Anti-vaxxers

Amantine

jh79 wrote: »

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

Actually that was true last century. For the first time, children face a shorter life span than their parents. Heart disease and stroke is on the rise in young people and the fertility rate is way down.

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

And yet in the blue zones, they don't take much medication and live into very old age without developing all the chronic diseases and just keele over one night at 104.

A quick wiki says 20% less cancer, that's still lots of people with cancer, 50 % less heart disease, again still a lot of people with heart disease and therefore still a lot of medical intervention.

Got any stats for areas with for access to medicine?

stefanovich

jh79 wrote: »

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

Wrong. It's the cheap food that is making us sick. Granted, improved sanitation and healthcare is good but we are medicating to counter the effects of bad food and bad lifestyle.

stefanovich

jh79 wrote: »

A quick wiki says 20% less cancer, that's still lots of people with cancer, 50 % less heart disease, again still a lot of people with heart disease and therefore still a lot of medical intervention.

Got any stats for areas with for access to medicine?

Heart disease is not a given when you get older but it is the leading cause of death. Why? Diet. Peoples who eat less meat and less dairy have less heart disease.

Amantine

jh79 wrote: »

A quick wiki says 20% less cancer, that's still lots of people with cancer, 50 % less heart disease, again still a lot of people with heart disease and therefore still a lot of medical intervention.

Got any stats for areas with for access to medicine?

No, but the sites about it often mention no medication. Would be interesting to get stats for meds and vaccination, especially for the US.

" they are living the longest without diseases like heart issues, obesity, cancer, diabetes, or dementia. They are also less likely to suffer from depression. Most live medication free their entire lives."

source: https://ontargetliving.com/eating/blue-zones/

"Not only are they living long lives, but they are also healthy showing a remarkable absence of disease, ailments and the need for medication."

source:https://riteshbawri.com/blue-zones-what-are-they/

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

Wrong. It's the cheap food that is making us sick. Granted, improved sanitation and healthcare is good but we are medicating to counter the effects of bad food and bad lifestyle.

High sugar and high salt in processed food is the likely cause. A 49c bag of carrots from Aldi is cheap good food. A 4 euro chicken is good food. Spuds are not expensive. A full family dinner there for a little over a fiver.

stefanovich

jh79 wrote: »

High sugar and high salt in processed food is the likely cause. A 49c bag of carrots from Aldi is cheap good food. A 4 euro chicken is good food. Spuds are not expensive. A full family dinner there for a little over a fiver.

Salt, sugar, bad oils, bad fat, lack of vegetables and fruits, too much alcohol.

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

Salt, sugar, bad oils, bad fat, lack of vegetables and fruits, too much alcohol.

And medical intervention means even with these poor choices mortality rates are generally on the increase year on year.

stefanovich

jh79 wrote: »

And medical intervention means even with these poor choices mortality rates are generally on the increase year on year.

Expensive. How about letting the coke guzzlers enjoy their diabetes.

Amantine

jh79 wrote: »

A quick wiki says 20% less cancer, that's still lots of people with cancer, 50 % less heart disease, again still a lot of people with heart disease and therefore still a lot of medical intervention.

Got any stats for areas with for access to medicine?

Not blue zones but centenarians die of old age or acute disease:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001653

Where did you get your stats for cause of death?

Billy86

iamwhoiam wrote: »

VicMackey1 wrote: »

Then I guess I am a fascist for putting childrens welfare first!

Dragging a child forcefully off its mother is not putting childrens welfare first .

Depends on the circumstances. If the parent is a hardcore drug addict and career criminal who is teaching their child the'trocks of the trade' and getting them hooked on class a drugs before their 10th birthday to keep them loyal... then what?

And if they sold their child for drugs onky to later get them back, would removing a child from that situation be a case of putting their welfare first, or not?

jh79

Amantine wrote: »

Not blue zones but centenarians die of old age or acute disease:

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001653

Where did you get your stats for cause of death?

