Advertisement
Where is Report Post on mobile? We've made a slight change, see here
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

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

1356716

Comments



  • Show me one because I have been looking a long time and haven't found one single study that says irrefutably that vaccines do not cause autism. I found plenty that said there was no evidence that they do but none saying that they definitely don't. Two completely different things.

    Are there a race of mole people living near the centre of the Earth? I think there is...can you find me a report that proves 100% there isnt??:rolleyes:




  • lynski wrote: »

    These cases are related more to the fact that any medication has side effects. People are allergic to penicillin etc but we still use it without saying "oh it kills kids and causes horrible rashes". You can be allergic to fabric conditioner but we all still use it.

    yes but we are not talking about forcing all people to use only penicillin as an anti-biotic are we? there are alternatives.
    the fabiric conditioner reference is totaly moot.
    I am not saying it is right to vaccinate or not, ust that you cannot judge a perosn reasons to on your limited knowlegde of them or their children.




  • Vaccines should absolutely not be mandatory, nobody should have a right to force people into doing anything with their bodies or their children's bodies. Swine flu vaccine narcolepsy that's all.

    It's only weakening our herd immunity, and with mandatory vaccination the disease can effectively be wiped out.

    I don't understand how anyone wouldn't want their child to be vaccinated against diseases like this. It's only going to protect your child.




  • lynski wrote: »
    ]

    yes but we are not talking about forcing all people to use only penicillin as an anti-biotic are we? there are alternatives.
    the fabiric conditioner reference is totaly moot.
    I am not saying it is right to vaccinate or not, ust that you cannot judge a perosn reasons to on your limited knowlegde of them or their children.

    I'm not saying we should steal kids in the night and stick needles in them. If a parent says no then that is their choice and their child should not be vaccinated in that case. However if their child is not vaccinated they should not be allowed in public schools where they can cause a disease outbreak.

    There are some muppets out there who refuse the BCG now!




  • Show me one because I have been looking a long time and haven't found one single study that says irrefutably that vaccines do not cause autism. I found plenty that said there was no evidence that they do but none saying that they definitely don't. Two completely different things.

    Not really, no. No actual scientific study will ever say the latter. A study of hundreds of thousands of children declaring that there is no link between them is about as far as you'll get.

    Of course no scientific study says that cucumbers definitely don't cause brain aneurysms.


  • Advertisement


  • lynski wrote: »

    All well and good saying MMR rarely cause a problem: when it does it is devastating, you want to be that one?

    Prefer to be a grandmother comforting your pregnant daughter as she deals with the consequences of contracting Rubella would you?

    Any FYI it is perfectly simple in Ireland to get individual M/M/R vaccines we opted for the 3 in one as it was two less needles! All you have to do is ask in advance and they will get them in




  • Taco Chips wrote: »
    It's not acceptable to put the health of other children at risk because as a parent you are too pig headed and ill educated to understand the life saving science behind vaccinations. Anyone who refuses a vaccination on those grounds imo is a reckless endangerer of public health and there should be restrictions imposed on them.

    So you are saying...take the right away and freedom to choose from a parent to suit your ideals ?. You can dictate all you want to people, but you can not take their freedom to choose away. If a parent feels the need to refuse multiple vaccines for their child, then it is their right to do so, not yours.

    There are reasons why some parents will refuse to vaccinate their children, so they should explain why and seek professional help in relation to this, whether to put their mind at ease regarding the latest information with these vaccines or maybe they have other reasons not to vaccinate their children.

    My point is this only...Mandatory/ required by law or mandate; compulsory, is not acceptable because it infringes on a persons human rights, and the right to choose, regardless of your feelings.




  • CJC999 wrote: »
    The other case that I know that started show weeks after the MMR, that child isn't as severe a case as the other one.

    I call BS seeing as the MMR vaccine is administered long before a baby starts to speak and you wrote a baby starting words etc. Unless it was some sort of genius baby!

    Autism typically shows symptoms around the age of 3 . The old thinking was symptoms coincided with the booster shot for MMR and it was easy to scaremonger. The ingredient that Walker describes in his papers used as a preservative which he linked to Autism is no longer used in vaccines.

