Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Anti-vaxxers

Options
1…125126128130131…199

Comments

  • Options
    #3812
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    Wibbs wrote: »
    When you post a retarded pic like this it hardly marks you out as a moderate.

    I thought it was funny as I thought it was a caricature but as it turns out, after seeing what happened in the swat team video, it's sadly not that remote from reality.


  • Options
    #3813
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    Amantine wrote: »
    ok, so it says that there is a 2 to 10% rate of failure and illness is much less severe in the vaccinated. Interesting.

    So, during the measles outbreak at UHL at one point 3 out of 9 patients were vaccinated staff members.


  • Options
    #3814
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    stefanovich wrote: »
    How many vaccinations does the average child in the US receive? Hundreds. A limited number of objectively reviewed vaccines? Fine. Every new vaccine pushed by profit driven and often criminal big Pharma? No thanks.

    That's where I stand as well. Let's see if all those murderous "anti-vaxxers" disagree with me.


  • Options
    #3815
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    stefanovich wrote: »
    How many vaccinations does the average child in the US receive? Hundreds. A limited number of objectively reviewed vaccines? Fine. Every new vaccine pushed by profit driven and often criminal big Pharma? No thanks.

    I dont suppose you have anything to support your assertion that the average child in the US receives hundreds of vaccines? asking for a friend.


  • Options
    #3816
    Martina1991
    Registered Users Posts: 2,540 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    Amantine wrote:
    I thought it was funny as I thought it was a caricature but as it turns out, after seeing what happened in the swat team video, it's sadly not that remote from reality.
    That child had meningitis. It had a fever and the parents didnt take the child to the ER. The doctor rang the police. If he hadn't that child would likely be dead.

    But yeah anti vaxx parents know best.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3817
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I dont suppose you have anything to support your assertion that the average child in the US receives hundreds of vaccines? asking for a friend.

    Not hundreds. 72 doses. I'd question if all were really necessary. Especially when some of the side effects can be pretty bad.


  • Options
    #3818
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,029 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Not hundreds. 72 doses. I'd question if all were really necessary. Especially when some of the side effects can be pretty bad.
    Where are you getting 72 doses from?


    Incidentally, have you a response for my earlier question to you:
    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    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?


  • Options
    #3819
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Not hundreds. 72 doses. I'd question if all were really necessary. Especially when some of the side effects can be pretty bad.

    do you have a source for that 72 number? it just seems awfully high.


  • Options
    #3820
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,101 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Where are you getting 72 doses from?
    Never never land? It's more like 15 vaccinations, now that is spread over a number of doses, but note how it's magically dropped from "hundreds" to "72" within the hour. Give it another hour and no doubt it'll drop again.

    And like I pointed out earlier Seth that's in the US. About the most over medicated culture and heavily lobbied medical industry on the planet. They can't scratch their arse without a dose of Scratchyourassicon by Pfizer, guaranteed not to cause monsterism. If their insurance allows it of course, otherwise it's a thousand bucks a pill. Like their usually retarded political discourse it would be best not importing their nonsense on medical stuff either.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #3821
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,064 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Not hundreds. 72 doses. I'd question if all were really necessary. Especially when some of the side effects can be pretty bad.

    Links? 72 'doses' (this includes multi-shot vaccines) by age 18 is what, average of 4 a year? Looking here, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

    more like 32 by the age of 18. Of course, if you add once-a-year influenza, that does bring it up to 50. Not 72 though.

    Likewise, link to your assertion it was staff that had been vaccinated that had measles during the UHL epidemic? I don't buy it, and anti-vaxxers lie.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3822
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,580 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Amantine wrote: »
    That was low effort too, a least have some sort of an argument.

    I'm responding to your post. Feel free to answer my questions when you get a moment.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3823
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,580 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Not hundreds. 72 doses. I'd question if all were really necessary. Especially when some of the side effects can be pretty bad.

    Awfully high number there. I'd like a source for this and the side effects please. Specifically, the frequencies of side effect occurrence.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #3824
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Never never land? It's more like 15 vaccinations, now that is spread over a number of doses, but note how it's magically dropped from "hundreds" to "72" within the hour. Give it another hour and no doubt it'll drop again.

    And like I pointed out earlier Seth that's in the US. About the most over medicated culture and heavily lobbied medical industry on the planet. They can't scratch their arse without a dose of Scratchyourassicon by Pfizer, guaranteed not to cause monsterism. If their insurance allows it of course, otherwise it's a thousand bucks a pill. Like their usually retarded political discourse it would be best not importing their nonsense on medical stuff either.

    For ireland there are 18 vaccinations before the age of twelve, though some of those 18 are boosters of previous vaccines. 10 separate vaccines. Girls get the hov at 12. a long way short of 72.


  • Options
    #3825
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    Seth Brundle wrote: »

    Incidentally, have you a response for my earlier question to you:

    Depends, if you're taking Vioxx (Rofecoxib), avandia, cerivastatin, Pandemrix, or Thalidomide you might want to rethink...actually anything by Merck or GSK I personally, would read independent studies first - if you can find any.


  • Options
    #3826
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    Igotadose wrote: »
    Links? 72 'doses' (this includes multi-shot vaccines) by age 18 is what, average of 4 a year? Looking here, https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

    more like 32 by the age of 18. Of course, if you add once-a-year influenza, that does bring it up to 50. Not 72 though.

