Anti-vaxxers

Orion

mountai wrote: »

Im assuming you have a genuine interest so ,

Immediate and severe convulsions ( ambulance called by school) . Ongoing severe joint pain , chronic fatigue , convulsions , cluster of "Possible Side Effects" , as listed on the product PIL , which was deliberately witheld by the HSE . A recent hospitalisation during which she spent two days in Intensive Care ( at Doctors direction) was sent home and her Mother was requested to " Please inform us when you find out what her problem is " . You couldnt make this S**t up .

Everyone of those "reactions" has been debunked many many times. CFS is a common ailment especially in girls and occurs in equal measure in vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren.

The PIL was not withheld - that's just a patent lie. It's on the HSE website for starters - and you can ask for it when getting the vaccine too.

You're right about not being able to make this s**t up alright - except you do.

Graces7

Orion wrote: »

Everyone of those "reactions" has been debunked many many times. CFS is a common ailment especially in girls and occurs in equal measure in vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren.

The PIL was not withheld - that's just a patent lie. It's on the HSE website for starters - and you can ask for it when getting the vaccine too.

You're right about not being able to make this s**t up alright - except you do.

Please prove this ? It gets bandied around with no actual verification.

TheRepentent

Orion wrote: »

You're right about not being able to make this s**t up alright - except you do.

A dishonest vaxtard? Who would of thought...........

jh79

Graces7 wrote: »

Please prove this ? It gets bandied around with no actual verification.

Here is one study from Norway. Link to research at end of article.

https://www.meassociation.org.uk/2017/06/no-increased-risk-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-after-hpv-vaccination-24-june-2017/

Igotadose

FWIW, there's been some reaction in the medical literature against the paper that made the claim that HPV vaccine might not work due to study methodology problems:

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/924113#vp_1

"Margaret Stanley, emeritus professor of epithelial biology, University of Cambridge, took issue with the critical appraisal. She highlighted that the analysis of clinical trials from many years ago had been superseded by real-world evidence of HPV vaccination effectiveness.

Findings from other countries concurred with those from England, she said, for example Australia, Demmark, Sweden, and Scotland, where more than 70% vaccination coverage had been achieved, together with the implementation of good screening programs."


So, the summary is: get the vaccine. And don't forget to get the screening. "Seems" obvious to me, cervical cancer incidents are way down since the vaccine came into wide use.

jackboy

Igotadose wrote: »

"Seems" obvious to me, cervical cancer incidents are way down since the vaccine came into wide use.

Is this true? By how much? Is this definitely due to vaccination? or could screening be a significant factor.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jh79 wrote: »

Here is one study from Norway. Link to research at end of article.

https://www.meassociation.org.uk/2017/06/no-increased-risk-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-after-hpv-vaccination-24-june-2017/

A few more reputable sources

1. Institute of Medicine, in Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality, K. Stratton, et al., Editors. 2012, National Academies Press (US): Washington (DC).

2. Donegan, K., et al., Bivalent human papillomavirus vaccine and the risk of fatigue syndromes in girls in the UK. Vaccine, 2013. 31(43): p. 4961–7.

3. Magnus, P., et al., Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is associated with pandemic influenza infection, but not with an adjuvanted pandemic influenza vaccine. Vaccine, 2015. 33(46): p. 6173–7.

4. Feiring, B., et al., HPV vaccination and risk of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis: A nationwide register-based study from Norway. Vaccine, 2017. 35(33): p. 4203–12.

5. Bazzichi, L., et al., Fibromyalgia: a critical digest of the recent literature. Clin Exp Rheumatol, 2011. 29(6 Suppl 69): p. S1–11.

6. Moss-Morris, R., V. Deary, and B. Castell, Chronic fatigue syndrome. Handb Clin Neurol, 2013. 110: p. 303–14.

7. Committee on the Diagnostic Criteria for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue, S., P. Board on the Health of Select, and M. Institute of, The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health, in Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Redefining an Illness. 2015, National Academies Press (US).