Wiki, not sure what point you are making. Vaccines have prevented millions of deaths, lots of cancers have been cured, prognosis for others improved. pRep (sic) for AIDs . Obviously i could go on and on.

Live in a blue zone you're still gonna need medical intervention. Medicine is still gonna safe lives and scientists / doctors will still need to be paid for this service.

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

Expensive. How about letting the coke guzzlers enjoy their diabetes.

And would you have the same attitude to vegans with poor bone density that caused a fracture? Increased risk of 40% for the average vegan.

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

Expensive. How about letting the coke guzzlers enjoy their diabetes.

And would you have the same attitude to vegans with poor bone density that caused a fracture? Increased risk of 40% for the average vegan.

iamwhoiam

Billy86 wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances. If the parent is a hardcore drug addict and career criminal who is teaching their child the'trocks of the trade' and getting them hooked on class a drugs before their 10th birthday to keep them loyal... then what?

And if they sold their child for drugs onky to later get them back, would removing a child from that situation be a case of putting their welfare first, or not?

Strawman argument . The subject in hand was about vaccinating an otherwise well looked aftet child

iamwhoiam

stefanovich wrote: »

Expensive. How about letting the coke guzzlers enjoy their diabetes.

I am being pedantic but please refer to Type 2 diabetes in such posts
Type 1 is an auto immune disease that strikes mainly in childhood or early adolescence

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

Expensive. How about letting the coke guzzlers enjoy their diabetes.

And would you have the same attitude to vegans with poor bone density that caused a fracture? Increased risk of 40% for the average vegan.

Amantine

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Type 1 is an auto immune disease that strikes in childhood or early adolescence

Type 1 can strike at a later age too.

iamwhoiam

Amantine wrote: »

Type 1 can strike at a later age too.

Yes it can . I wish people would make an effort to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2

Amantine

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yes it can . I wish people would make an effort to distinguish between Type 1 and Type 2

Have not read the study but there is a theory that certain vaccines are linked with T2D:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319592904_Bioinformatics_analysis_links_type_1_diabetes_to_vaccines_contaminated_with_animal_proteins_and_autoreactive_T_cells_express_skin_homing_receptors_consistent_with_injected_vaccines_as_causal_agent


"Autoimmunity against glutamate decarboxylase (GAD) has been associated with type 1 diabetes. GAD65 (65kDa) and GAD67 (67kDa, to a lesser extent) are involved in type 1 diabetes.

Major proteins in the vaccine apart from the measles, mumps and rubella live viruses were chicken embryo cell culture proteins.

GAD65 and GAD67 are expressed during chicken embryogenesis.

Results
GAD65 protein comparison between human and chicken reveals 95% sequence homology as shown below.

Discussion
The results above provide strong evidence that chicken embryo cell culture proteins in the MMR vaccine can cause the development of antibodies against chicken GAD65 which cross-react with human GAD65 protein to cause type 1 diabetes.

This is very similar to the Pandemrix vaccine causing narcolepsy."

iamwhoiam

Amantine wrote: »

Have not read the study but there is a theory that certain vaccines are linked with T2D:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319592904_Bioinformatics_analysis_links_type_1_diabetes_to_vaccines_contaminated_with_animal_proteins_and_autoreactive_T_cells_express_skin_homing_receptors_consistent_with_injected_vaccines_as_causal_agent

Type 1 I think . Thanks for link , interesting read

Amantine

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Type 1 I think . Thanks for link , interesting read

Sorry yes, meant type 1

Billy86

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Depends on the circumstances. If the parent is a hardcore drug addict and career criminal who is teaching their child the'trocks of the trade' and getting them hooked on class a drugs before their 10th birthday to keep them loyal... then what?

And if they sold their child for drugs onky to later get them back, would removing a child from that situation be a case of putting their welfare first, or not?

