Anti-vaxxers

Graces7

Cordell wrote: »

They HAVE side effects, some of them serious, some of them lethal. Just like any other drug.
But, risk/benefit is what matters.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

I agree with a previous poster re HSE. Who are faced almost daily with their lethal negligence and errors .. cash compensation

When the todo started re the flu vaccine, pages on their website re the serious side effects that had been recorded vanished. I know several people who have had terrible reactions .

Cordell

Are you not familiar with the risk/benefit ratio concept?

ancapailldorcha

Cordell wrote: »

They HAVE side effects, some of them serious, some of them lethal. Just like any other drug.
But, risk/benefit is what matters.

Here's one study about Pandemrix. Relevant bit:

Of 1,446 possible cases identified, most had onset before 2009 or were clearly not narcolepsy. Of the 60 remaining cases, 20 were excluded after expert review, leaving 40 cases with narcolepsy; 5 had received Pandemrix between 3 and 18 mo before onset.

Graces7 wrote: »

Who are faced almost daily with their lethal negligence and errors .. cash compensation

Proof please.

Graces7 wrote: »

When the todo started re the flu vaccine, pages on their website re the serious side effects that had been recorded vanished. I know several people who have had terrible reactions .

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Sonics2k

skepticalme wrote: »

Read the first few pages and see that most people think anti vaxers are wrong.
Just wondering when you say anti vaxers did research and decided against vaccinating, have most of you pro vaxers done research also, as in read studies about various vaccinations before vaccination or have you just gone along with your doctors plan?

There's this wonderful thing called "The Burden of Proof". It's very common in both legal matters, debates, but also in the scientific fields.

Doctors: "I've made this vaccine, it'll help to get rid of Polio, cervical cancer and a load more.

People: "Prove it!"

Doctors: "Sure thing, here's a peer reviewed paper, and follow up tests and exams conducted across the world that confirm the findings and benefits to society"

People: "Yeah okay, fair enough then. Let's do this"

Anti-Vaxxers: "I read an article by Jenny McCarthy, who with no scientific background or evidence claimed it causes autism."

Doctors: "She's wrong, here's more evidence for you"

Anti-Vaxxers: "Oh but on Facebook they said it's a conspiracy and causes autism"

Doctors: "For fuc....

sullivlo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're just moving the goalposts now.

A common side effect of not being vaccinated is the overwhelming urge to move goal posts :pac:

Sonics2k wrote: »

There's this wonderful thing called "The Burden of Proof". It's very common in both legal matters, debates, but also in the scientific fields.

Doctors: "I've made this vaccine, it'll help to get rid of Polio, cervical cancer and a load more.

People: "Prove it!"

Doctors: "Sure thing, here's a peer reviewed paper, and follow up tests and exams conducted across the world that confirm the findings and benefits to society"

People: "Yeah okay, fair enough then. Let's do this"

Anti-Vaxxers: "I read an article by Jenny McCarthy, who with no scientific background or evidence claimed it causes autism."

Doctors: "She's wrong, here's more evidence for you"

Anti-Vaxxers: "Oh but on Facebook they said it's a conspiracy and causes autism"

Doctors: "For fuc....

This couldn’t be more accurate if it tried!

skepticalme

Here's one study about Pandemrix. Relevant bit:

Quote:

Of 1,446 possible cases identified, most had onset before 2009 or were clearly not narcolepsy. Of the 60 remaining cases, 20 were excluded after expert review, leaving 40 cases with narcolepsy; 5 had received Pandemrix between 3 and 18 mo before onset.


I would think this is the relevant bit.

Conclusions
We found a significantly increased risk of narcolepsy in adults following Pandemrix vaccination in England. The risk was lower than that seen in children using a similar study design.

ancapailldorcha

skepticalme wrote: »

Here's one study about Pandemrix. Relevant bit:

Quote:

Of 1,446 possible cases identified, most had onset before 2009 or were clearly not narcolepsy. Of the 60 remaining cases, 20 were excluded after expert review, leaving 40 cases with narcolepsy; 5 had received Pandemrix between 3 and 18 mo before onset.


I would think this is the relevant bit.

Conclusions
We found a significantly increased risk of narcolepsy in adults following Pandemrix vaccination in England. The risk was lower than that seen in children using a similar study design.

Sigh:

We found a significantly increased risk of narcolepsy in adults following AS03 adjuvanted pandemic strain vaccine in England. The odds ratio in adults was 9.06 (1.90–43.17) in the primary analysis and 4.24 (1.45–12.38) using all cases with a diagnosis by the date of the sleep centre visit, with an estimated attributable risk 0.59 per 100,000 doses. This risk is lower than we found in children where the comparable odds ratios were 14.4 (4.3 to 48.5) and 8.3 (3.1 to 22.3) respectively, and attributable risk of 1.74 cases per 100,000 doses.8 As in the Finnish adult study,12 the risk was highest within 6 mo of vaccination with an odds ratio of 12.74 (3.43–47.26).

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

If what was she stated in that article is true, ie, she had 24 hours to say yay or nay to consent, do you consider that long enough time to weigh the pros and cons of what is an important medical issue?

"I was clearly voicing my concern as a parent, not as an MEP, and that was the premise of the interview."

ie. using "speaking as a mother" as an excuse.

As a female politician and member of SF, (who operate in the UK) , she must be very aware that Teresa May got to be leader of the Tory party by default because Andrea Leadsom crashed out of the contest by using that very line.


The vaccine has been offered since 2011 so not exactly unexpected.


Like any vaccine we can't be 100% sure it's 100% safe. Nothing is. The oxygen in air will kill you, if you live long enough.
But we can be very sure it won't kill 90 people a year, like not vaccinating will.
https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/hcpinfo/othervaccines/hpv/hpvsafety/



And here's the thing. IF for a short time everyone was vaccinated, or nearly everyone, then future generations may not need to exposed to any perceived risk. The smallpox vaccine carries ZERO RISK, because it's no longer used. Because of previous generations.



Off topic - can you imagine Brexit under Andrea Leadsom :rolleyes:

blanch152

Graces7 wrote: »

Your last sentence makes no sense.

I agree with a previous poster re HSE. Who are faced almost daily with their lethal negligence and errors .. cash compensation

When the todo started re the flu vaccine, pages on their website re the serious side effects that had been recorded vanished. I know several people who have had terrible reactions .

How do you feel about the HPV vaccine now that you have seen the horrible deaths caused by cervical cancer detailed widely over the last few months?

Are you still against it, as you proclaimed on another thread a few months ago?

blanch152

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

"I was clearly voicing my concern as a parent, not as an MEP, and that was the premise of the interview."

ie. using "speaking as a mother" as an excuse.

As a female politician and member of SF, (who operate in the UK) , she must be very aware that Teresa May got to be leader of the Tory party by default because Andrea Leadsom crashed out of the contest by using that very line.


The vaccine has been offered since 2011 so not exactly unexpected.


Like any vaccine we can't be 100% sure it's 100% safe. Nothing is. The oxygen in air will kill you, if you live long enough.
But we can be very sure it won't kill 90 people a year, like not vaccinating will.
https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/hcpinfo/othervaccines/hpv/hpvsafety/



And here's the thing. IF for a short time everyone was vaccinated, or nearly everyone, then future generations may not need to exposed to any perceived risk. The smallpox vaccine carries ZERO RISK, because it's no longer used. Because of previous generations.



Off topic - can you imagine Brexit under Andrea Leadsom :rolleyes:

Let's be honest, as a politician from a minority party, that SF candidate was trying to tap into the mammys on facebook vote.

If anyone else voted for her, then good luck to them. I don't think Michael D. should get a second term, but if she is the alternative, he will get my vote.

Graces7

blanch152 wrote: »

How do you feel about the HPV vaccine now that you have seen the horrible deaths caused by cervical cancer detailed widely over the last few months?

Are you still against it, as you proclaimed on another thread a few months ago?

When you ask a straight question I will give a straight answer. OK? OK!

The twists in your post ....and when you answer the points in my post...

sullivlo

Graces7 wrote: »

Your last sentence makes no sense.

I agree with a previous poster re HSE. Who are faced almost daily with their lethal negligence and errors .. cash compensation

When the todo started re the flu vaccine, pages and on their website re the serious side effects that had been recorded vanished. I know several people who have had terrible reactions .

I’m not familiar with the side effects page of the HSE website having vanished, so I can’t commeny on that. Side effects are going to happen; it’s fairly unavoidable. Many are mild but some can be more serious.

As another poster said, it’s the risk/reward scenario. The reward of population benefitting from herd immunity far outweighs the risks of people having side effects.

This is a good website that highlights how effective vaccines can be:
https://fred.publichealth.pitt.edu/proj/measles/

On an aside, although related to the risk/reward. I have a long term issue with my stomach that requires regular colonoscopies. They have risks of bowel perforation in 1 out of 1000 procedures, give or take. It also periodically requires CT scans, which expose my body to high levels of radiation, but the reward of monitoring progress outweighs the risk of side effects. A few years ago I was in hospital and an older lady, I think she was a nun, had a CT scan for diagnostic purposes, but had a severe reaction afterwards and ended up having cardiac arrest and dying on the ward. That is a risk, but if people were to avoid CT scans their health may suffer as from a diagnostic perspective there is nothing really better.

I know people who have had side effects from vaccines, but I also know people who have had serious, in one case fatal, side effects of illnesses that were preventable by vaccination, but who weren’t vaccinated for whatever reason.

I think for every scaremongering story that is published about vaccines that there should be a line written for balance. If the article says “man develops narcolepsy after getting flu vaccine” the line for balance should be “yet 10,000 others who got the vaccine did not develop narcolepsy and nobody got the flu”. Adds a layer of perspective.

Graces7 wrote: »

When you ask a straight question I will give a straight answer. OK? OK!

The twists in your post ....and when you answer the points in my post...

Now - I will repeat the previous posters question: has your opinion on the HPV vaccine changed after the recent cervical cancer cases?

GreeBo

If the chances of getting the flu were 100% and the death rate was say, 50%
Even if 100% of people developed narcolepsy from the vaccine, I'd still be taking the vaccine.

alaimacerc

knipex wrote: »

I still struggle to understand where the idea that any screening program was 100% effective came from.

I genuinely though that everyone realised that they were around 65 to 70%.

We've just had a solicitor on the radio how-very-dare-he-ing someone making this point, and saying what a rude randomer he obviously is. (He's a cancer researcher and science writer, and has a PhD.)

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

blanch152

Graces7 wrote: »

When you ask a straight question I will give a straight answer. OK? OK!

The twists in your post ....and when you answer the points in my post...

I don't think there is a straighter question than being asked whether you are for or against the HPV vaccine in light of the increased information in the public domain about the horrific consequences of cervical cancer.

Igotadose

The gift of the Anti-vaxxers keeps giving: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/0802/982747-measles/. 6 cases in Dublin. Hopefully it won't spread too quickly.

At least Polio's nearly wiped out - not 100% worldwide, but getting close.

Closer to home, as someone that's never had the mumps and regularly gets an MMR jab, I won't knowingly be around unvaccinated people that haven't had the mumps. Way too risky to me.

Capt'n Midnight

Igotadose wrote: »

The gift of the Anti-vaxxers keeps giving: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/0802/982747-measles/. 6 cases in Dublin. Hopefully it won't spread too quickly.

You shouldn't need hope when there's an effective way of preventing it.

Forever.



https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/news/measlesoutbreak.html

Measles outbreaks are occurring in a number of European countries including Romania, France, Greece and Italy. To date in 2018, over 13,000 cases and 31 death from measles have been reported in EU countries.

The US eradicated measles back in 2,000 but
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/faqs.html

Every year, unvaccinated travelers (Americans or foreign visitors) get measles while they are in other countries and bring measles into the United States.
...
Since 2000, when public health officials declared measles eliminated from the U.S., the annual number of people reported to have measles ranged from a low of 37 people in 2004 to a high of 667 people in 2014.

Igotadose

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You shouldn't need hope when there's an effective way of preventing it.

Forever.

Jack Welch's quote comes to mind: "Hope is not a strategy."

The strategy's obvious - get the vaccine ffs.

skepticalme

Igotadose wrote: »

The gift of the Anti-vaxxers keeps giving: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/0802/982747-measles/. 6 cases in Dublin. Hopefully it won't spread too quickly.

At least Polio's nearly wiped out - not 100% worldwide, but getting close.

Closer to home, as someone that's never had the mumps and regularly gets an MMR jab, I won't knowingly be around unvaccinated people that haven't had the mumps. Way too risky to me.

Can I ask why you get regular MMRs besides the fear of getting mumps? How often is regular?
I honestly don't know any adult who has been vaccinated beyond their childhood vaccinations. Some of whom would only have had the 2 in one and polio at that time.

blanch152

Igotadose wrote: »

The gift of the Anti-vaxxers keeps giving: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/0802/982747-measles/. 6 cases in Dublin. Hopefully it won't spread too quickly.

At least Polio's nearly wiped out - not 100% worldwide, but getting close.

Closer to home, as someone that's never had the mumps and regularly gets an MMR jab, I won't knowingly be around unvaccinated people that haven't had the mumps. Way too risky to me.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/hse-issues-warning-as-four-more-measles-cases-identified-this-week-37179958.html

Not just RTE, the Independent is reporting on it as well.

Just can't believe how stupid the anti-vaxxers are.

Igotadose

skepticalme wrote: »

Can I ask why you get regular MMRs besides the fear of getting mumps? How often is regular?
I honestly don't know any adult who has been vaccinated beyond their childhood vaccinations. Some of whom would only have had the 2 in one and polio at that time.

I get it every 10 years, because I've read up on what happens to adult males should they get the mumps.

Capt'n Midnight

Igotadose wrote: »

I get it every 10 years, because I've read up on what happens to adult males should they get the mumps.

I know someone who has complete loss of hearing in one ear and partial loss in the other. Also another person with the same symptoms except it was scarlet fever.

Neither are male.

Mike Hoch

Having just watched that Vaxxed documentary I was just wondering a few things:

What is the full story about the CDC doing a study that came up with unwanted results and then attempting to massage the figures?

Why does the US government cover compensation for "vaccine injuries" and not the pharma firms? What is the law regarding this in Ireland?

Whether the MMR is responsible for the bulk of the rise in autism or isn't, the chances of anything other than the vaccine being responsible for the cases where the child instantly regressed within hours of the vaccine being given seem pretty feckin far fetched.

Is it true that the CDC has refused to do a comprehensive study of the prevalence of autism in vaccinated vs non vaccinated children?

Why won't the health authorities issue single vaccines? Wakefield says he is not anti vaccine, but believes that a triple shot at a young age is unnecessarily risky. Why not offer this to dissuade any concerns?

The excuse of "under diagnosis" in regards to autism pre 90's doesn't really wash. 1 in 10,000 is ridiculously high- growing up in the 90s and naughties I knew of two families with an 80s/ 90s born autistic member (there was another local girl from what one might describe as a "mad" family, although I don't know if that was autism in itself or what). Is it a case of over diagnosis? Can one train a child to spoof autism, for benefits perhaps? I'm not being cheeky with this question, but it seems to me every second story you read about a mother of four living in a hotel room, there's always at least one child with autism.

If autism truly has become more common, and the under diagnosis excuse is plainly rubbish (how would it explain an increase from the start of this century to the present day), have studies been done on its prevalence in countries with entirely different environments to ours? Rural Africa for example, places with minimal air pollution, processed food, mobile phone masts, pharmaceutical intake, treated/ recycled water, electricity and wi fi, and any other outlier that has been touted as a potential cause.


I'm not on either side of the fence, but there' a lot of historical reasons not to trust every pronouncement of ones government. I tried Googling "Vaxxed debunked" but can't seem to find any step by step unravelling of each claim that can be found for, say, 9/11 conspiracy theories.

ancapailldorcha

You're likely to learn more about vaccines watching an episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians than Vaxxed to be honest.

sullivlo

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Having just watched that Vaxxed documentary I was just wondering a few things:

What is the full story about the CDC doing a study that came up with unwanted results and then attempting to massage the figures?

Why does the US government cover compensation for "vaccine injuries" and not the pharma firms? What is the law regarding this in Ireland?

Whether the MMR is responsible for the bulk of the rise in autism or isn't, the chances of anything other than the vaccine being responsible for the cases where the child instantly regressed within hours of the vaccine being given seem pretty feckin far fetched.

Is it true that the CDC has refused to do a comprehensive study of the prevalence of autism in vaccinated vs non vaccinated children?

Why won't the health authorities issue single vaccines? Wakefield says he is not anti vaccine, but believes that a triple shot at a young age is unnecessarily risky. Why not offer this to dissuade any concerns?

The excuse of "under diagnosis" in regards to autism pre 90's doesn't really wash. 1 in 10,000 is ridiculously high- growing up in the 90s and naughties I knew of two families with an 80s/ 90s born autistic member (there was another local girl from what one might describe as a "mad" family, although I don't know if that was autism in itself or what). Is it a case of over diagnosis? Can one train a child to spoof autism, for benefits perhaps? I'm not being cheeky with this question, but it seems to me every second story you read about a mother of four living in a hotel room, there's always at least one child with autism.

If autism truly has become more common, and the under diagnosis excuse is plainly rubbish (how would it explain an increase from the start of this century to the present day), have studies been done on its prevalence in countries with entirely different environments to ours? Rural Africa for example, places with minimal air pollution, processed food, mobile phone masts, pharmaceutical intake, treated/ recycled water, electricity and wi fi, and any other outlier that has been touted as a potential cause.


I'm not on either side of the fence, but there' a lot of historical reasons not to trust every pronouncement of ones government. I tried Googling "Vaxxed debunked" but can't seem to find any step by step unravelling of each claim that can be found for, say, 9/11 conspiracy theories.

By watching Vaxxed, you are.

