Anti-vaxxers

groovyg

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

He really is not a man of questionable reputation. He wasn't running for his own political gain. He clearly set out the reasons why he was attempting to enter politics, to lobby for better care for disabled children and also to help influence the outcome of the situation with location of the children's hospital, things he has always worked for. Right now his charity alone provides home care for very disabled babies, no homecare is state funded. He didn't have ambitions for himself, he saw the desperate state of the childrens hospital proposed location and he was desprate to help, he had very poor health at the time of entering the race and was forced to pull out because of that. He has been one of the most effective and passionate campaigners for ill children in Ireland ever. To sully him as a person of low standards is very unfair.
Jack and Jill do unbelievable work, someone in my family uses their service and it's been life saving. Had he entered politics and been successful he could've used that platform to do very good things that would have really benefited children. If he used money from the charity I would imagine he did so with that ends in mind.

You say he was running in the name of jack and Jill and to lobby for better care for disabled children. There were already two candidates in the campaign who were running under the disability banner Lorraine Dempsey and John Dolan and John was elected to the panel. These two candidates were nominated by organisations representing the disability sector. I'm sure J&J do great work but using donor money to fund a perasonal election campaign is wrong especially when you are on 90k a year

_Whimsical_

groovyg wrote: »

You say he was running in the name of jack and Jill and to lobby for better care for disabled children. There were already two candidates in the campaign who were running under the disability banner Lorraine Dempsey and John Dolan and John was elected to the panel. These two candidates were nominated by organisations representing the disability sector. I'm sure J&J do great work but using donor money to fund a perasonal election campaign is wrong especially when you are on 90k a year

He used headed notepaper for the campaign. The campaign was entirely to try and get the state to give Jack and Jill kids what they need and deserve. It might have been a mistake. It doesn't make him a man of questionable integrity when weighed against what he has achieved here.

Really no other person in Ireland has done more for disabled children. The work they do means parents of toddlers who need 24 hr supervision get to sleep at night knowing a nurse will stay with their child and ensure they're still breathing. John Irwin set it up because his own child was in that situation before Jack and Jill existed. The advice the best pediatrician in the country gave him was to take his baby home after birth and then abandon him at a hospital because it would be impossible for any family to care for him. Before J&J that was the advice to parents of terribly disabled children. Now they bring their child home and they get to sleep at night, they get someone on the end of the phone when their child is very ill because your GP doesn't know how to treat desperately disabled babies. That's all because of this man and because of his compassion for others after life dealt his family a huge blow. I've seen the difference that makes in my own family.


We do have to weigh things up sometimes, a 1000 euro mistake in the name of a good cause Vs years of enormous personal contribuion to the most vulnerable in our society. There are very few people left in Irish public life I'd step up to defend but he is one.

Annasopra

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I have to absolutely disagree. Above is his response to the claims. His platform was entirely Jack and Jill. His appeal for votes was completely on the basis of what he hoped he could achieve on behalf of Jack and Jill and it's users. Perhaps he should have paid for the headed paper but using it was wise for his campaign, to remind voters of his premise and his reputation in that area. To vilify the most passionate and important campaigner we have ever had in our country on the basis of understandably using paper to promote that campaign is so extremely unfair, it's worthy of a Sun headline, I'd really hope thinking people would not be so reactionary and thoughtless though.
If his health had allowed him to continue that campaign we really would hopefully be looking at proper debate in our houses of parliment about where our children should be best treated and how the most vulnerable parents and babies are treated. If it weren't for him, they'd be entirely on the scrap heap.

Hang on a second. Who was going to get the Seanad Salary? It really is ridiculous to suggest there was no personal gain in the campaign for him. No, I'm sorry using charity resources to promote a personal political campaign is completely unethical and indefensible. I am surprised that people would try to defend it. He didn't drop out of the Seanad campaign for health reasons by the way. Him not getting elected was just because the electorate chose someone different.