8. Romano, G.F., et al., Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue: the underlying biology and related theoretical issues. Adv Psychosom Med, 2015. 34: p. 61–77.

9. Martinez-Martinez, L.A., et al., Sympathetic nervous system dysfunction in fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, and interstitial cystitis: a review of case-control studies. J Clin Rheumatol, 2014. 20(3): p. 146–50.

10. Buskila, D., F. Atzeni, and P. Sarzi-Puttini, Etiology of fibromyalgia: the possible role of infection and vaccination. Autoimmun Rev, 2008. 8(1): p. 41–3.

Enough said!!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

jackboy wrote: »

Is this true? By how much? Is this definitely due to vaccination? or could screening be a significant factor.

77% reduction to date and attributable to the vaccine.

jackboy

Maci Whining Pianist wrote: »

77% reduction to date and attributable to the vaccine.

That’s a stunning success. Why is that not being widely reported? In fairness the ad campaigns are very weak with a stench of propaganda. Those success figures would blow the anti vaxxers out of the water.

ancapailldorcha

jackboy wrote: »

That’s a stunning success. Why is that not being widely reported? In fairness the ad campaigns are very weak with a stench of propaganda. Those success figures would blow the anti vaxxers out of the water.

Good news doesn't sell unfortunately. The media thrives on misery.

Graces7

Ah . Not infallible, and basically erroneous, but you know that, and the parents of vaccine damaged children know truth.

The link between M.E and vaccines that damage the immune system is well known. I am vaccine damaged and have severe M.E and have researched, and been advised not to take any vaccine\. I trust my GP on this more than here.

Ask Holland and Japan and Ireland also.

M.E s a devastating, incurable . life wrecking illness. Not to be glibly dismissed.

Anyways as others have said, your technique is to "discredit" wholesale any opposition which is why we shoot and take cover! As I am doing now! And check please as there are huge discrepancies between your words and the objective truth

Bye!

jh79 wrote: »

Here is one study from Norway. Link to research at end of article.

https://www.meassociation.org.uk/2017/06/no-increased-risk-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-after-hpv-vaccination-24-june-2017/

Igotadose

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah . Not infallible, and basically erroneous, but you know that, and the parents of vaccine damaged children know truth.

Grace, it seems you're in 'words mean different things to me than everyone else' stage again. What is 'erroneous' about

"Girls receiving one or more doses of HPV vaccine have no greater risk of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) than unvaccinated girls. This is shown in a new major study from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health."

that the one paper quoted mentioned.

The link between M.E and vaccines that damage the immune system is well known unproven. I am vaccine damaged and have severe M.E and have researched, and been advised not to take any vaccine\. I trust my GP on this more than here.

FYP.
I do agree, you should not get your medical advice from a message board. Certainly not an anonymous public-facing one like boards.

Ask Holland and Japan and Ireland also.

M.E s a devastating, incurable . life wrecking illness. Not to be glibly dismissed.

So are blindness from measles, paralysis from polio, death from other childhood diseases. Which percentage would you rather have? An unproven link to a condition that manifests in adults, or well-known killers easily prevented via vaccine?

Anyways as others have said, your technique is to "discredit" wholesale any opposition which is why we shoot and take cover! As I am doing now! And check please as there are huge discrepancies between your words and the objective truth

Bye!

Actually, the only 'other' was a seagull who has run away from discussion. As soon as you post some objective truth, rather than an anecdote, we can discuss.

ancapailldorcha

Graces7 wrote: »

Ah . Not infallible, and basically erroneous, but you know that, and the parents of vaccine damaged children know truth.

The link between M.E and vaccines that damage the immune system is well known. I am vaccine damaged and have severe M.E and have researched, and been advised not to take any vaccine\. I trust my GP on this more than here.

Ask Holland and Japan and Ireland also.

M.E s a devastating, incurable . life wrecking illness. Not to be glibly dismissed.

Anyways as others have said, your technique is to "discredit" wholesale any opposition which is why we shoot and take cover! As I am doing now! And check please as there are huge discrepancies between your words and the objective truth

Bye!