    My mom works closely with Autism Ireland, my own brother has Autism. I gave my own daughter her shots a month ago without fear of her getting Autism.

    Any baby I know who showed symptoms did so years after the shot and serious studies on Autism Ireland site found babies were diagnosed with Autism with or without vaccines, if they got combined or separate and no matter when they received them . It had no effect either way.


    Its all facebook scaremongering.




  • zenno wrote: »
    So you are saying...take the right away and freedom to choose from a parent to suit your ideals ?. You can dictate all you want to people, but you can not take their freedom to choose away. If a parent feels the need to refuse multiple vaccines for their child, then it is their right to do so, not yours.

    There are reasons why some parents will refuse to vaccinate their children, so they should explain why and seek professional help in relation to this, whether to put their mind at ease regarding the latest information with these vaccines or maybe they have other reasons not to vaccinate their children.

    My point is this only...Mandatory/ required by law or mandate; compulsory, is not acceptable because it infringes on a persons human rights, and the right to choose.
    The reasons to oppose vaccines are moronic and irrational.

    This is for all of our sake and affects the whole population, not just you thinking about your child.
    Why should you be allowed to raise an incubator for disease just because you had some unproven notion that the vaccine was somehow harmful when your actions could negatively affect other children/people?




  • I'm not saying we should steal kids in the night and stick needles in them. If a parent says no then that is their choice and their child should not be vaccinated in that case. However if their child is not vaccinated they should not be allowed in public schools where they can cause a disease outbreak.

    There are some muppets out there who refuse the BCG now!

    The BCG isn't given in the US because it was found to be ineffective. Some countries that don't give the BCG have a lower TB rate than Ireland.


    http://www.medicalindependent.ie/3408/time_for_a_new_tack_on_tb


  • Advertisement


  • The BCG isn't given in the US because it was found to be ineffective. Some countries that don't give the BCG have a lower TB rate than Ireland.


    http://www.medicalindependent.ie/3408/time_for_a_new_tack_on_tb

    That's because they had a lower TB rate in the first place




  • The BCG isn't given in the US because it was found to be ineffective. Some countries that don't give the BCG have a lower TB rate than Ireland.

    There is no indication that it is harmful however, simply that the cost/benefit analysis of it does not encourage universal application. This is largely because the disease is generally non-existent in these countries. Ireland has historically had an unusually high level of TB.

    There is probably little need to vacinate against polio in Ireland anymore. That's not because the vaccine doesn't work but because it is so effective.




  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    The reasons to oppose vaccines are moronic and irrational.

    This is for all of our sake and affects the whole population, not just you thinking about your child.
    Why should you be allowed to raise an incubator for disease just because you had some unproven notion that the vaccine was somehow harmful when your actions could negatively affect other children/people?

    You would swear it was the Black Death we are dealing with here.

    In your opinion.

    I'm a single man, I do not have children, but I believe strongly in human rights, especially when it comes to the right to choose. I was vaccinated when a child against this because my parents chose this, and to them they made the right decision. But you, and others, are not understanding what I am trying to tell you. I already said it in two comments already. Just because you feel very strongly in the mandatory vaccination of everyone, doesn't mean you have the will over the folk to do so.

    Every-one that has children wants what's best for them, but I think you should look more closely as to find out why such folk don't want to vaccinate their children.




  • zenno wrote: »
    You would swear it was the Black Death we are dealing with here.

    IN your opinion.

    I'm a single man, I do not have children, but I believe strongly in human rights, especially when it comes to the right to choose. I was vaccinated when a child against this because my parents chose this, and to them they made the right decision. But you, and others, are not understanding what I am trying to tell you. I already said it in two comments already. Just because you feel very strongly in the mangdatory vaccination of everyone, doesn't mean you have the will over the folk to do so.

    Every-one that has children wants what's best for them, but I think you should look more closely as to find out why such folk don't want to vaccinate their children.
    TB killed and maimed 1000s of children in my own parents time 1950/60s, now it's unheard of. How could you not compare it to Black Death? It's too late to apologise and explain about human rights after yr kid gets gravely Ill.




  • zenno wrote: »
    You would swear it was the Black Death we are dealing with here.