BarryD2

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Obviously that's completely different. Your wife is above 16, therefore can refuse. Not sure if doctors advise women to have vaccines when pregnant. I meant for the child, they should, from birth to 16, be required to get vaccines and if parents refuse then the parent is charged with neglect. And I don't think it's scary, I think that any law that protects a child is an inherently good thing.

I think you might be promoting double standards there. You seem to suggest that people above 16 can refuse vaccines, but anyone below that age should be obliged/ forced to take vaccines as decided by the HSE??

Suppose a parent decides that they don't want a vaccine and you say this is alright. Why should they then be obliged to vaccinate a child of theirs, when they are making decisions in what they perceive to be the best interests of their child? You're effectively saying that the state should exercise greater control over people under 16 that the parents of these children.

njs030

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Obviously that's completely different. Your wife is above 16, therefore can refuse. Not sure if doctors advise women to have vaccines when pregnant. I meant for the child, they should, from birth to 16, be required to get vaccines and if parents refuse then the parent is charged with neglect. And I don't think it's scary, I think that any law that protects a child is an inherently good thing.

Why from birth? Getting the flu vaccine when pregnant passes antibodies onto the newborn which lasts for a few months after birth so would your rule include forcing pregnant women to take vaccines?

MrPudding

mountai wrote: »

If anyone cares to examine the Merck Pil ( the one the HSE refuse to give to parents) it is clear that the listed possible side effects SHOULD worry any parent . Trust the HSE ?? Oh yeah .

As a matter of interest, do you know how the list of side effects is drawn up? For the benefit of anyone that doesn't (I didn't until my daughter took part in a meningitis vaccine trial and it was explained to me), this is how. From the point the drug is given for a set period, you have to log everything that happens, spiked a temperature, log it. Threw up (even if you eat something dodgy and it was more likely the cause), log it. Got really itchy, log it. You have to log everything. Then they take your list and the list from everyone else in the trial and everything listed is added as a possible side effect. There is no investigation or follow up, and even where there the drug probably wasn't the cause, it is still added. The list really does err on the side of caution. Of course, some drugs do have nasty side effects, but I would not necessarily immediately assume that every side effect is equally likely or even a remote possibility.

MrP

kylith

Anyone who thinks that the list of possible side effects for vaccines means they're too dangerous should never take aspirin. That list is scary. Some highlights (for something you probably give your child with barely a thought):

seizures
loss of consciousness
Abdominal or stomach pain, cramping, or burning
unusual bleeding or bruising

neonsofa

kylith wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that the list of possible side effects for vaccines means they're too dangerous should never take aspirin. That list is scary. Some highlights (for something you probably give your child with barely a thought):

seizures
loss of consciousness
Abdominal or stomach pain, cramping, or burning
unusual bleeding or bruising

Think you're advised not to give aspirin to those under 16, some will say 12, so I doubt many are giving it to their kids without a thought. It can be given to younger but it's best avoided and I think most parents do avoid giving it to kids. I obviously can't talk for all parents though!

kylith

neonsofa wrote: »

Think you're advised not to give aspirin to those under 16, some will say 12, so I doubt many are giving it to their kids without a thought. It can be given to younger but it's best avoided and I think most parents do avoid giving it to kids. I obviously can't talk for all parents though!

Alright, Calpol then:

Bloody or black, tarry stools
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
fever with or without chills
bloody or cloudy urine

The point is that all medications can have horrible side effects. Singling out vaccines because of potential side effects is ridiculous.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Very true. Even procedures that people think are simple have a list of very serious side effects. The worst side effect of an epidural going wrong for instance is paralysis.

Medical and healthcare staff need to call out every known side effect even if the chances of occurrence are extremely rare.

neonsofa

kylith wrote: »

Alright, Calpol then:

Bloody or black, tarry stools
unusual bleeding or bruising
unusual tiredness or weakness
fever with or without chills
bloody or cloudy urine

The point is that all medications can have horrible side effects. Singling out vaccines because of potential side effects is ridiculous.

