people??


    That's not what you said though. You said that rules are made to protect people from those people who break the rules. The reason I said you had it arseways is because it's impossible to break a rule that doesn't exist, such as people who choose not to vaccinate their children aren't breaking any rules, because there's no rule exists that says they have to!

    - Lot's of rules are forced on people; you think you should be allowed to endanger your neighbour and that anyone who disagrees is basically the same as a sex abuser?


    Not at all. I'm not endangering my neighbour, or anyone else for that matter, by not vaccinating my child, because there is no solid guarantee that my child will ever develop any of these diseases. By your line of logic, I must be subservient to my neighbour's convenience. That really doesn't work for me, nor will it work that my neighbour should be subservient to my convenience. I can be considerate, but I don't have to be, and the same goes for my neighbour.

    My analogy of the Magdelene Laundries (which was better than your assertion that those who you disagree with are mentally ill) was used to remind you of a time when single mothers and young boys were forced into institutions for the benefit to society as a whole. We now know how that worked out, or, didn't. Forced lobotomy was also a common practice that was peddled as beneficial to society as a whole, and again - we know better now. If we were to eradicate homosexuality when it was considered a disease, or masturbation was considered a mental illness detrimental to society as a whole, we wouldn't know what we know now thanks to scientific studies which came up with treatments for mental illness, and discovered that homosexuality was not as previously thought to be a mental illness. We were only able to reach that point through education and information which allowed people to make informed choices.

    - you worry about individuals freedom, but have no problem with letting individuals harm society - that's your bottom line. It's pathetic.


    I am concerned that individual freedom will be superceded by forced capitulation. I do not believe individuals are harming society (quite ironic that you would accuse me of hyperbole earlier and then come out with that little gem!) because they aren't enough in number to effect any significant change in society. That may seem pathetic to you, but that's ok, your opinion that you should be allowed disregard people's human rights when it suits you is hardly going to effect a change in society any time soon either. At least that's one less thing I have to worry about.




  • People are saying I'm not anti vaccine I'm just anti being forced it. It doesn't make sense to be honest. There are always going to be people who won't vaccinate their kids and there will always be kids who can't take the vaccine. The former are endangering the latter. These diseases would be wiped out in no time at all if vaccinations were mandatory.




  • Not true. If you are not vaccinated then you are an agar plate for disease. Diseases can mutate in your system or in the systems of many unvaccinated kids it is passed to and then be passed on to other kids who even though vaccinated are infected with the mutated strain. If you vaccinate all kids then the disease has very few places to go and is likely to die out more or less in the population like polio did.

    It's amazing the same people who thanked this also say you shouldn't have to vaccinate your child.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    Not at all. I'm not endangering my neighbour, or anyone else for that matter, by not vaccinating my child, because there is no solid guarantee that my child will ever develop any of these diseases.


    You are of course endangering your neighbour. You are increasing the risk to them.

    This is just painfully obvious to everyone but you.

    A few more points I guess.

    People that believe that their personal freedom extends to endangering their neighbour are mentally ill. Society would collapse if we all felt we had the right to hurt people when it suited us. Plus the obvious ramifications is that your neighbours freedom extends to hurting you. Something I think you'd not be a big fan of.

    And yet you argue that people have the right to endanger society because of freedom.

    It's mush-headed.


  • Advertisement


  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    People are saying I'm not anti vaccine I'm just anti being forced it. It doesn't make sense to be honest. There are always going to be people who won't vaccinate their kids and there will always be kids who can't take the vaccine. The former are endangering the latter. These diseases would be wiped out in no time at all if vaccinations were mandatory.

    It's a philosophy of rights. Some people do not agree with sacrificing individual liberty for gains in popular benefit. They believe every should be kept to individual autonomy in so far as is reasonably possible. There will always be people doing stupid things, but does that give us the right to force everybody to something?




  • Jernal wrote: »
    It's a philosophy of rights. Some people do not agree with sacrificing individual liberty for gains in popular benefit. They believe every should be kept to individual autonomy in so far as is reasonably possible. There will always be people doing stupid things, but does that give us the right to force everybody to something?

    Yes. Quite obviously.




  • Jernal wrote: »
    It's a philosophy of rights. Some people do not agree with sacrificing individual liberty for gains in popular benefit. They believe every should be kept to individual autonomy in so far as is reasonably possible. There will always be people doing stupid things, but does that give us the right to force everybody to something?

    I understand that and respect that view. I just don't think people are looking at the bigger picture. It's not their life they're affecting it's the life of their kids and other kids around them.




  • In fairness the law is intervening in some cases Article from BBC news
    A judge has ruled that sisters aged 15 and 11 must have the MMR vaccine even though they and their mother do not want it, BBC Newsnight has learned.
    The High Court decision, made last month, came after the girls' father brought a case seeking vaccination.
    The parents, now divorced, had agreed when married not to vaccinate the girls in the wake of the MMR controversy.
    But the discrediting of concerns about an MMR autism link and recent measles outbreaks changed the father's view.
    This is the third time this issue has come before the court.
    In 2003 a mother was ordered to have her child immunised against measles, mumps and rubella after the court ruled the benefits of vaccination outweighed the risks. In 2011, children in care were ordered to have the MMR jab against the wishes of their parents.
    'End of MMR debate' When outlining her decision in the latest case, Mrs Justice Theis emphasised it was a specific case "only concerned with the welfare needs of these children", but lawyers say as one of a series it confirms there is no longer any debate about the benefits of the vaccine.
    Measles is a highly contagious disease characterised by a high fever and a rash.


    In one in 15 cases it can lead to severe complications, such as pneumonia, and in a very small number of cases it can cause encephalitis - inflammation of the brain - which can cause brain damage or even death.
    MMR is a combined vaccine against measles, mumps and rubella, three common infectious diseases of childhood. It was introduced in the UK in 1988 to replace single vaccines for each disease.
    The first MMR vaccine is given as a single injection to babies as part of their routine vaccination schedule, usually within a month of their first birthday, then a second injection of the vaccine, known as the MMR booster, is given before starting school.
    The first gives about 95% protection against measles, while two doses give 99-100% protection.
    Vegan concerns In 1998, a study by Dr Andrew Wakefield was published in the respected medical journal The Lancet raising the possibility that the MMR jab was linked to autism and bowel disease.
    The report and the media furore that followed prompted many parents to decide against having their children vaccinated with the three-in-one injection, including the parents of the two girls at the heart of this case.
    The elder daughter was given the first injection, but not the booster vaccine; the younger daughter did not receive any vaccinations at all - decisions made jointly by both parents at the time.
    However, in 2010 Dr Wakefield's research was found by the General Medical Council to have been "dishonest" and has since been entirely dismissed.
    The father of the two girls says that this change, combined with an outbreak of measles in Swansea late last year, changed his mind in January 2013 about whether his daughters should be given the MMR jab. He says he was worried these diseases could have serious consequences.
    According to the text of the court decision, seen by BBC Newsnight, the father's solicitor wrote to the girls' mother in January seeking her agreement that they should now be vaccinated, and saying that if she did not agree he would take the matter to court.
    The mother did not agree and the matter eventually came before the Family Division of the High Court.
    'Children's understanding' A court-appointed welfare officer who spoke extensively to the girls said that neither of them wanted the vaccination.
    The children were particularly concerned about the ingredients in the vaccine, which include animal-based materials; one of the girls is a vegan.
    However, the officer said that when she asked them what would happen if they became ill with measles, mumps or rubella and needed medicine, they clearly had not thought about what the ingredients in that medicine might be.
    The welfare officer said both children had been strongly influenced by their mother, who was very anxious about the jab.
    Mrs Justice Theis decided that it was in the best interests of the children that they were vaccinated.
    "I am aware that this is against the girls' wishes but that it is not the only factor," she wrote. "The court also has to consider their level of understanding of the issues involved and what factors have influenced their views. I do not consider there is a balanced level of understanding by them of the issues involved."
    The mother's lawyer Philippa Dolan told Newsnight that the girls had not yet been vaccinated despite the deadline to do so having passed on Thursday.
    She said: "There are practical difficulties in enforcing the order and that is at the moment an ongoing issue. There's not a legal deadline that's a serious issue the parents are in discussion and everyone hopes it will be resolved without any more litigation."




  • So parents who “discipline” their children by severely beating them would be given free reign by you provided they sincerely believed it was in their children’s best interest? (There may not be too many of the “never did me no harm” crew anymore but there were plenty of them in the past).


    Now that's a leap that would make even Superman blush. Of course I'm not OK with extreme cruelty to human beings, but then we could get into a very picky argument about what is discipline and what is just extreme cruelty.

    It may not benefit society but if they believe for example that their child should not be given a blood transfusion or that prayer is a substitute for proper medical care but society discarding their beliefs will certainly benefit the child.


