Anti-vaxxers

Amantine

iamwhoiam wrote: »

"With that populism has come a blind faith in ludicrous theories that do nothing but cause harm to people.

"

It's interesting that he uses the word populism because apparently parents who don't vaccinate kids tend to be affluent and better educated.

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Health/parents-vaccinate-kids-tend-affluent-educated-experts/story?id=60674519

ToBeFrank123

Millions of safely vaccinated kids against MMR are ignored in favour of a bogus study by a now disgraced and struck off doctor. Its been well established Wakefield is/was a fraud.

Its like ignoring all the evidence the earth is round in favour of some crank somewhere saying he has proof its flat.

iamwhoiam

Amantine wrote: »

It's interesting that he uses the word populism because apparently parents who don't vaccinate kids tend to be affluent and better educated.

https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/Health/parents-vaccinate-kids-tend-affluent-educated-experts/story?id=60674519

Obviously not educated enough to be able to tell fact from fiction

Neyite

Igotadose wrote: »

Although I'm feeling some schadenfreude about the cruise ship in question, this one's been quarantined due to one of the passengers having measles. Not sure if the order that the people aboard the ship belong to, is pro- or anti-vax, google seems to indicate they're anti-medicine but not anti-vax.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/02/health/st-lucia-measles-cruise-ship-quarantine/index.html

The Church of Scientology says on its website the ship is a religious retreat at the pinnacle of a Scientologist's spiritual journey.[to St. Lucia]"


Lough Derg it ain't that's for sure.

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What gets me is that Pharma companies are quite rightfully condemned when they either make a mistake or engage in morally duplicitous and malevolent activity. There are literally whole books about this such as Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma.


Hi ancapailldorcha, have you read it? Is it any good? I've only read the free sample.

It's quite good but can be dry going at times. Seems to be well researched.

PhoneMain

Amantine wrote: »

Actually there was a time when formula companies did influence doctors - I linked the research below - but formula companies are not pharmaceutical companies and there are no "formula reps". Now formula companies are not allowed to advertise formula for young babies to doctors or mothers. Since we are talking about immunity on this thread, the breastfed infant is better protected against numerous common infections than the non-breastfed. I also found a paper stating that vaccine immune responses are also often enhanced in breastfed infants.


"From the early twentieth century until the late 1980s, most formula companies abandoned direct-to-consumer advertising and used the medical community as their sole advertising vehicle.7 In lieu of directions on how to prepare the formula and recommended dosages, formula package instructions advised mothers to obtain formula feeding guidance at regular doctor visits—yielding a steady flow of income for physicians. 8 Formula companies further engendered physicians’ goodwill by sponsoring scientific conferences and research on infant nutrition.7 Doctors retained their role as undisputed advisors on infant health and feeding while simultaneously providing product referrals for formula purchase and serving as an advertising source of unparalleled credibility."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2443254/

Yup, you're wrong. Formula companies are allowed to present to doctors and there are formula reps. We don't recommend any type of formula and we still advise breastfeeding is way way better than formula feeding.

But this doesn't answer my point. Formula companies are equally financially powerful, yet can't influence medics to abondon their principles like "Big Pharma". Why is that?!

branie2

Should non-vaccination of children be regarded as child abuse?

VicMackey1

branie2 wrote: »

Should non-vaccination of children be regarded as child abuse?

It should. 100%

I don't fully agree with banning unvaccinated children from schools. That move would punish the child who has no say in the matter and they are still unvaccinated which is not in the child's best interest.

I think children should be vaccinated by a certain age and if the parents refuse, then the state should take whatever means necessary to have those children vaccinated, even if that means knocking down their door to forcibly remove the child.

iamwhoiam

VicMackey1 wrote: »

It should. 100%

I don't fully agree with banning unvaccinated children from schools. That move would punish the child who has no say in the matter and they are still unvaccinated which is not in the child's best interest.

I think children should be vaccinated by a certain age and if the parents refuse, then the state should take whatever means necessary to have those children vaccinated, even if that means knocking down their door to forcibly remove the child.

I think they should be banned from school , admittedly its not in that one childs best interest but sending them is not in many childrens best interest .
So we have to weigh the balance and lean towards protecting many rather than one child
Personally I think Childrens Allowance should be linked with vaccinations and only paid if the child is up to date and fully vaccinated
As should the free ECCE scheme and disallowing an unvaccinated child avail of that scheme
I think creches should be by law allowed refuse entry unless the proof of vaccination is shown and registered

is_that_so

VicMackey1 wrote: »

It should. 100%

I don't fully agree with banning unvaccinated children from schools. That move would punish the child who has no say in the matter and they are still unvaccinated which is not in the child's best interest.

I think children should be vaccinated by a certain age and if the parents refuse, then the state should take whatever means necessary to have those children vaccinated, even if that means knocking down their door to forcibly remove the child.

The aim of banning them is restore the herd immunity, paradoxically to protect them. Think they can be compelled and I dont see the benefit of letting Tusla loose on families.

VicMackey1

is_that_so wrote: »

The aim of banning them is restore the herd immunity, paradoxically to protect them. Think they can be compelled and I dont see the benefit of letting Tusla loose on families.

I understand that the aim is to restore herd immunity. That could also be accomplished without punishing an innocent child though! School is very important to a child's development even if it is just the social aspect of it! Imagine the upbringing and challenges they will face if they have parents crazy enough to homeschool them just to prevent vaccination!

Seth Brundle

So risk death just to avoid offending the poor kid?

iamwhoiam

VicMackey1 wrote: »

I understand that the aim is to restore herd immunity. That could also be accomplished without punishing an innocent child though! School is very important to a child's development even if it is just the social aspect of it! Imagine the upbringing and challenges they will face if they have parents that will go as far as homeschooling them just to prevent vaccination!

And imagine the childhood another child would face if he got measles from an unvaccinated child . Imagine a child who for health reason cannot be vaccinated and gets measles encephalitis due to another childs selfish parents
If unvaccinated children are allowed in schools it could very well mean a child who has health issues will have to be home schooled . I know which child I would ban

Orion

VicMackey1 wrote: »

I understand that the aim is to restore herd immunity. That could also be accomplished without punishing an innocent child though! School is very important to a child's development even if it is just the social aspect of it! Imagine the upbringing and challenges they will face if they have parents crazy enough to homeschool them just to prevent vaccination!

It's the lesser of two evils. Unvaxxed kids are a threat to other kids and elderly and immunosuppressed. Those people need to be protected from the kids who have idiots for parents.

VicMackey1

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And imagine the childhood another child would face if he got measles from an unvaccinated child . Imagine a child who for health reason cannot be vaccinated and gets measles encephalitis due to another childs selfish parents
If unvaccinated children are allowed in schools it could very well mean a child who has health issues will have to be home schooled . I know which child I would ban

You dont seem to understand! What Im suggesting would result in more children being vaccinated than there would just by banning them from schools.

Wibbs

CelticRambler wrote: »

Simple answer is yes ... no ... kinda ...

I'm of the same generation, and "gettin' the measles" was something that was expected and not pleasant, but not as bad as having your tonsils out. To the best of my knowledge, the virus isn't any more virulent today than it was then, but because "everyone" got the measles, everyone had a degree of partial immunity (e.g. the baby protected by maternal immunity whose big brother brought full-on measles home from school).

I haven't seen it described anywhere, but knowing how other viruses behave, I imagine the sheer commonality of measles back then meant that there were probably less virulent strains around at the time too, but there were also so many more children in schools and families and playing together on the streets that our immune systems had the benefit of being stimulated non-stop by germs of all sorts.

Nowadays, thanks to vaccination, there's virtually no natural background infection/immunity, so if an unvaccinated individual meets the virus, they'll be exposed to the full force of the disease. This is pretty much the same situation as when we Europeans took all our infectious diseases to the New World in the 15th Century and wiped out the indigenous populations over there.

Yeah that makes sense alright CR. Thinking back when I was a kid it was a rare enough time when me and my peers weren't coming down with some dose or other and like you say we were much more exposed to the various bugs in the population. If you'd parachuted my seven year old self into the middle of the Amazon jungle I'd have killed everyone and everything in a ten mile radius with a mere sneeze. Biological weapons playing with Action Man walking pox bottles we were.

stefanovich

Problem is... you cannot trust pharmaceutical companies. Time and time again they have peddled dangerous drugs, hidden bad results of trials. Bribed doctors etc etc

Wibbs

Orion wrote: »

It's the lesser of two evils. Unvaxxed kids are a threat to other kids and elderly and immunosuppressed.

Whatever about kids and the immunosuppressed the elderly should have a longstanding natural immunity to measles, mumps and what have you. They were exposed to them as kids and more than once and their kids would have been of the generations that caught the diseases "in the wild". The average 80 year old has been exposed to a helluva lot of pathogens and would have a big library of immune responses built up over a lifetime.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

stefanovich wrote: »

Problem is... you cannot trust pharmaceutical companies. Time and time again they have peddled dangerous drugs, hidden bad results of trials. Bribed doctors etc etc

I don't think anybody is saying trust all pharmaceutical companies all the time, or that they are immune from corruption, but to risk the lives of your children and strangers because you have a trust issue is just mind boggling.

iamwhoiam

VicMackey1 wrote: »

You dont seem to understand! What Im suggesting would result in more children being vaccinated than there would just by banning them from schools.

Then explain to me what you mean ? You don't want an unvaccinated excluded from school but this would result in more kids being vaccinated ?
You have lost me ?
Anyway in my opinion its the children who by no fault of their own cannot be vaccinated that we most protect in the first instance . And not at the mercy of some child who's parents selfishly cannot see that

Seth Brundle

stefanovich wrote: »

Problem is... you cannot trust pharmaceutical companies. Time and time again they have peddled dangerous drugs, hidden bad results of trials. Bribed doctors etc etc

I'm currently alive because of advances in both medical procedures and an ongoing supply of medication.
Should I not take my medication because I think the drug companies could be in cahoots with the medics?
Or would that be incredibly stupid and dangerous?

Amantine

Cabaal

Amantine wrote: »

Should we be afraid that the same bald police officer appears 3-4 times in that image?
Also, does the person wearing the gloves have a third hand? They've taken the photo so they must have a third hand to do this.
The women is very poor added it too.

Really its very poorly put together

Timberrrrrrrr

Cabaal wrote: »

Should we be afraid that the same bald police officer appears 3-4 times in that image?

Robocops will vaccinate us

Amantine

What about the thousands of elderly people in Ireland who were never vaccinated? Should they all be banned from retirement homes? Anyone know what vaccination were give and from when - I wasn't born here and can't find anything about it. From what I understand they used to check for the BCG scar so that's one that was definitely given later on. But the HSE has pulled the BCG from the schedule. Are most elderly people in Ireland mostly unvaccinated? Does that mean they are endangering the rest of the population?

ohnonotgmail

Amantine wrote: »

What about the thousands of elderly people in Ireland who were never vaccinated? Should they all be banned from retirement homes? Anyone know what vaccination were give and from when - I wasn't born here and can't find anything about it. From what I understand they used to check for the BCG scar so that's one that was definitely given later on. But the HSE has pulled the BCG from the schedule. Are most elderly people in Ireland mostly unvaccinated? Does that mean they are endangering the rest of the population?

Who mentioned retirement homes? Oh wait, you did just now out of absolutely nothing. Away with your strawman

Wibbs

Amantine wrote: »

What about the thousands of elderly people in Ireland who were never vaccinated? Should they all be banned from retirement homes? Anyone know what vaccination were give and from when - I wasn't born here and can't find anything about it. From what I understand they used to check for the BCG scar so that's one that was definitely given later on. But the HSE has pulled the BCG from the schedule. Are most elderly people in Ireland mostly unvaccinated? Does that mean they are endangering the rest of the population?

Eh... as I pointed out elderly people are already "vaccinated" by having been exposed to and having fought off all the various viruses in their lifetimes. The chances of catching measles or mumps from an 80 year old in the West are slim to none. Plus most get the annual flu vaccine(and some get pneumonia vaccines and others), especially in nursing homes so catching that from them would be hard enough too.

ancapailldorcha

Amantine wrote: »

Now you're dumping anti-vax memes? I didn't think you could put in even less effort but I was wrong.

Amantine

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh... as I pointed out elderly people are already "vaccinated" by having been exposed to and having fought off all the various viruses in their lifetimes. The chances of catching measles or mumps from an 80 year old in the West are slim to none. Plus most get the annual flu vaccine(and some get pneumonia vaccines and others), especially in nursing homes so catching that from them would be hard enough too.

So they had TB, Diphtheria, Polio and Pertussis on top of all the other childhood diseases? I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know what the vaccination schedule was in 1945. These are genuine questions that I have.

mazwell

I've noticed too on Facebook and its probably been said here before that a lot of anti vax people are also extremely pro life. I cant understand how they don't see the contradiction in those stances