I wasn't disagreeing with your point,just your assumption that parents give aspirin to their children without a second thought.

I rarely give medication to mine- a bottle of Calpol would expire long before it's used. I've bought one bottle in their 12 years. Some people genuinely don't like to use medication and I'd imagine those against vaccines would also be against other types of medication. Not to say they're correct, just consistent :pac: having said that if their child became ill with a (prevented by vaccines) illness, you can bet they'd expect medical intervention

Capt'n Midnight

neonsofa wrote: »

Not to say they're correct, just consistent :pac: having said that if their child became ill with a (prevented by vaccines) illness, you can bet they'd expect medical intervention

Prevention is better than cure.

Especially if the vaccine is for something incurable.

neonsofa

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Prevention is better than cure.

Especially if the vaccine is for something incurable.

Well yeah my post was kinda pointing out the hypocrisy of it, not saying "sure if they get something they can treat it after" even if that is their logic

gar32

Please try to understand so called anti vaxxer's
Think of vaccines like cars. Every day millions of people get to work or school healthy and safe.
More then 99% of people are happy with that and don't give car safety much time.
Then you have someone who has a major car accident and has so much fear they say car's are bad do not use
them. (Hard anti vaccine)

Then you someone in a minor accident who is asking for safer cars, road and child seats.(Branded Anti
vaxxer)

Then you have people who meet or know on of the 2 above and think cars do a great job getting so many
people to work but could they be safer ?

I know people who have had bad reactions even death from a vaccine.

Vaccines are much more complicated then pro or anti.

The mix and number mean each should be looked at on it's own.

If you want people to get the HPV vaccine then make it safer.

If your wondering why read about what happened in Japan, Denmark or Columbia.

Sometimes girl do get sick from the HPV vaccine and the sooner this is talked about in an open form with everything on the table the better.
People will hear stories and not take the risk.



Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

snowflaker

https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/903275564135587841

Canis Lupus

gar32 wrote: »

Please try to understand so called anti vaxxer's
Think of vaccines like cars. Every day millions of people get to work or school healthy and safe.
More then 99% of people are happy with that and don't give car safety much time.
Then you have someone who has a major car accident and has so much fear they say car's are bad do not use
them. (Hard anti vaccine)

Then you someone in a minor accident who is asking for safer cars, road and child seats.(Branded Anti
vaxxer)

Then you have people who meet or know on of the 2 above and think cars do a great job getting so many
people to work but could they be safer ?

I know people who have had bad reactions even death from a vaccine.

Vaccines are much more complicated then pro or anti.

The mix and number mean each should be looked at on it's own.

If you want people to get the HPV vaccine then make it safer.

If your wondering why read about what happened in Japan, Denmark or Columbia.

Sometimes girl do get sick from the HPV vaccine and the sooner this is talked about in an open form with everything on the table the better.
People will hear stories and not take the risk.



Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

I reckon if there was a god above and he came down and said Gar, vaccines are safe, I personally guarantee it then you'd move the goalposts on what you want from vaccines and their producers.

Capt'n Midnight

neonsofa wrote: »

Well yeah my post was kinda pointing out the hypocrisy of it, not saying "sure if they get something they can treat it after" even if that is their logic

The point is that there aren't always effective treatments. Especially for viral diseases.

There's a vaccine for rabies.

But if you catch it and you don't get to a hospital in time your survival rate plummets, delay too long and it's still 100% fatal.



What's the survival rates for the cancers that the HPV vaccine prevents ?
Because taking a couple of Asprin later isn't going to sort it out.

Academic

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The point is that there aren't always effective treatments. Especially for viral diseases.

There's a vaccine for rabies.

But if you catch it and you don't get to a hospital in time your survival rate plummets, delay too long and it's still 100% fatal.