    It would benefit the child in one way, but it would be detrimental to them in another way - they'd live longer, but you'd have just undermined their religious beliefs. There aren't too many JWs who would be ok with that sort of intervention based on what we believe is best for them. That's the sort of dangerous precedent I'm talking about by imposing our own moral and ethical standards on people who don't share our moral and ethical standards.

    The spurious argument continues on this thread that parents are the sole arbitrators of what is best for their despite it being patently obvious that for some matters (albeit a small number) they are not.


    The matter we're talking about here is whether or not we should legislate for forced vaccinations. I believe in this instance that parents have the right to refuse to vaccinate their children if they do not wish to do so. I may not agree with their decision, but I respect their right to be allowed to make that determination.

    Argue if you want that vaccinations should not be one of them but it is simply disingenuous to pretend that some Rubicon would be crossed by making vaccinations compulsory.


    Vaccinations are not what I object to. It is the act of forcing them on people that I object to. I don't think it's disingenuous to suggest that the rubicon would be crossed when we start forcing these actions on people who don't meet our own moral and ethical standards. Do we really want to go down that road again when society has come this far?




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    Now that's a leap that would make even Superman blush. Of course I'm not OK with extreme cruelty to human beings, but then we could get into a very picky argument about what is discipline and what is just extreme cruelty.





    It would benefit the child in one way, but it would be detrimental to them in another way - they'd live longer, but you'd have just undermined their religious beliefs. There aren't too many JWs who would be ok with that sort of intervention based on what we believe is best for them. That's the sort of dangerous precedent I'm talking about by imposing our own moral and ethical standards on people who don't share our moral and ethical standards.





    The matter we're talking about here is whether or not we should legislate for forced vaccinations. I believe in this instance that parents have the right to refuse to vaccinate their children if they do not wish to do so. I may not agree with their decision, but I respect their right to be allowed to make that determination.





    Vaccinations are not what I object to. It is the act of forcing them on people that I object to. I don't think it's disingenuous to suggest that the rubicon would be crossed when we start forcing these actions on people who don't meet our own moral and ethical standards. Do we really want to go down that road again when society has come this far?

    Do we want to go down the road of protecting the majority of people from nutters?

    Ummm... Yes.




  • hmm





  • Jernal wrote: »
    It's a philosophy of rights. Some people do not agree with sacrificing individual liberty for gains in popular benefit. They believe every should be kept to individual autonomy in so far as is reasonably possible. There will always be people doing stupid things, but does that give us the right to force everybody to something?

    If those bodies are children? Absolutely. I don't think we should be forcing adults to be vaccinated but children can't make those decisions, we already accept that those who care for them must do so in their stead.

    Okay, alright, look - you can get bogged down in arguments about what kind of duty of care the state has to its citizens--and how far it extends--and particularly children and other groups who are vulnerable and so yes, it is possible to take that argument to other, less desirable ends, but I think it's doing the wrong thing for the right reasons to use it as an argument against an end which is entirely beneficial.

    But really it all comes back to what I said above - this isn't anything new, we accept that the state must step in to remove children from homes where their parents are mistreating them. Sometimes, the state has to say "no" to its citizens, such as cases where their actions are harming those who have no way to defend themselves against it.

    Ignorance is a right, as is objecting to medical procedures and such based on bodily integrity but that only extends as far as the person speaking, as far as I'm concerned. Once they try to speak for others, there the problem begins.

    Just as an example, how many people here--who oppose mandatory vaccinations--would also support, say, people who are Jehovah's Witnesses not allowing their children to have blood transfusions when needed? Don't get hung up in the specifics of the question, it's purpose is to raise a more general question which is this - do you believe there instances where the state can override the medical opinions of parents where their children are concerned?


  • Advertisement


  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    People are saying I'm not anti vaccine I'm just anti being forced it. It doesn't make sense to be honest. There are always going to be people who won't vaccinate their kids and there will always be kids who can't take the vaccine. The former are endangering the latter. These diseases would be wiped out in no time at all if vaccinations were mandatory.


    But at what cost Eddy?

    China's "One Child Policy" immediately springs to mind as something that was thought that if it was made mandatory it would solve the population crisis.

    It's undoubtedly been successful as a means of population control, but the social impact of the policy has been devastating. So much so that recently they've decided to relax the policy rather than admit it just hasn't worked.

    You start making vaccinations mandatory, sure, you'll eradicate disease, but have you given any consideration to the social impact on society?


Advertisement