You "shoot and take cover" because you have no interest in debate. You care only about spreading your bilious, hateful and dangerous agenda.

You, earlier in the thread:

Graces7 wrote: »

This post is full of provable .. virulent factual inaccuraries

really not worth the bothering any more. yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn!

Graces7 wrote: »

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn....

Graces7 wrote: »

have a lovely day... I mean that,, blessings and peace

Igotadose

And, not surprisingly, ,Skeptical Raptor's taken a detailed look at the Rees 'study.' https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/hpv-vaccine-efficacy-anti-vaxxers-pick-bad-study-ignore-positive-data/

Summary quote about the Rees study "..this study shows us nothing. There are better ones that actually establish HPV vaccine benefits between vaccinated and unvaccinated groups (plus showing us that there are no safety concerns).

Of course, the anti-vaxxers will cherrypick this poorly designed and poorly concluded study to say “gotcha.” Well, anti-vaxxers, you got nothing."

So, nothing to see here, same old same old. BTW the fancy journal that it's in, is one of those 'low impact' journals (i.e., pay us we'll publish it, my cousin does the peer review kind of places).

Graces7

I owe you a debt of sincere gratitude in that this thread prompted me to look up the R.E.G.R.E.T websites for the first time for a long while

To read the real and objective "other side" to this dangerous vaccine.

I had not kept up with developments so thank you so very much and I urge you to update on this.

Simon Harris's input is especially valid.

Vaccines are after all a matter of personal choice. Weighing dangers against all else
And we need to make an informed choice based on all sides of the situation.

So many young folk suffering permanent damage from Gardasil

For what is in many if not most cases is an STD

Again, thank you.
Just dropped in and not time to catch up with other posts since last night

DublinWriter

Interesting piece, first study I've seen that considers the schedule in toto:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/

CramCycle

Graces7 wrote: »

So many young folk suffering permanent damage from Gardasil

How many is so many, there are a few verified reports of severe illnesses after receiving the vaccine, the number of these though is known to be in line with the number of such actions occuring randomly in the normal population, ie having a reaction does not mean it is actually a reaction. Doesn't mean it is not but your no more likely to get it because of the vaccine.

For what is in many if not most cases is an STD

SO because it is an STD, we shouldn't protect people from it? Genuine question.

Long story short, if your against the vaccine, fine, that is your choice but the stats don't back up your opinion, and while some people have terrible things randomly happen to them, sometimes close to the time they had a vaccine (and I am talking one severe reaction per 2 million people (actually it is a far lower number but to round things off).

Has any of the one person here who know of someone with a reaction, know if they reported it to HPRA? Like they are meant too via their Doctor or Nurse.

There are a number of reasons not to get the vaccine:
- Anyone who has ever had a life-threatening allergic reaction to any component of HPV vaccine, or to a previous dose of HPV vaccine, should not get the vaccine.
- Anyone with severe allergies, including an allergy to yeast, should talk to their doctor before getting the vaccine.
- HPV vaccine is not recommended for pregnant women. However, receiving HPV vaccine when pregnant is not cause for alarm. Women who are breastfeeding may get the vaccine.
- People who are mildly ill (low-grade fever of less than 101 degrees, a cold, runny nose, or cough) when a dose of HPV vaccine is planned can still be vaccinated. People with a moderate or severe illness should wait until they are better.

Taken from the CDC which also has lots of links to data on the G9 vaccine in the US

ancapailldorcha

DublinWriter wrote: »

Interesting piece, first study I've seen that considers the schedule in toto:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vaccines-and-autism-a-new-scientific-review/

It's a CBS news piece from 2011 with no link to the actual study.

DublinWriter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's a CBS news piece from 2011 with no link to the actual study.

There's this crazy thing called Google...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086?scroll=top&needAccess=true

ancapailldorcha

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's this crazy thing called Google...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Have you read the study or are you just dumping links and expecting other people to do the reading for you?