What's the survival rates for the cancers that the HPV vaccine prevents ?
Because taking a couple of Asprin later isn't going to sort it out.

http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/cervical-cancer/statistics

mrkiscool2

gar32 wrote: »

Please try to understand so called anti vaxxer's
Think of vaccines like cars. Every day millions of people get to work or school healthy and safe.
More then 99% of people are happy with that and don't give car safety much time.
Then you have someone who has a major car accident and has so much fear they say car's are bad do not use
them. (Hard anti vaccine)

Then you someone in a minor accident who is asking for safer cars, road and child seats.(Branded Anti
vaxxer)

Then you have people who meet or know on of the 2 above and think cars do a great job getting so many
people to work but could they be safer ?

I know people who have had bad reactions even death from a vaccine.

Vaccines are much more complicated then pro or anti.

The mix and number mean each should be looked at on it's own.

If you want people to get the HPV vaccine then make it safer.

If your wondering why read about what happened in Japan, Denmark or Columbia.

Sometimes girl do get sick from the HPV vaccine and the sooner this is talked about in an open form with everything on the table the better.
People will hear stories and not take the risk.



Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

Oh my glob, I was expecting the neurotoxin argument at some stage. So, here goes. I'm also going to get a little technical below, so if you have questions about certain words, feel free to ask.

Do you know what's in MMR vaccine? Basically a form of mercury. Now, we all know how dangerous mercury is, it's highly toxic. Here's the thing, you can radically alter an element's properties by binding it to another compound. In this case, an organic, carbon containing compound and sodium, making it a ligand. This ligand takes away all the harmful properties of mercury and ensures that the vaccine is delivered most effectively in the child.

Would you eat gold, something that is toxic? Silver, also toxic? No, but these things are used constantly in cancer and other treatments, due to the fact they are binded to other compounds and become ligands that negate the negative effect. There is no correlation between aluminum adjuvant in HPV and neurotoxicity. The same way there is no correlation between mercury and autism in young kids through the mmr vaccine.

Allergic reactions are the worst thing that can happen from a tried and tested vaccine (and I'm not diminishing allergic reactions, they are awful and can kill) but that's the only threat. Also, vaccines are more like the seatbelt in cars than anything, protecting you from what may happen. The analogy doesn't work. As in, with the seatbelt, you could still die. Without it, you almost definitely die.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Allergic reactions can be considered acceptable too depending on the circumstances and coincidentally I know a current example.

Someone I know has a nasty infection and they have a known past allergic reaction to penicillin. Despite this doctors are considering administering penicillin under close observation if current treatment begins to fail before test results are in (results which would identify the exact bacteria causing the issue and the corresponding specific antibiotic to use).

The idea is that the allergic reaction is so long ago that the person may not have a negative reaction this time around, an acceptable risk potentially. Thankfully it appears that current treatment is beginning to kick in and the penicillin is looking less likely to be needed.

neonsofa

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The point is that there aren't always effective treatments. Especially for viral diseases.

There's a vaccine for rabies.

But if you catch it and you don't get to a hospital in time your survival rate plummets, delay too long and it's still 100% fatal.



What's the survival rates for the cancers that the HPV vaccine prevents ?
Because taking a couple of Asprin later isn't going to sort it out.

Capt'n I'm not sure you're understanding my posts, I was pointing out their hypocrisy, not saying they're right. I am not supporting their views, just passing comment on the fact that they may be against medication/medical intervention when it comes to vaccines or other illnesses but if God forbid their kid got really sick they'd be straight to the hospital expecting medical intervention regardless of that. I'm not saying that they would be right to do so,quite the opposite for the very reasons listed in your post.

kylith

gar32 wrote: »

Please try to understand so called anti vaxxer's
Think of vaccines like cars. Every day millions of people get to work or school healthy and safe.
More then 99% of people are happy with that and don't give car safety much time.
Then you have someone who has a major car accident and has so much fear they say car's are bad do not use
them. (Hard anti vaccine)

Then you someone in a minor accident who is asking for safer cars, road and child seats.(Branded Anti
vaxxer)

Then you have people who meet or know on of the 2 above and think cars do a great job getting so many
people to work but could they be safer ?