    In your opinion.

    I'm a single man, I do not have children, but I believe strongly in human rights, especially when it comes to the right to choose. I was vaccinated when a child against this because my parents chose this, and to them they made the right decision. But you, and others, are not understanding what I am trying to tell you. I already said it in two comments already. Just because you feel very strongly in the mandatory vaccination of everyone, doesn't mean you have the will over the folk to do so.

    Every-one that has children wants what's best for them, but I think you should look more closely as to find out why such folk don't want to vaccinate their children.
    I understand the exact processes involved in creating the vaccine, its implications and its benefits. I don't need to understand some irrational reasoning against it because it's utter nonsense.

    It's for everybody's own good, there's no downside. How is that violating human rights?

    If a woman is ignorant about the issue and assumes it to be dangerous when it's not, her child may then go on to develop an avoidable disease, should she be admired for protecting her "human rights"? I don't think so, it was just ignorant of her in the first place. Not to mention a needless cost on the state to treat that disease.

    If a parent thinks it's right not to vaccinate their child, they are wrong. There's no two ways about it.




  • I'm not saying we should steal kids in the night and stick needles in them. If a parent says no then that is their choice and their child should not be vaccinated in that case. However if their child is not vaccinated they should not be allowed in public schools where they can cause a disease outbreak.

    Then you have the headache of the constitutional right to education being denied to children of idiot parents. That said, they do tend to gather in homeopathic-vegan-Steiner Waldorf-angel-healing-dreamcatchers, so perhaps they can be quarantined efficiently in their fairy forts.




  • No it shouldn't. It is of course hoped that a population would do what it's in its best interest rather than believe sensationalised shyte. Welcome to reality. Vaccines are counter intuitive and complex. I like to think that some that day people will understand vaccines. Some day, maybe when people can resort to discussing ideas without personal attacks and smear campaigns. When people become statistically literate and scientifically skeptical, or, perhaps, as a great friend of mine once said "Once science figures out how to make vaccines obsolete" then this controversial issue will be resolved. There's no controversy. Ethically there's no dilemma. Vaccination is the best option for a population but the population consists of individuals and it is their choice ultimately that is sacrosanct. Their choice; yet, not just their fate. Oh well. We can dream. . .




  • Show me one because I have been looking a long time and haven't found one single study that says irrefutably that vaccines do not cause autism. I found plenty that said there was no evidence that they do but none saying that they definitely don't. Two completely different things.

    This one should be easy:
    Find a scientific study that irrefutably states the earth doesn't go round the Sun. Using the exact same criterion you are using for the supposed vaccine studies.




  • zenno wrote: »
    You would swear it was the Black Death we are dealing with here.

    IN your opinion.

    I'm a single man, I do not have children, but I believe strongly in human rights, especially when it comes to the right to choose. I was vaccinated when a child against this because my parents chose this, and to them they made the right decision. But you, and others, are not understanding what I am trying to tell you. I already said it in two comments already. Just because you feel very strongly in the mangdatory vaccination of everyone, doesn't mean you have the will over the folk to do so.

    Every-one that has children wants what's best for them, but I think you should look more closely as to find out why such folk don't want to vaccinate their children.
    TB killed and maimed 1000s of children in my own parents time 1950/60s, now it's unheard of. How could you not compare it to Black Death? It's too late to apologise and explain about human rights after yr kid gets gravely Ill.

    I'm just saying that there is a reason why some parents don't want to vaccinate their child, it needs to be looked into as to why they don't want to vaccinate their child, making it mandatory will not happen in this country. Look I'm not trying to make it out as a mickey mouse problem, I know it's very serious, but instead of assuming to make it mandatory, investigations need to be done to try and understand why some folk don't want to do it.

    Maybe the child has other problems and the parents are afraid to take the chance incase the multiple vaccines cause other problems ? Ask the parents why, don't dictate to them, ask them professionally to seek professionals to find out why.




  • Jernal wrote: »
    No it shouldn't. It is of course hoped that a population would do what it's in its best interest rather than believe sensationalised shyte. Welcome to reality. Vaccines are counter intuitive and complex. I like to think that some that day people will understand vaccines. Some day, maybe when people can resort to discussing ideas without personal attacks and smear campaigns. When people become statistically literate and scientifically skeptical, or, perhaps, as a great friend of mine once said "Once science figures out how to make vaccines obsolete" then this controversial issue will be resolved. There's no controversy. Ethically there's no dilemma. Vaccination is the best option for a population but the population consists of individuals and it is their choice ultimately that is sacrosanct. Their choice; yet, not just their fate. Oh well. We can dream. . .

    Vaccination and modifying pathogens into harmless strains for the body to then naturally build immunity to is the most efficient and straight forward process of guaranteeing immunity in a large population.

    Researching other methods to gain immunity like blocking bacterial communication, or genetically modifying the human genome appears infinitely more long winded in comparison.
    With vaccines we have a chance of eradicating certain diseases over time with enough backing and initiative, relatively easily. This was the case for smallpox, and if mandatory, more diseases could follow its fate.


  • Advertisement


  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I understand the exact processes involved in creating the vaccine, its implications and its benefits. I don't need to understand some irrational reasoning against it because it's utter nonsense.

    It's for everybody's own good, there's no downside. How is that violating human rights?

    If a woman is ignorant about the issue and assumes it to be dangerous when it's not, her child may then go on to develop an avoidable disease, should she be admired for protecting her "human rights"? I don't think so, it was just ignorant of her in the first place. Not to mention a needless cost on the state to treat that disease.

    If a parent thinks it's right not to vaccinate their child, they are wrong. There's no two ways about it.

    You obviously don't understand the mechanism of human rights.




  • zenno wrote: »
    I'm just saying that there is a reason why some parents don't want to vaccinate their child, it needs to be looked into as to why they don't want to vaccinate their child, making it mandatory will not happen in this country. Look I'm not trying to make it out as a mickey mouse problem, I know it's very serious, but instead of assuming to make it mandatory, investigations need to be done to to try and understand why some folk don't want to do it.

    Maybe the child has other problems and the parents are afraid to take the chance incase the multiple vaccines cause other problems ? Ask the parents why, don't dictate to them, ask them professionally to seek professionals to find out why.
    But there is no logical reason to oppose vaccination. None at all.
    If they have a problem with the idea of vaccination then the problem lies with them and they need to educate themselves on the matter, because their thinking would be wrong otherwise and non-justifiable, whatever you might think.




  • zenno wrote: »
    You obviously don't understand the mechanism of human rights.

    You obviously have no idea about the importance of immunology of the human race. Why should we pander to people who believe in false information, do not educate themselves on the issue and go on to cause potential harm for the rest of the population because of their actions?

    That's not an issue of human rights, it's an idiotic decision.




  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You obviously have no idea about the importance of immunology of the human race. Why should we pander to people who believe in false information, do not educate themselves on the issue and go on to cause potential harm for the rest of the population because of their actions?

    Because you could just as easily belief a falsity. The idea of free choice is that every individual gets the decision to decide their own truth and destiny. The complication with vaccines is that it's not just their own destiny. Healthy person takes the risk of vaccination for saving someone who can't get vaccination. That's the trade off but imagine it like a hostage scenario: Should one citizen be forced to potentially risk their livelihood and health to save 1,000 hostages? You cannot ever guarantee the citizens health. Even for the safest of medicines or surgeries there's never a 100% guarantee and the individual's quality of life is being wagered. It should always be their own choice to make the sacrifice. Or at the very least, they should have a means for opting out.

    I understand the risk really well, however I couldn't in good conscience force somebody who didn't understand the risk or the purpose to take the vaccine. I'd hope that they trusted me enough to know that I was advising good. But, it's their choice. I can't make it for them.




  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You obviously have no idea about the importance of immunology of the human race. Why should we pander to people who believe in false information, do not educate themselves on the issue and go on to cause potential harm for the rest of the population because of their actions?

    That's not an issue of human rights, it's an idiotic decision.

    Hence my comment above.... Repeat
    don't dictate to them, ask them professionally to seek professionals to find out why.

    It's easy to call people idiots, but do you investigate as to why you might think a person/persons are idiots ? in your opinion?.




  • Even if a vaccine killed or maimed 1% of the population while a disease would kill or maim 5% there is still good reason to use it. I think it was the smallpox vaccine that had a 1 or 2% mortality rate?

    People here mention that they should have the choice and godwin the thread but we already have laws taking away the choice of things from parents. All part of the idea of doing whats best for the children, just as everyone being vaccinated would (outside of those who have a medical reason not to be)




  • Jernal wrote: »
    Because you could just as easily belief a falsity. The idea of free choice is that every individual gets the decision to decide their own truth and destiny. The complication with vaccines is that it's not just their own destiny. Healthy person takes the risk of vaccination for saving someone who can't get vaccination. That's the trade off but imagine it like a hostage scenario: Should one citizen be forced to potentially risk their livelihood and health to save 1,000 hostages? You cannot ever guarantee the citizens health. Even for the safest of medicines or surgeries there's never a 100% guarantee and the individual's quality of life is being wagered. It should always be their own choice to make the sacrifice. Or at the very least, they should have a means for opting out.

    I understand the risk really well, however I couldn't in good conscience force somebody who didn't understand the risk or the purpose to take the vaccine. I'd hope that they trusted me enough to know that I was advising good. But, it's their choice. I can't make it for them.
    If the vaccine has gone through countless trial periods, testing and scrutinous peer reviewed journals, and the fundamental GM process in its design doesn't give rise to complications, yes, I believe it should be administered to the population.

    We are a herd, in regards to our health we should do what is best for it, not be selfish with individuals, because we have come to a point where the biggest risk to our survival could well be rapid, highly contagious infection due to the size of our numbers. That should be our main priority as we become more vulnerable to outbreaks.

    Smallpox was eradicated through mandatory vaccination and that was a massive step for us. I see no distinction in regards to other diseases.

    People should be educated about the process, be shown scientific and unbiased data and research to help their understanding. If they still do not wish to comply they would have no rational or proven reason to object so I wouldn't see why they should be pandered to if it's for the greater good of all of us together.




  • zenno wrote: »

    I'm just saying that there is a reason why some parents don't want to vaccinate their child, it needs to be looked into as to'll 't want to vaccinate their child, making it mandatory will not happen in this country. Look I'm not trying to make any r out as a mickey mouse problem, I know it's very serious, but instead of assuming to make it mandatory, investigations need to be done to try and understand why some folk don't want to do it.

    Maybe the child has other Perth ems and the parents are afraid to take the chance incase the multiple vaccines cause other problems ? Ask the parents why, don't dictate to them, ask them professionally to seek professionals to find out why.

    The reason people won't do it seems obvious, hysteria based on ignorance, gossip and scaremongering. Parents are easy to scare, I being a parent, am well aware how delicate my baby is and ill try to protect her to the point of being irrational.

    Parents read these stupid warning posts and without doing any research will pass it on as fact (and usually throw in a bit of Johnny next door friends kid got sick so it's proof) anything that puts doubt in a parents mind will do this. The one with walkers research has been around since the 1980s. The suspected preservative toted as the cause isn't even used anymore. Yet, every year I'll see that post up on parenting sites and Facebook frightening new parents. I even had a friend of mine post it even though she works with Autism research and knows better . she even admitted to me that it was stupid of her. That's the power of fear.

    Just look at the "white van" posts. Everyone has seen those posts warning parents that so and so's kid got approached by a white van offering sweeties. Everyone knows it's a load of ****e but will pass it along anyway, just in case.




  • zenno wrote: »
    Hence my comment above.... Repeat

    It's easy to call people idiots, but do you investigate as to why you might think a person/persons are idiots ? in your opinion?.

    I don't understand your question.

    Is it what would I constitute an idiot to be? Well, if someone was shown numerous research that clearly stated there was no harm in the vaccine, and this was repeated from many different sources, and this person continued to believe vaccines were harmful based on nothing but their own thought and opinion, then I would deem that person idiotic.


  • Advertisement


  • no way I'm reading the whole thread sorry if it has been said before but a tiny chance you are affected by a vaccine vs the massive debilitating affect of not being immunised i will go with the vaccine


Advertisement