Strawman argument . The subject in hand was about vaccinating an otherwise well looked aftet child

Not really, no - hence my saying it depends on the circumstances. I am not in favour of removing unvaccinated kids from their parents, but would be more amenable to measures such as cutting off child benefit for those without, or particularly not allowing unvwccinsted kids in public schools.

I just don't like emotive broad statements like the one I replied to because they are so often deeply flawed, and that one in particular has been used in the instances I outlined in child protection cases I have dealt with in the past (including one where the child had previously been sold for drugs).

CelticRambler

Amantine wrote: »

Not true! Vioxx scandal paints a very different picture!

You're a great one for picking a single case and trying to make out that that invalidates the (hundreds of) thousands of other, valid examples. :rolleyes:

Speaking of single cases, these "blue zones" that you refer to are nothing more than a label put on a few areas by one man.

Amantine wrote: »

No, but the sites about it often mention no medication. Would be interesting to get stats for meds and vaccination, especially for the US.

" they are living the longest without diseases like heart issues, obesity, cancer, diabetes, or dementia. They are also less likely to suffer from depression. Most live medication free their entire lives."

source: https://ontargetliving.com/eating/blue-zones/

"Not only are they living long lives, but they are also healthy showing a remarkable absence of disease, ailments and the need for medication."

source:https://riteshbawri.com/blue-zones-what-are-they/

Again, you're displaying a disappointing lack of critical (scientific) analysis for a thread of this nature. Specifically: (1) quoting verbatim the blurb on another website to try and make a point. Seriously??? ; and (2) overlooking the bleedin' obvious :rolleyes: - of course someone who leads a healthy life will not need (much) medication. Simply stating a fact that is true for everyone who doesn't take (much) medication doesn't change the arguments in favour of, or against, Big Pharma, and certainly not in respect of vaccination.

(Incidentally, the Seventh Day Adventists [Loma Linda population] recommend having a full schedule of vaccinations).

iamwhoiam

Billy86 wrote: »

Not really, no - hence my saying it depends on the circumstances. I am not in favour of removing unvaccinated kids from their parents, but would be more amenable to measures such as cutting off child benefit for those without, or particularly not allowing unvwccinsted kids in public schools.

I just don't like emotive broad statements like the one I replied to because they are so often deeply flawed, and that one in particular has been used in the instances I outlined in child protection cases I have dealt with in the past (including one where the child had previously been sold for drugs).

My post was replying to a post about unvaccinated children . Believe me I know all about child protection cases where I would have no hesitation removing a child from its mother . I have nursed children removed from homes and rightly so taken from a parent


If you had read the context of my post and my previous posts you would see I too would favour of banning children from creches and schools and cutting off Childrens Allowance for unvaccinated children .

Igotadose

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Type 1 I think . Thanks for link , interesting read

There's no link between vaccines and diabetes.

As usual, loony Amantine is quoting anti-vax myths.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/diabetes-myths-homeopathy-vaccines/#Those_diabetes_myths

stefanovich

jh79 wrote: »

And would you have the same attitude to vegans with poor bone density that caused a fracture? Increased risk of 40% for the average vegan.

If you were vegan then you need to supplement with calcium.

iamwhoiam

Igotadose wrote: »

There's no link between vaccines and diabetes.

As usual, loony Amantine is quoting anti-vax myths.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/diabetes-myths-homeopathy-vaccines/#Those_diabetes_myths

I read it with interest and then dismissed it !!

Flange/Flanders

Seth Brundle wrote: »

mazwell wrote: »

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

...because both refuse to accept science and fact based discussion?

Highly insulting post, you can be pro vaccine, pro science and still pro life.

AtomicHorror

Flange/Flanders wrote: »

Highly insulting post, you can be pro vaccine, pro science and still pro life.

You can also be religious and be a scientist, but all that really means is that it's possible for people to be wrong about some things and right about others.

The overlap between scientists and pro-lifers is pretty small.