I know people who have had bad reactions even death from a vaccine.

Vaccines are much more complicated then pro or anti.

The mix and number mean each should be looked at on it's own.

If you want people to get the HPV vaccine then make it safer.

If your wondering why read about what happened in Japan, Denmark or Columbia.

Sometimes girl do get sick from the HPV vaccine and the sooner this is talked about in an open form with everything on the table the better.
People will hear stories and not take the risk.

Yes someone who's car has spontaneously exploded would be right in calling for safer cars with more stringent tests. However the vast, vast majority of anti-vaxxers are like people who trip getting out of the car or get a static shock off the car, and blame the car, or who have read about people who got terrible diarrhoea while in a car and says that cars should be banned because they give people diarrhoea.

Samaris

Of people I would actually be okay with doing physical harm to (and there are very very few of those), Andrew Wakefield and a couple of his more prominent satellites are well up the shortlist. What they have perpetrated is an enormous medical fraud that has impacted lives. They are responsible for deaths when diseases break out and cannot be stymied because they have convinced too many people will petty bull****. And it is.

The really head-killing bit is that when vaccine makers have actually researched and implemented changes to get rid of things that the worried public has latched onto (aluminium is one of them), it gets snatched up as proof that there was something wrong and therefore, there is something wrong with the replacement and all the other vaccines as well. Vaccine companies are inexplicably not allowed to respond to "well, why did you change it if there was nothing wrong, huh?" with "BECAUSE YOU LOT WERE HYSTERICAL!" That sort of reaction makes it harder to keep on top of medication, especially vaccines, that might actually bear closer looking at (usually newer ones) because the slightest indication that something may be wrong, and a whole sector of population explodes and convinces more people never to touch the devil's handiwork/big pharma's lies.

It's a catch-22. Same thing happened in climate change - we are now unprepared because certain liars and vested interested kept up the lies, kept up the pressure, forced scientists to moderate their outcomes as narrowly as they conceivably could and now people are saying "they didn't warn us!" and "scientists may have misstated the effects of climate change by x% in y metric". Yeah, well, if the liars hadn't forced such careful wording because one wrong prediction would get blown out of all proportion, we'd be going into this with our eyes fully open, wouldn't we.

Capt'n Midnight

neonsofa wrote: »

Capt'n I'm not sure you're understanding my posts, I was pointing out their hypocrisy, not saying they're right.

I was saying that if their plan was to get treatment later instead of vaccinating now, they might want to reconsider it as there may not be an effective treatment.

RoisinClare6

They are a seriously dangerous bunch.

The line 'Do your research' absolutely grates me. You've done 19 hours of sites like natural news...you're not an expert in the field or really have much of a capacity to understand the information you are looking at.

People like 'The Food Babe' and 'David Avacado wolf' have a log to answer for. Big Pharma are the devil but they'll pay hundreds of dollars for coffee enemas and snake oil and such. They are profiting from people's fear.

So many things are taking a scary turn. Parents forcing their kids to drink bleach solutions some up to 16 doses a day plus enemas to 'Cure' Autism. Not vaccinating their kids because the seen a pic on Facebook saying that vaccines are full of mercury and give the kids a list of diseases. The food babe said people you shouldn't eat ingredients that a 4th grader would not be able to pronounce but got caught out by DHMO or as we know it water. They haven't a clue what they are talking about but people somehow believe them

It's bad enough that they are putting their own kids in danger but there are plenty of people with comprised immune systems that can't be vacated who are at risk because if these people.

Grayson

Samaris wrote: »

Of people I would actually be okay with doing physical harm to (and there are very very few of those), Andrew Wakefield and a couple of his more prominent satellites are well up the shortlist. What they have perpetrated is an enormous medical fraud that has impacted lives. They are responsible for deaths when diseases break out and cannot be stymied because they have convinced too many people will petty bull****. And it is.