    Likewise, link to your assertion it was staff that had been vaccinated that had measles during the UHL epidemic? I don't buy it, and anti-vaxxers lie.

    How does the HSE manage with 21 by the age of 18? That's half?


  • Options
    #3827
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,029 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Amantine wrote: »
    Depends, if you're taking Vioxx (Rofecoxib), avandia, cerivastatin, Pandemrix, or Thalidomide you might want to rethink...actually anything by Merck or GSK I personally, would read independent studies first - if you can find any.
    It doesn't depend on anything. You're just trying to divert.
    Just to repeat: stefanovich said:
    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
    ...and my response was...
    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    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?
    Now can you please re-try and answer my straightforward question?


  • Options
    #3828
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    It doesn't depend on anything. You're just trying to divert.


    Now can you please re-try and answer my straightforward question?

    I'm also curious about what causes all these diseases that we have to take so much medication for?
    https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/


  • Options
    #3829
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Amantine wrote: »
    Depends, if you're taking Vioxx (Rofecoxib), avandia, cerivastatin, Pandemrix, or Thalidomide you might want to rethink...actually anything by Merck or GSK I personally, would read independent studies first - if you can find any.

    Why would anybody, apart from women in the early stages of pregnancy, worry about taking thalidomide?


  • Options
    #3830
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Amantine wrote: »
    I'm also curious about what causes all these diseases that we have to take so much medication for?
    https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/

    Due to medical advances eg vaccines, sanitation and cheap food we all live longer and develop age related illnesses.


  • Options
    #3831
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Why would anybody, apart from women in the early stages of pregnancy, worry about taking thalidomide?

    Why would anyone take any of the drugs I mentioned? They are all off the market anyway, you couldn't if you wanted to. They all caused horrifying side effects, sometimes the manufacturers knew about them, released them anyway and killed thousands of peoples.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3832
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Not hundreds. 72 doses. I'd question if all were really necessary. Especially when some of the side effects can be pretty bad.

    OK so earlier when you said hundreds, you were exaggerating, now it's 72, any evidence of this number?

    The only links I can find are ones stating its anti vax math tricks to try the usual misinformation.


  • Options
    #3833
    CelticRambler
    Registered Users Posts: 6,726 ✭✭✭CelticRambler


    Amantine wrote: »
    Depends, if you're taking Vioxx (Rofecoxib), avandia, cerivastatin, Pandemrix, or Thalidomide you might want to rethink...actually anything by Merck or GSK I personally, would read independent studies first - if you can find any.

    Well there's the inherent flaw in your argument: every drug company gets all the relevant information on their drugs' positive and negative effects decades before any independent study can gather enough cases on which to base reliable conclusions. And guess what - if the initial data is negative, you never get to hear about the drug, let alone have a chance to take it.

    Thalidomide is an interesting case because it passed all the laboratory-based safety tests without raising any red flags, then it passed all the human clinical trials without raising any red flags, then it was released onto the market and everything looked good ... until several months later. Now while you've obviously bundled it in with other "big pharma failures" you're ignoring the "what happened next" part of the story. Quite simply, the industry and regulators sat down and tried to figure out how a molecule with such devasting side effects could have got through the assessment process. The answer was simple: it wasn't tested on rabbits, the only lab-animal species that susceptible to the same foetal abnormalities. So now every drug for human use is tested in rabbits. [Cue outrage from the "animal testing is cruel" lobby ... :rolleyes: ]

    You picked Thalidomide as an example, so what would you have done differently, either during the drug's development or after its teratogenic effects were known, to satisfy your own standards of big pharma's accountability?


  • Options
    #3834
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Amantine wrote: »
    Why would anyone take any of the drugs I mentioned? They are all off the market anyway, you couldn't if you wanted to. They all caused horrifying side effects, sometimes the manufacturers knew about them, released them anyway and killed thousands of peoples.

    Somebody with a form of cancer called myeloma might be prescribed thalidomide. It is not off market


  • Options
    #3835
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    CelticRambler wrote: »
    Well there's the inherent flaw in your argument: every drug company gets all the relevant information on their drugs' positive and negative effects decades before any independent study can gather enough cases on which to base reliable conclusions. And guess what - if the initial data is negative, you never get to hear about the drug, let alone have a chance to take it.

    Not true! Vioxx scandal paints a very different picture!


  • Options
    #3836
    Amantine
    Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭Amantine


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Somebody with a form of cancer called myeloma might be prescribed thalidomide. It is not off market

    I did not know that! Good to know.


  • Options
    #3837
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Amantine wrote: »
    I did not know that! Good to know.

    Also used to treat leprosy.


  • Options
    #3838
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    Amantine wrote: »
    I did not know that! Good to know.

    From memory it's not the same as when it first came out. The original was not enantiomerically pure. Only one enantiomer caused the side effects.


  • Options
    #3839
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    jh79 wrote: »
    From memory it's not the same as when it first came out. The original was not enantiomerically pure. Only one enantiomer caused the side effects.

    boy am i sorry i googled enantiomer


  • Options
    #3840
    jh79
    Registered Users Posts: 8,216 ✭✭✭jh79


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    boy am i sorry i googled enantiomer

    Why? Does it have another meaning? Like Cis and Trans now does.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3841
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,228 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    jh79 wrote: »
    Why? Does it have another meaning? Like Cis and Trans now does.

    No, its just very complicated. Too much thinking for a friday afternoon before a long weekend.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement