Anti-vaxxers

Mountainsandh

endacl wrote: »

It's the post modern intellectual malaise. Simply having an opinion renders that opinion worthy of consideration. And all of a sudden, we're stuck with 'the other side of the argument', as if that 'other side' carried as much weight.

It's just another slice of the intelligent design/fluoride is bad/whateveryourhavingyourself stupidity pie.

I think it's more a reflection of the "eternal child" syndrome. Anything's good for attention, anything's valid to make me feel and look "like a grownup". Other Mums are at it, so surely that's what I'm meant to do to fit in.
It's more important that I project an image of a grown up/great Mum than actually acting like one.

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

What an odd albeit atypical for you chip on shoulder claim to make.

Do you have an iota of evidence to back it up?

Eh? No chips on shoulders here Vin -

Sociodemographic characteristics of students and schools vary significantly according to cluster membership (Table 2). Low PBE schools are more likely to be public, noncharter, and nonsuburban, with lower percentages of white students and higher percentages of students on subsidized lunch. High PBE schools tend to be charter or private nonreligious schools located in suburban areas with high percentages of white students and low percentages of students receiving subsidized lunch.

Source: Personal Belief Exemptions to Vaccination in California: A Spatial Analysis


It correlates with the rising number of parents choosing attachment parenting as part of an alternative lifestyle, which includes but is by no means limited to -

naturopathy, holistic health, homeopathy, and decline of vaccination.

William Sears' son Robert Sears published a Vaccine Book in 2007 which fueled the vaccine skepticism among parents, and in AP groups, parents are explicitly asked not to have their children vaccinated.

I doubt they've ever even heard of the Wakefield study, it isn't needed.

pjohnson

Jawgap wrote: »

And where is the evidence their health conditions were caused by the vaccine?

Theres no point arguing with stupidity. A girl could get a vaccine then end up being hit by a bus as she leaves the clinic. This for an anti vaxer will be proof that the vaccine is fatal.

mezzz

not surprising to see the regulars shilling for the vaccine here

mezzz

branie2 wrote: »

Robert de Niro is also an anti-vaxxer

of course he is

endacl

mezzz wrote: »

not surprising to see the regulars shilling for the vaccine here

The non-idiot majority?

mezzz

endacl wrote: »

So? He's a grownup who dresses up and plays make believe for a living.

are you talkin to me?

mrkiscool2

mezzz wrote: »

not surprising to see the regulars shilling for the vaccine here

If shilling means protecting children and adults from horrible diseases and potentially preventing one of the most fatal forms of cancer then fcuk yeah I'm a shill. Proud to be one.

mezzz

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

If shilling means protecting children and adults from horrible diseases and potentially preventing one of the most fatal forms of cancer then fcuk yeah I'm a shill. Proud to be one.

$1 has been deposited to your shilling account

endacl

mezzz wrote: »

$1 has been deposited to your shilling account

Just as an aside...

That thing you're trying to do? It's not working. You're not very good at it.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I just dunno, I don't see what is the problem with supporting medical advancements.

My grandmother hemorrhaged and bled out after birth, would be extraordinary if that happened today. I had a necessary operation as a newborn in 1983 that wouldn't have been possible a few decades before.

This country had a tough fight with polio and TB back in the day. We were saved by vaccination programs.

No problem with people questioning things and supporting their views with data, case studies etc. I just don't see any solid evidence from the anti vaccine people.

One eyed Jack

Karla Future Whirlwind wrote: »

I just dunno, I don't see what is the problem with supporting medical advancements.

...

No problem with people questioning things and supporting their views with data, case studies etc. I just don't see any solid evidence from the anti vaccine people.

I don't think anti-vaxxers are holding themselves to the same standards of evidence that you require from them to defend their position, as you use to defend your position. The issue really isn't one of supporting medical advances, it's simply one of trust, and the anti-vax community simply doesn't trust the medical community or the State when ir comes to the administration of vaccines.

Page after page of dismissing them as idiots is only going to strengthen their resolve, not weaken it, so I don't know what anyone here gets out of calling anyone idiots or terrorists apart from everyone agreeing with each other. It doesn't do anything to convince people that they should vaccinate their children, so I wouldn't be surprised that many of them simply ignore people who call them idiots and try to shame and guilt trip people into submission.

When has that ever proven to be an effective long term strategy? All it's ever done is increase levels of mistrust and suspicion of authority.

astrofool

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When has that ever proven to be an effective long term strategy? All it's ever done is increase levels of mistrust and suspicion of authority.

But that's the problem, their only reason for having issues with vaccines is based on faith. All the studies prove them wrong, all the experts tell them they are wrong, they probably are idiots, but you can't argue with them at their level as it's not possible because you can't argue with facts, observation and science, you can only give anecdotes and gut feelings, and they have their own ones that say the opposite.

The only thing that would change their mind is their children catching polio, or dying of HPV. The fact they are endangering immuno-deficient children as well is beyond them.

On top of this, a lot of money can be made off them preaching that vaccines are bad, and homeopathic lifestyles are good. Only a small % of their followers will end up getting sick (a far greater % than have reactions to vaccines), but small enough that they can handwave it away.

mariaalice

They see their personal desires and decisions as right while avoiding accountability for their actions.

Capt'n Midnight

gar32 wrote: »

Good vaccine is Measles without the the MR.

Also Diphtheria & Tetanus without the P.

Polio if it is not wiped out in the next 2 years Maybe.

Mumps on its own for boys only before puberty not as babies.

All the rest should be only used as needed which should be in rare cases.

I know someone who is completely deaf in one of her ears because of mumps. :mad:

Please take you mis-information and shove it.



Mumps is a human disease so vaccination of one generation could wipe it out forever, another reason to vaccinate both sexes.

More importantly if you actually believed the vaccine was dangerous then vaccinating one generation is the least number of people that would be exposed to it as once mumps has been eradicated no one would ever need to take the vaccine ever again.

RobertKK

We have a situation where too many receive antibiotics, and not enough receive vaccines.
Certain vaccines are a choice like those that one should receive if they choose to head to certain parts of the world, then there are others that are a bigger responsibility as it not only offers some protection to oneself but for the general community one lives in.
I think it is selfish if one puts themselves before their community, and also chooses to place their child in danger of a serious disease because they choose to believe lies, rather than the best advice from trained medical people.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's fast becoming a trend here too though, like proportionately speaking in comparison to the numbers of children in public education and home schooled in the US, Ireland really wouldn't be that far behind in comparative terms. I can't find exact figures now but the last time I looked I was pretty shocked. It's not entirely related to being anti-vax either, but more so that they feel the public school system isn't something they want for their children either.

The only people I have publicly heard of who have been home schooled are children of people who are involved with the Iona institute. I wonder is it a phenomenen amongst hardline catholics.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think anti-vaxxers are holding themselves to the same standards of evidence that you require from them to defend their position, as you use to defend your position. The issue really isn't one of supporting medical advances, it's simply one of trust, and the anti-vax community simply doesn't trust the medical community or the State when ir comes to the administration of vaccines.

Page after page of dismissing them as idiots is only going to strengthen their resolve, not weaken it, so I don't know what anyone here gets out of calling anyone idiots or terrorists apart from everyone agreeing with each other. It doesn't do anything to convince people that they should vaccinate their children, so I wouldn't be surprised that many of them simply ignore people who call them idiots and try to shame and guilt trip people into submission.

When has that ever proven to be an effective long term strategy? All it's ever done is increase levels of mistrust and suspicion of authority.

What do you suggest as a solution to reverse the decline in Gardasil uptake?

Samaris

Peoples memories are short. Sadly, we will probably have to see a couple of outbreaks and parents will have to lose children to simple, preventable diseases before there's a backlash against this foolish ideology by its proponents. The tragic thing about it is that the children are innocent in the whole thing, its the parents' responsibility. But it's the children that will suffer for it.

In 2014, 19 people in New York city came down with measles by mid-March of that year. This disease was considered nearly wiped out in 2000. Now there are outbreaks sporadically every year in the US, because people stopped vaccinating. 32 people caught whooping cough in Utah this year in a cluster outbreak. Whooping cough, by the way, is a particularly nasty type of cough where sufferers can suffocate or crack ribs with relentless whooping and it can go on for six weeks or more. There was a small epidemic of 611 cases of mumps in Washington State this year and another 511 cases of whooping cough in another epidemic in Alberta in Canada this year also. Texas also had its biggest outbreak of mumps in over twenty years with 221 in Texas and a further 2,931 in Arkansas. 107 cases of Hep A in Michigan. 136 more cases of whooping cough in Indiana. 172 cases of mumps in Hawaii.

I'm not even halfway through the list. Actually, those were random picks, although I was pretty surprised at the scale of the epidemic in Arkansas myself.

So, our side of the Atlantic. A toddler died of diptheria in Antwerp in 2016. She was three years old. In 2015, 3969 cases of measles in Europe, 75% of which were unvaccinated. One died and six people suffered encephalitis as a direct result. 43 cases by August, 2016 in Ireland. Worldwide, there are 16 million cases of pertussis (whooping cough) a year, of which 195,000, mostly children, almost all unvaccinated or partially-vaccinated, die. In the last few years, it has made a resurgence in the US, UK, New Zealand, Australia. It has spiked in all age groups under the age of 20+ since 2012. The 20+s are presumably still mostly protected. In 2016, an Australian mother talked about how she had refused the pertussis vaccine for her newborn, and passed the disease onto the baby. The baby spent a month in intensive care, fighting for her life.