CDC looks at communicable disease. Autism isn’t a disease therefore it isn’t within their remit or scope to run studies on autism.

I am a teacher. The % of students diagnosed with additional needs compared to the % of parents who say their child has additional needs, do not match. There are huge, huge numbers of self diagnosis of additional needs. I teach a student who is bold, but his mother insists he has ADHD (even though he has been medically assessed and diagnosed as being bold). There can be glamorisation of additional needs.

Wakefield is irrelevant to be honest. If he told me that it was raining I would look out the window.

Mike Hoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're likely to learn more about vaccines watching an episode of Keeping Up with the Kardashians than Vaxxed to be honest.

This right here. This is why people are leaning to the other side. The suggestion one becomes an idiot by even listening to the anti vax side, rather than countering it with an answer to each question it raised.

sullivlo wrote: »

By watching Vaxxed, you are.

CDC looks at communicable disease. Autism isn’t a disease therefore it isn’t within their remit or scope to run studies on autism.

But certain diseases can result in lasting mental illness (it's probably not even PC to say, seeing as some people even seem to get offended by suggestions for a "cure" for autism given it isn't a disease per say). I know of a town drunk type who has serious mental issues. He'd be around 50 by now, the local word is he was perfectly normal until he had a bout of something around age 12 (possibly meningitis according to local lore). He may have become an alcoholic regardless, but he does have mental issues consistent with brain damage. Would I be right in saying pharma drugs/ vaccines are licenced for legal use by the CDC? Aside from what's a disease and what's a psychological condition and who has remit on it, has any state body carried out a large scale study of vaccinated vs non vaccinated?

There are just shy of one million people aged 0- 14 in Ireland. The HSE reports a vaccine rate of 93% uptake. Assuming this figure has been fairly stable since 2003, there are circa 70,000 unvaccinated children in Ireland. According to a quick Google there are 14,000 ASD children attending Irish schools. A 93% rate would mean circa 960 of these children would have not been vaccinated in childhood. Is there any willingness to study whether this indeed is the case, or whether the percentage of the 14,000 cases who were vaccinated is higher than 93%?

I am a teacher. The % of students diagnosed with additional needs compared to the % of parents who say their child has additional needs, do not match. There are huge, huge numbers of self diagnosis of additional needs. I teach a student who is bold, but his mother insists he has ADHD (even though he has been medically assessed and diagnosed as being bold). There can be glamorisation of additional needs.

Wakefield is irrelevant to be honest. If he told me that it was raining I would look out the window.

Indeed there can. Which leads back to my original question- is it easy to con a psychologist into writing one off as autistic, given the financial incentives for a parent? Are ASD diagnosis more common in lower socio economic groups? Is there an industry with a vested interest in churning out more diagnosis for their own financial gain?

ancapailldorcha

Mike Hoch wrote: »

This right here. This is why people are leaning to the other side. The suggestion one becomes an idiot by even listening to the anti vax side, rather than countering it with an answer to each question it raised.

Where did I call you an idiot? Quote please.

Vaxxed isn't science, it's a film that panders to anti-vaxxers while boosting Wakefield's profile and wealth. I believe in evidence. Vaxxed is not evidence.

Mike Hoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Vaxxed isn't science, it's a film that panders to anti-vaxxers while boosting Wakefield's profile and wealth. I believe in evidence. Vaxxed is not evidence.

Yet I asked four questions specifically raised by the film, and a handful of my own, and you haven't answered one of them.

I'm not saying the film is right or wrong. I'm just looking for a comprehensive step by step debunking of its most dramatic claims.

ancapailldorcha

Mike Hoch wrote: »

Yet I asked four questions specifically raised by the film, and a handful of my own, and you haven't answered one of them.

I'm not saying the film is right or wrong. I'm just looking for a comprehensive step by step debunking of its most dramatic claims.

To answer your questions, I would have to accept their individual premises which I do not. Perhaps if you provide some evidence then I can engage.

You are saying the film is right. Look at how defensive you were when I dismissed it as nonsense.

Mike Hoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To answer your questions, I would have to accept their individual premises which I do not.

What in the jaysus does that mean?

Film makes point. You are asked if point is correct. You say point is incorrect but refuse to explain how or why.

You are saying the film is right. Look at how defensive you were when I dismissed it as nonsense.

I'm not for a second saying the film is right. I'm saying it raises a handful of concerning questions that I have not been able to find rebuttals to via Google. Compare that to how many essays are out there explaining that, yes, jet fuel actually can weaken, if not melt, steel beams.

Your aggressive tone really doesn't help your argument. The film raises what it regards as important questions. All I'm looking for it a rebuttal of them.