FYI, Sharyl Attkisson is an anti-vaxxer so I'll be taking anything she says with a mountain of salt.

banie01

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You "shoot and take cover" because you have no interest in debate. You care only about spreading your bilious, hateful and dangerous agenda.

You, earlier in the thread:

I see our island dweller is back again with anecdotal nonsense that she somehow feels is more evidentially sound than actual scientific data.

I have posted before about the frankly dangerous be that is spouted.
The mod agreed, yet the post was deleted because I questioned her character.

I am at a loss to understand why on a thread primarily concerned with the scientific facts and efficacy of vaccines that a particular poster is constantly afforded the opportunity to waltz in, post specious and unsupported bull**** and than waltz away without answering any challenge?

Age does not afford one continued respect, if one chooses to continue being a dick.

I fully expect a card for this, but there needs to be some level of balanced moderator action.
Allowing certain posters to continue posting their unsupported hunches on anti-vax unchallenged!

Is akin to supporting their position that vaccines are dangerous on a broad level.

jh79

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's this crazy thing called Google...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/1547691X.2010.545086?scroll=top&needAccess=true

Review of the paper here;

"In other words, her review is 95% pseudoscientific garbage, maybe 5% reasonable science. On second thought, I’m clearly being generous."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/

ancapailldorcha

jh79 wrote: »

Review of the paper here;

"In other words, her review is 95% pseudoscientific garbage, maybe 5% reasonable science. On second thought, I’m clearly being generous."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/

Odd how we're all supposed to trust former big Pharma corporate types once they support the anti-vaxxer agenda.

ancapailldorcha

jh79 wrote: »

Review of the paper here;

"In other words, her review is 95% pseudoscientific garbage, maybe 5% reasonable science. On second thought, I’m clearly being generous."

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/anti-vaccine-propaganda-from-sharyl-attkisson-of-cbs-news-2/

The thing is that it's just a review. It's not a meta-analysis where these studies were quantified and analysed to form a sort of meta-cohort. Some woman just decided to jump aboard the anti-vaxxer bandwagon.

ancapailldorcha

Harry Palmr

Ah yes the old eight months and not died or been stricken from a communicable disease yet.

Let's see how that pans out over the next 18 years. I hope she updates us.

mountai

Orion wrote: »

Everyone of those "reactions" has been debunked many many times. CFS is a common ailment especially in girls and occurs in equal measure in vaccinated and unvaccinated chidren.

The PIL was not withheld - that's just a patent lie. It's on the HSE website for starters - and you can ask for it when getting the vaccine too.

You're right about not being able to make this s**t up alright - except you do.

Schools were instructed "Do not include any information other than , that issued by HSE ".
All the reactions I mentioned are listed in the PIL as " Possible side effects" .
I hope none of your children suffer from any illness , because if they do , I will not believe you .

CramCycle

mountai wrote: »

Schools were instructed "Do not include any information other than , that issued by HSE ".
All the reactions I mentioned are listed in the PIL as " Possible side effects" .
I hope none of your children suffer from any illness , because if they do , I will not believe you .

Indeed it does, well, as reported side effects. The CDC have a wonderful section on their site detailing these reports in the US, rates of these reactions and comparison to the general.population, well worth a read

https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccinesafety.html

DublinWriter

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

FYI, Sharyl Attkisson is an anti-vaxxer so I'll be taking anything she says with a mountain of salt.

Maybe you're getting a tad confused.

The paper I linked to was written by Dr. Helen V. Ratajczak, formerly the senior scientist at Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Sharyl Attkisson is a broadcaster, not a scientist and had no hand, act or part in the writing of Dr.Ratajczak's paper.

ancapailldorcha

DublinWriter wrote: »

Maybe you're getting a tad confused.

The paper I linked to was written by Dr. Helen V. Ratajczak, formerly the senior scientist at Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Sharyl Attkisson is a broadcaster, not a scientist and had no hand, act or part in the writing of Dr.Ratajczak's paper.

You linked a CBS piece and I called out the author for being an anti-vaxxer.