The really head-killing bit is that when vaccine makers have actually researched and implemented changes to get rid of things that the worried public has latched onto (aluminium is one of them), it gets snatched up as proof that there was something wrong and therefore, there is something wrong with the replacement and all the other vaccines as well. Vaccine companies are inexplicably not allowed to respond to "well, why did you change it if there was nothing wrong, huh?" with "BECAUSE YOU LOT WERE HYSTERICAL!" That sort of reaction makes it harder to keep on top of medication, especially vaccines, that might actually bear closer looking at (usually newer ones) because the slightest indication that something may be wrong, and a whole sector of population explodes and convinces more people never to touch the devil's handiwork/big pharma's lies.

It's a catch-22. Same thing happened in climate change - we are now unprepared because certain liars and vested interested kept up the lies, kept up the pressure, forced scientists to moderate their outcomes as narrowly as they conceivably could and now people are saying "they didn't warn us!" and "scientists may have misstated the effects of climate change by x% in y metric". Yeah, well, if the liars hadn't forced such careful wording because one wrong prediction would get blown out of all proportion, we'd be going into this with our eyes fully open, wouldn't we.

As far as I'm concerned anti vaxxers are in the same league as drunk drivers. They're both doing something that will put other lives in danger.

Although at least drunk drives have the excuse that they're drunk. Anti vaxxes are stone cold sober.

neonsofa

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I was saying that if their plan was to get treatment later instead of vaccinating now, they might want to reconsider it as there may not be an effective treatment.

Well yeah anybody with any sense realises that, but common sense is not that common

Army_of_One

gar32 wrote: »

Please try to understand so called anti vaxxer's
Think of vaccines like cars. Every day millions of people get to work or school healthy and safe.
More then 99% of people are happy with that and don't give car safety much time.
Then you have someone who has a major car accident and has so much fear they say car's are bad do not use
them. (Hard anti vaccine)

Then you someone in a minor accident who is asking for safer cars, road and child seats.(Branded Anti
vaxxer)

Then you have people who meet or know on of the 2 above and think cars do a great job getting so many
people to work but could they be safer ?

I know people who have had bad reactions even death from a vaccine.

Vaccines are much more complicated then pro or anti.

The mix and number mean each should be looked at on it's own.

If you want people to get the HPV vaccine then make it safer.

If your wondering why read about what happened in Japan, Denmark or Columbia.

Sometimes girl do get sick from the HPV vaccine and the sooner this is talked about in an open form with everything on the table the better.
People will hear stories and not take the risk.



Of the 16 HPV vaccine randomized trials, only two used an inert saline placebo. Ten of the sixteen compared the HPV vaccine against a neurotoxic aluminum adjuvant, and four trials used an already-approved aluminum-containing vaccine as the comparison.

I was gonna reply to you but a quick check of your posting history shows you to be an anti-vaxxer troll.

Although I have to admit it is funny that you opened a thread on why vaccine threads are always locked...then you doing your best to get it locked but thread stays open and you get banned from the health sciences forum

Orion

BarryD2 wrote: »

I think you might be promoting double standards there. You seem to suggest that people above 16 can refuse vaccines, but anyone below that age should be obliged/ forced to take vaccines as decided by the HSE??

Suppose a parent decides that they don't want a vaccine and you say this is alright. Why should they then be obliged to vaccinate a child of theirs, when they are making decisions in what they perceive to be the best interests of their child? You're effectively saying that the state should exercise greater control over people under 16 that the parents of these children.

Suppose an adult Jehovah's Witness decides she doesn't want a life saving blood transfusion. Should she be allowed deny her child a transfusion?

Subcomandante Marcos

I've spent a fair amount of time working over seas in some exceptionally poor regions.

When you talk to doctors and nurses volunteering in medical clinics in rural regions of developing countries who are seeing children and young people die from preventable diseases because of lack of access to vaccines and then you realise there are idiots in Ireland who read something on facebook so refuse to give their children a protection that families in developing countries would fight for, you know the world is a f*cked up place.