Some personal accounts, since apparently statistics aren't enough;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35975011
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/04/14/anti-vax-mom-changes-her-tune-when-all-7-of-her-children-come-down-with-whooping-cough/?utm_term=.b88f0968d6d2
Yes, that one is a little arrogant in its tone, but given the consequences that could have happened from their decision from fear (and it's the people who spread that fear out of sheer, cowardly, ignorance that I blame), it is not entirely unfounded.

And if you want to know what it's like in places without vaccination, just look up the worldwide rates of these preventable diseases. Pertussis is particularly infectious, gave those numbers.

This should not be happening. Antibiotics are no longer suitable for containing outbreaks like this (even for bacterial infections; obviously they were never efficacious for viral infections) as diseases are gaining immunity to the antibiotics and we have a limited fallback after the last few antibiotics fall below 100% efficiency. This is why vaccines are so damn important. It's not about control, it's about societal survival which this ideology puts at risk. It's a little ironic that the diseases are intelligent enough to get "immunity" from our treatments because humans refuse to get immunity from the diseases, but there you are.

Those figures above and far worse is what you're advocating for, gar, and you're taking the piss out of, mezzz. I do not understand how people can act like that, but you two and many anti-vaxxers prove you exist and people will suffer for it.

mountai

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What do you suggest as a solution to reverse the decline in Gardasil uptake?

Start treating the parents and children of REGRET with RESPECT .

One eyed Jack

astrofool wrote: »

But that's the problem, their only reason for having issues with vaccines is based on faith. All the studies prove them wrong, all the experts tell them they are wrong, they probably are idiots, but you can't argue with them at their level as it's not possible because you can't argue with facts, observation and science, you can only give anecdotes and gut feelings, and they have their own ones that say the opposite.

The only thing that would change their mind is their children catching polio, or dying of HPV. The fact they are endangering immuno-deficient children as well is beyond them.

On top of this, a lot of money can be made off them preaching that vaccines are bad, and homeopathic lifestyles are good. Only a small % of their followers will end up getting sick (a far greater % than have reactions to vaccines), but small enough that they can handwave it away.

I would suggest that their reasons are more likely grounded in fear, rather than faith, precisely because they feel that their concerns are handwaved away by people who say they can't argue with facts, observation and science. The same people abandon facts, observation and science then in favour of calling anti-vaxxers idiots.

That is surely a conclusion based on their gut feelings, because the facts, observation and science suggest the exact opposite - see my earlier reply to VinLiger when they questioned the fact that these people are affluent, well-educated types. Immediately I was accused of having a chip on my shoulder.

To someone who is against having their children vaccinated, they're biased in favour of anything which backs up their beliefs and they're doing so because they believe it is in their children's (and indeed other children's) best interests. I don't fully understand vaccines myself, and I suspect that there aren't many people in the general population who do, but our decisions for our children are equally based on faith. I don't think there actually are that many people who have the medical, scientific and statistical knowledge to actually capably explain vaccines and vaccination. Am I suddenly smrt because I choose to vaccinate my child? The evidence based upon a whole picture would definitely suggest otherwise :pac:

I have plenty of irrational beliefs that are purely based on anecdotes and gut feelings, my opposition to blood transfusions for example, it's a genuine irrational fear (for a couple of reasons), and in a recent case like this -

Irish patient contracts Hep B from blood transfusion after test fails to detect virus

'This is a rare, one-in-two million event, and does not have any implications for blood that will be transfused to patients in the future,’ Dr Stephen Field, medical and scientific director of the IBTS said.

...

Minister for Health Simon Harris said that as far as he’s aware, this was the first instance of this in the country.

‘I think it is important to say that this is not a testing failure on behalf of the blood transfusion service who’ve already outlined this. It’s extraordinarily rare situation where blood was donated where it wasn’t possible for testing to detect the Hepatitis B.


That sort of what I would see as hand-waving, does nothing to alleviate my irrational fears. I'm old enough to remember the Hep C scandal and the way those women were treated -


In 1991, however, the BTSB was alerted by a British hospital that a batch of anti-D produced in 1977 may be contaminated. It would later emerge the blood donor whose plasma was used to make the anti-D had jaundice and hepatitis but these facts had slipped through a sloppy screening process.

Despite the alert, no alarm was raised and no action was taken to trace the women who received doses from that batch or to ensure the screening slip-ups were not repeated. They were, and in 1992, plasma from another infected donor was used to make anti-D, creating another potentially lethal treatment batch.

Still no action was taken, and no alarm was raised. But within the BTSB, some staff were seeing patterns between donors and disease that they could not keep quiet about.

Dr Joan Power, then working for the BTSB’s Cork centre, linked contaminated anti-D to a number of female donors with Hepatitis C, an insidious strain of hepatitis only identified in 1989, that could hide without producing symptoms for years while preparing an onslaught on a carrier’s liver. Ruling out coincidence and environmental factors, she became convinced these women could only have contracted the virus from the anti-D. She also knew she had only found these women because they happened to sign up to be blood donors, oblivious to the virus they carried.

That meant many, many more women could be carrying it with little likelihood that it would be discovered unless they were tracked down and called in for specific testing.

That was what the media was told at the press conference on February 21, 1994 and that was when the alarm began.

In the months that followed, a national screening exercise took place and around 1,200 women were found to have been exposed to the virus.

For some, the finding made perfect sense. They had suffered vague symptoms of fatigue and general ill-health for years without being able to find a cause. For others, the test results were shocking and plunged them into anxiety for their own future and that of their families.

The Government was immediately aware of the potential for compensation claims and moved to emphasise that the medical needs of affected women would be taken care of.

But individually, many women were not reassured by their dealings with the health authorities.


I'm only grateful that I don't have a daughter because honestly, I don't know that I would agree to her being given the HPV vaccine. I certainly won't be allowing it for my son. That may provide you with all the evidence you need to confirm that I am indeed stupid, but honestly, from my point of view, I'm willing to take that chance, because even a 2 million to one chance isn't as reassuring as some people seem to think it is, not when it comes down to an individual level and someone is telling you you're stupid for not putting your faith in facts, observation and science.

jh79

mountai wrote: »

Start treating the parents and children of REGRET with RESPECT .

Why? They have no interest in the truth.

jh79

mountai wrote: »

Start treating the parents and children of REGRET with RESPECT .

https://www.regret.ie/research_3.html

Gary Null - that's enough of a reason right there to treat the group with disdain.

And advocating the use of water (homeopathy) to treat these poor kids.

Outlaw Pete

branie2 wrote: »

Robert de Niro is also an anti-vaxxer

Labeling De Niro an "anti-vaxxer" only dilutes the term and in the end will just result in people not paying much heed in the future whenever they hear of others being similarly smeared.

Calling for (or indeed funding) further research into vaccine safety does not equal “Anti-vaccine”

mountai

The comparison between Noonan and the HSE back then and Harris and the HSE today is astounding . Deny ,deny deny. Thank you for your well reasoned post One eyed Jack , hope youve got your body armour on .

jh79

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Labeling De Niro an "anti-vaxxer" only dilutes the term and in the end will just result in people not paying much heed in the future whenever they hear of others being similarly smeared.

Calling for (or indeed funding) further research into vaccine safety does not equal “Anti-vaccine”

It does when you refuse to accept said research because you don't like the result.

mountai

jh79 wrote: »

Why? They have no interest in the truth.

Far from it ,thats all they are seeking . The present publicity , particularly the anti parent stand taken by the HSE , the minister and medical "Models" , is only furthering the cause of REGRET . The most dangerous animal is a mother protecting her young . The mothers of Regret will not be silenced by derision and abuse . The public at large are questioning anything that is being pushed by HSE in particular. They know that this organisation is rife with corruption . 1000 more managers hired within the past 12 months , yet they cant find extra Nurses . Ah yes ---- Give them Chocolate !!

pitifulgod

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Labeling De Niro an "anti-vaxxer" only dilutes the term and in the end will just result in people not paying much heed in the future whenever they hear of others being similarly smeared.

Calling for (or indeed funding) further research into vaccine safety does not equal “Anti-vaccine”

He promoted an Andrew Wakefield documentary, Wakefield is a charlatan so yep DeNiro is very much so anti Vax.

endacl

mountai wrote: »

Start treating the parents and children of REGRET with RESPECT .

The children? No problem.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The only people I have publicly heard of who have been home schooled are children of people who are involved with the Iona institute. I wonder is it a phenomenen amongst hardline catholics.

I doubt that it tbh, the evidence at least would seem to suggest otherwise -


NEW FIGURES FROM Child and Family Agency Tusla have revealed that the number of children home-schooled in Ireland has increased at a rate of knots in recent years.
The statistics, first reported upon this morning in the Irish Daily Mail, show that the total number of children receiving at-home education in Ireland climbed from 699 in 2011 to 1,322 last year, an increase of 89%.

There are many reasons for parents to consider homeschooling a child, from bullying to the lack of school-place availability, to the individual needs of a student.

With numbers on the increase however, it seems the idea is becoming more socially acceptable.


Source: The Journal

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What do you suggest as a solution to reverse the decline in Gardasil uptake?

You're asking the wrong person there Joey, I guess more open discussion of people's concerns and less hand-waving them away, dismissing them as idiots for not just putting their faith in facts, observation and science, would be a good start.